"black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide"

Alcove Audio said:
As I mentioned in the "Stand Against Online Censorship" thread, the big issue is that the way the bill(s) are worded everything is based upon accusations - all it takes is an accusation to shut down a website; and there is no appeal. That's akin to your neighbor accusing you of robbing a bank, so the police just throw you into jail with no investigation, no arrest warrant, no judicial hearing, no legal representation, no bail, and you rot in a cell until they finally get around to your case.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, let's throw due process out the window because Corporation X demands it, regardless of merit. And we already know that corporations have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to bullying the little guys.

Chilling Effects

Alcove Audio said:
...like the "Kill Switch" provision which allows the government to shut down the internet whenever it wishes; this is an obvious abrogation of Free Speech rights.
Click to expand...

On a side note, there's also a guy in the Ukraine who can do that.

I saw it on the PBS Newshour not long ago. Jeffrey Brown interviewed an author who said so. Hell if I can find it on the net now. I should have looked it up then.

Dreadylocks said:
Um, yeah. That's the whole point of a protest. To cause a disruption. lol

Plus I find it ironic that Chris Dodd is implying that he uses such reliably-factual sources as Wikipedia. Yeah right.
Click to expand...

Excellant points, Dready. If that's Dodd's position, then that's crap. But, I'd also like to send some love out to him because, from what I've heard, he was one who did want to implement somer serious financial reform, but the other fat cats blocked his efforts. Well, if that's true, he should get some love for that at least. But yeah, where is his head on this?

We all hear about Wikipedia's flaws. But is Viacom or Time Warner going to such lengths to provide everyone and anyone with the body of knowledge that Wikipedia has? I'm not hating on Viacom or Time Warner. True, that's not their mission. There mission is to make a profit for their shareholders or for whomever owns them. But from what I've heard, Wikipedia's "management" is serious about getting around to vetting the integrity of entries...sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
richy said:
On a side note, there's also a guy in the Ukraine who can do that.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of smart people in the world, and it wouldn't surprise me at all that some could shut down the 'net if they chose.* But it would be an illegal act as it would cause harm to the personal and financial freedoms of billions of people. However, if the government shuts down the 'net it becomes a legally sanctioned act, and another one for which there is no legal recourse. No one will be prosecuted for denying you your human rights to free speech and unfettered access to resources. These are the types of things that are worded so carefully as "protections" that can so easily lead to despotism. Oh, by the way, since the 'net is so intertwined with cable TV and telephone communications much of that would be shut down as a side effect - something that hasn't really entered into the discussion.



*I have a friend with a very high security clearance; he works for a corporation with government contracts. He only talks about declassified stuff from 10 and 20 years ago, some of which scares the crap out of me. His current work is in cyberterrorism, and although he doesn't say much (he could go to jail for saying much of anything), he does look a lot more worried than he used to.
 
Alcove Audio said:
\

*I have a friend with a very high security clearance; he works for a corporation with government contracts. He only talks about declassified stuff from 10 and 20 years ago, some of which scares the crap out of me. His current work is in cyberterrorism, and although he doesn't say much (he could go to jail for saying much of anything), he does look a lot more worried than he used to.
Click to expand...

:no: It's crazy to think of all the stuff that is going on around us and we have no idea!! We are clueless most of the time! haha. Scary!
 
Alcove Audio said:
There are plenty of smart people in the world, and it wouldn't surprise me at all that some could shut down the 'net if they chose.* But it would be an illegal act as it would cause harm to the personal and financial freedoms of billions of people. However, if the government shuts down the 'net it becomes a legally sanctioned act, and another one for which there is no legal recourse. No one will be prosecuted for denying you your human rights to free speech and unfettered access to resources. These are the types of things that are worded so carefully as "protections" that can so easily lead to despotism. Oh, by the way, since the 'net is so intertwined with cable TV and telephone communications much of that would be shut down as a side effect - something that hasn't really entered into the discussion.



*I have a friend with a very high security clearance; he works for a corporation with government contracts. He only talks about declassified stuff from 10 and 20 years ago, some of which scares the crap out of me. His current work is in cyberterrorism, and although he doesn't say much (he could go to jail for saying much of anything), he does look a lot more worried than he used to.
Click to expand...

Very sobering. :grumpy:

Yikes, I was mistaken. It wasn't Jeffrey Brown, but Margaret Warner, and she interviewed Mark Browden. I know that this, the guy in the Ukraine thing, is tangential at best. But just in case it's of interest to anyone...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOYuMYTyuV8&feature=player_embedded
 
Thanks directorik! Best news ive heard in a while.

Of course it's not over but this is a good sign and step in creating something later down the road that will stop piracy without infringing on other rights.

Dont mind if i copy paste your quote in the my other thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top