Stop the internet blacklist

Answers and Replies

  • #2
306
1
Could we just blacklist huffingtonpost.com?
 
  • #3
142
1
kill the internet kill switch? :biggrin:
 
  • #4
472
1
Hi there,

I don't know what your point was in giving this link. Being a firm believer in IT freedom, I signed this.

Cheers
 
  • #5
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
The point is that the movie industry is wanting a law that could possibly allow the complete shutdown of sites like youtube instead of just having them remove copyrighted links as they are reported.

Here are the supporters

Motion Picture Association of America
US Chamber of Commerce
Screen Actors Guild
Viacom
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804
 
  • #6
183
1
I signed the petition, even though the bill will undoubtedly be challenged on it's Constitutionality. I'd rather see it killed sooner than later.
 
  • #7
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
Bump, I can't believe that more people didn't pay attention to this.
 
  • #8
Hepth
Gold Member
449
39
Is there anyway of telling when this will actually go to the senate for vote?
 
  • #9
142
1
The point is that the movie industry is wanting a law that could possibly allow the complete shutdown of sites like youtube instead of just having them remove copyrighted links as they are reported.

Here are the supporters

Motion Picture Association of America
US Chamber of Commerce
Screen Actors Guild
Viacom
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

curious to know if the whole wikileaks thing has changed your position on this.
 
  • #10
russ_watters
Mentor
21,206
8,019
It hasn't changed mine. Why would it? I don't see anything the two situations have in common.
 
  • #11
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
curious to know if the whole wikileaks thing has changed your position on this.
No, why would it?
 
  • #12
142
1
No, why would it?

i guess it really depends on whether it can be used to block sites that infinge on what the government might consider its own intellectual property.

the restrictions on advertisers is interesting, too, especially considering that Google is an advertiser.
 
  • #13
308
0
i guess it really depends on whether it can be used to block sites that infinge on what the government might consider its own intellectual property.

the restrictions on advertisers is interesting, too, especially considering that Google is an advertiser.

The government doesn't have a right to IP in the way you're describing. This is a censorship measure that would have one certain impact:

The us is currently a major hub for web traffic, but if this occurs massive changes in WWW infrastructure will have to occur as other nations compensate for US censorship. This bill would be murder for our "information economy", even if it is later repealed.

I imagine for that reason it will never be passed...
 
  • #14
Evo
Mentor
23,544
3,215
The government doesn't have a right to IP in the way you're describing. This is a censorship measure that would have one certain impact:

The us is currently a major hub for web traffic, but if this occurs massive changes in WWW infrastructure will have to occur as other nations compensate for US censorship. This bill would be murder for our "information economy", even if it is later repealed.

I imagine for that reason it will never be passed...
Many countries block access to websites. Australia has blocked wikileaks, for example. It's quite easy.
 
  • #15
308
0
Many countries block access to websites. Australia has blocked wikileaks, for example. It's quite easy.

Sure, and China blocks huge amounts of data, as do many middle-eastern states. The result is that an industry in other nations has grown to re-route data through secure tunneling proxies, or other means, all while the sites are not hosted in China.

I'll say it again, the way the internet works... you can shut it off, you can persecute people in a game of cat and mouse and fail or a number of other strategies that all fail... or you can leave it on. There is 'middle ground' here. CoTDC realized that even the most harsh regime that limits bandwidth can't stop a secure proxy in another country from 'dialing' the website.

With an affluent country like the USA, you would have nations lining up to provide secure bandwidth for proxies; it would be an economic windfall for them.
 
  • #16
142
1
Many countries block access to websites. Australia has blocked wikileaks, for example. It's quite easy.

what level of blocking do they use? currently, if i google "wikileaks", i don't a domain name, but i get an IP address.
 
  • #17
308
0
AU couldn't block a rock with a sieve if it was online. The only countries that do are ones that actually hunt you down and arrest or kill you if you get caught, and AU is civilized, as is the US.
 
  • #19
chiro
Science Advisor
4,797
133
One of the founders of The Pirate Bay have come out saying that they are working on or considering working on a p2p DNS system.

Personally I'd be ecstatic if that came out: anything centralized like the current DNS system is just waiting to be abused, decentralization especially in the way Sunde is saying is a fantastic idea.
 
  • #20
Zryn
Gold Member
310
0
Wikileaks is not blocked in Australia as of right now, whereas that article appears to have been written in March 2009 ...
 
  • #21
308
0

I don't understand... that doesn't mean that given seconds an Australian couldn't view those pages with a proxy. They don't need to be secure or fast for most sites in a country where you won't be jailed, killed, persecuted, or arrested for bypassing censorship. The reason China's firewall works to some extent is that they will shoot you in the head if you're caught bypassing it. With those stakes, it takes youth, balls, or conviction to take a chance on even secure means.

In the AU, and the US... it's not even ILLEGAL, just censored.

chiro: Think private networks that let people bypass Battlenet, with a decentralized system to add capacity, flexibility, and hardiness. Hell, it could even be lightly PGP encrypted, and if the traffic volume was high enough it would be hell to decode.

Again, examples that censorship like this is a fight of a few individuals against a whole populace that, for the first time, doesn't have to pick up a sword or gun to revolt.
 
  • #23
Zryn
Gold Member
310
0
Apologies for continuing with an off topic theme, but that article was written on the 29th of November, and these two articles from an Australian news paper (Sydney Morning Herald) dated 17th December and 20th December appear to contradict your generalization.

Australia also doesn't want him back.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/julian-assange-has-committed-no-crime-in-australia-afp-20101217-190eb.html" [Broken]

Reported as coming from the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/lawyer-savages-us-comments-on-assange-20101220-1938n.html" [Broken]

Reported as coming from an Australian Human Rights Lawyer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
85
166
The point is that the movie industry is wanting a law that could possibly allow the complete shutdown of sites like youtube instead of just having them remove copyrighted links as they are reported.

Here are the supporters

Motion Picture Association of America
US Chamber of Commerce
Screen Actors Guild
Viacom
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

Of those on the list the US Chamber of commerce appears to have the most political clout and are well funded by both known and annonomous donors.


Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation's financial regulations.

Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed new rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has helped wage a national campaign to limit the ability of trial lawyers to sue businesses.

These large donations -- none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret..




http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/10/large_corporate_donations_help.html
 

Related Threads on Stop the internet blacklist

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
758
Replies
25
Views
4K
Top