Is the administration trying really hard to follow the movie 1984 ?

[Modelworks]

This month there has been a lot of disturbing things being done in the name of protecting the public.

To begin there is the new wiretap laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1

Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

To counter such problems, officials are coalescing around several of the proposal’s likely requirements:
¶ Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.
¶ Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.
¶ Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception.



"No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order,” Ms. Caproni said. “They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text.”

Then we have COICA

If the original bill was passed by Congress and signed into law, all U.S. based Internet Service Providers, domain registrars and other operators of a domain name system servers would have been required to prevent access to any domain name served with a court order. The bill would also prevent U.S. based payment processors from processing online payments on the affected Web sites.

The amendment proposed today strikes a clause allowing the DOJ to publish lists of sites it "determines are dedicated to infringing activities" but for which no court order has been sought. The amendment also softens language related to actions that ISPs and payment processors are required to take against domains that have been served with a court order.


The proposed changes to the bill would require that ISPs and payment processors act as "expeditiously as reasonable" to block domains on a court ordered list. The amendment makes it clear that ISPs will not have to modify networks in order to comply with the order. However, the law does require changes to DNS servers to prevent a domain name from resolving to its IP address if it is on the court-ordered list.

So you can have an internet site but only as long as the courts don't disapprove of it ?


Next , let us see all your bank information for any transactions leaving or entering the country, we don't need court permission for that, you are guilty till proven innocent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/26/AR2010092603941.html

The Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering.

Financial institutions are now required to report to the Treasury Department transactions in excess of $10,000 and others they deem suspicious. The new rule would require banks to disclose even the smallest transfers.
Treasury officials plan to post the proposed regulation on their Web site Monday and in the Federal Register this week. The public could comment before a final rule is published and the plan takes effect, which officials say will probably not be until 2012.
The proposal is a long-delayed response to the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which specified reforms to better organize the intelligence community and to avoid a repeat of the 20S01 attacks. The law required that the Treasury secretary issue regulations requiring financial institutions to report cross-border transfers if deemed necessary to combat terrorist financing.
"By establishing a centralized database, this regulatory plan will greatly assist law enforcement in detecting and ferreting out transnational organized crime, multinational drug cartels, terrorist financing and international tax evasion," said James H. Freis Jr., director of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

This is getting out of control. They just need to come out and say it, "we want to record every conversation, every email, everything you do on a daily basis and do with it what we want"

 

[Jaskalas]

Ms. Caproni said. “They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text.”

I have absolutely no doubt that one day the Chinese and even the North Koreans will be a freer and more liberal society. Not necessarily because they've gotten better.

When people talk of destroying the country, do they forget that we already destroyed the constitution for which it stands? It's past tense at this point and the enemy responsible is not foreign.

 

[FTM0305]

You know... it was a book first...

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

You know... it was a book first...

lol, you beat me to it.

 

[Moonbeam]

All criminal activity depends on anonymity. End anonymity and you ensure that no crime will be committed by anybody wishing to get away with it. This will include any criminal violation of people's privacy.

 

[Thump553]

You know... it was a book first...

Kids these days.

BTW the US HAS been recording every email and electronic transaction since about the time of the Homeland Security Act. I thought that was common knowledge.

BTW #2: the drive of the so-called conservatives to abolish Roe v. Wade will greatly increase this trend as the central foundation of Roe v. Wade was a legal finding of the Supreme Court that there is an implicit right to privacy found in the Constitution. If "strict constructionists" suceed in overturning that, the power of the government will be vastly increased-a point lost on the vast majority of lay people supporting "strict constructionism"-but one definately NOT lost upon Dick Cheney and his future successors.

 

[Amused]

It's about time people wake up and realize our government and BOTH political parties are becoming dangerously authoritarian.

The left is the most frightening because it is mislabeled as "liberal" though it is anything but. It is VERY authoritarian.

Wake up folks, both on the right and the left. You've been duped into partisan bickering while your rights and freedoms disappear one by one.

While most here think I am a "libertarian" I am so in description only. Not name. I do not follow the Libertarian Party, I am only a very classically liberal person who believes in freedom and protecting our rights.

We are losing our rights and freedoms for many "reasons." Safety, security, "think of the children," fairness, control. What we NEED to remember is that there is NO valid argument for giving up a freedom or right. NONE Laws already exist that make it illegal to infringe upon the rights of others and/or cause harm. so enough already. It is time for a backlash. Time to fight back and win our freedoms and rights.

It's good to see someone on the left wake up to this. Now if only more on the right and left would wake up and smell the authoritarian bullshit going down while they've been duped into partisan bickering...

 

[Moonbeam]

It's about time people wake up and realize our government and BOTH political parties are becoming dangerously authoritarian.

The left is the most frightening because it is mislabeled as "liberal" though it is anything but. It is VERY authoritarian.

Wake up folks, both on the right and the left. You've been duped into partisan bickering while your rights and freedoms disappear one by one.

While most here think I am a "libertarian" I am so in description only. Not name. I do not follow the Libertarian Party, I am only a very classically liberal person who believes in freedom and protecting our rights.

We are losing our rights and freedoms for many "reasons." Safety, security, "think of the children," fairness, control. What we NEED to remember is that there is NO valid argument for giving up a freedom or right. NONE Laws already exist that make it illegal to infringe upon the rights of others and/or cause harm. so enough already. It is time for a backlash. Time to fight back and win our freedoms and rights.

It's good to see someone on the left wake up to this. Now if only more on the right and left would wake up and smell the authoritarian bullshit going down while they've been duped into partisan bickering...

So do you believe I have the freedom to place viruses and worms on your computer, viruses and worms, say, that tell you to keep your hands off your own computer and not to take from it its sovereign right to run whatever program it desires?

 

[Amused]

So do you believe I have the freedom to place viruses and worms on your computer, viruses and worms, say, that tell you to keep your hands off your own computer and not to take from it its sovereign right to run whatever program it desires?

 

[Jaskalas]

All criminal activity depends on anonymity. End anonymity and you ensure that no crime will be committed by anybody wishing to get away with it. This will include any criminal violation of people's privacy.

You cannot violate what does not exist.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wanted to take an exciting and fascinating trip off into the world of ideas but I guess you don't want to get high with me. No problem.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2048208&highlight=

 

[Moonbeam]

You cannot violate what does not exist.

Right, so when brain scans can identify minds bent on criminal intent we aren't going to use that technology to prevent those crimes because it would make us just too nosy.

 

[woolfe9999]

Then we have COICA

So you can have an internet site but only as long as the courts don't disapprove of it ?

This isn't a violation of anyone's personal privacy. This law states that where a website which is proven in court to be trafficking in stolen IP (copyrighted material) a court order may issue requiring that access to said website be blocked.

I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but "freedom" and "privacy" do not mean you have an absolute right to STEAL stuff.

- wolf

 

[Modelworks]

This isn't a violation of anyone's personal privacy. This law states that where a website which is proven in court to be trafficking in stolen IP (copyrighted material) a court order may issue requiring that access to said website be blocked.

I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but "freedom" and "privacy" do not mean you have an absolute right to STEAL stuff.

- wolf

If passed it will set a precedent that the government has the right to monitor and control what exist on a web site.
Next step , broaden content to include things other than IP.

 

[woolfe9999]

If passed it will set a precedent that the government has the right to monitor and control what exist on a web site.
Next step , broaden content to include things other than IP.

"Monitor" means nothing. Websites are public, not private. Anyone can "monitor" them. That is just a buzzword.

So far as "control," no, this isn't control, unless by "control" you mean, "enforce existing copyright laws." I know this is tough to take, but it is actually criminal to steal copyrighted material. When the courts, after presentation of evidence, order that access to a website which is proven to be selling or giving away stolen IP be blocked, that is no different than the police shutting down any operation that is reselling stolen goods.

I am strongly opposed to any sort of internet censorship, but the internet is not a free-for-all for people to steal whatever the hell they want. This doesn't affect *your* freedom other than to make it harder for you to steal copyrighted material. Name any other way this restricts you.

Your typical use of the slippery slope argument is noted. However, I don't want to live in a world where no one has any incentive to create original content because they know it will be stolen over the internet immediately.

- wolf

 

[her209]

REPOST
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2108500

 

[Moonbeam]

"Monitor" means nothing. Websites are public, not private. Anyone can "monitor" them. That is just a buzzword.

So far as "control," no, this isn't control, unless by "control" you mean, "enforce existing copyright laws." I know this is tough to take, but it is actually criminal to steal copyrighted material. When the courts, after presentation of evidence, order that access to a website which is proven to be selling or giving away stolen IP be blocked, that is no different than the police shutting down any operation that is reselling stolen goods.

I am strongly opposed to any sort of internet censorship, but the internet is not a free-for-all for people to steal whatever the hell they want. This doesn't affect *your* freedom other than to make it harder for you to steal copyrighted material. Name any other way this restricts you.

Your typical use of the slippery slope argument is noted. However, I don't want to live in a world where no one has any incentive to create original content because they know it will be stolen over the internet immediately.

- wolf

These are the folk who masturbate in fear that Mommy will catch them in the act. They manifest their fear and rage at being controlled as children.

 

[woolfe9999]

These are the folk who masturbate in fear that Mommy will catch them in the act. They manifest their fear and rage at being controlled as children.

You wrote what I was thinking of writing in my prior post. It is very childlike.

Libertarians have important things to say about freedom and privacy, but unfortunately it is hard to take them seriously because they cannot seem to curb their excesses. In the end, it comes across as "I want to do whatever I want to do and no one can say different. Wa wa wa!"

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

Democrats have important things to say about regulation, but unfortunately it is hard to take them seriously because they cannot seem to curb their excesses. In the end, it comes across as "Everyone won't do everything I tell them to do. Wa wa wa!"

Why yes, you're right.

 

[PokerGuy]

"I want to do whatever I want to do and no one can say different. Wa wa wa!"

- wolf

How dare anyone have the thought that they should be free! We all know the government and liberal elite should control our every action - for our own good of course.

 

[Modelworks]

"Monitor" means nothing. Websites are public, not private. Anyone can "monitor" them. That is just a buzzword.

No it isn't just a buzzword. When the government pays people to watch and report content of web sites that no longer is just 'anyone'

So far as "control," no, this isn't control, unless by "control" you mean, "enforce existing copyright laws."

Control - To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over;
To adjust to a requirement; Authority or ability to manage or direct
A restraining device, measure, or limit;

Once you set the precedent of the government having the ability to control web sites it WILL be used for other reasons than copyrights.
Read the first draft where they wanted this ability without court orders. Only after public outcry did they amend it. The first draft clearly shows what they want and will eventually achieve , it will just take longer .

I know this is tough to take, but it is actually criminal to steal copyrighted material. When the courts, after presentation of evidence, order that access to a website which is proven to be selling or giving away stolen IP be blocked, that is no different than the police shutting down any operation that is reselling stolen goods.

I work in the film industry, one of the most targeted groups by pirates. I understand IP more than most. The difference is WHO is handling the process. There are already laws someone who has their IP being infringed can use to remove content from the web. Instead of using those laws that already exist they want the government to do it for them.

If a website post something that is personally copyrighted by me then I can contact a lawyer , file a court case and prosecute them for damages, all without any new laws.

I am strongly opposed to any sort of internet censorship, but the internet is not a free-for-all for people to steal whatever the hell they want. This doesn't affect *your* freedom other than to make it harder for you to steal copyrighted material. Name any other way this restricts you.

It affects my freedom by giving the government more power than it needs, that is always a danger to freedom.

Your typical use of the slippery slope argument is noted. However, I don't want to live in a world where no one has any incentive to create original content because they know it will be stolen over the internet immediately.

- wolf

The incentive to create content is usually not money , especially with creative work. The money is usually necessary to bring it to fruition but rarely the cause for it. I deal with copyrighted creations every day of the week and have had my work stolen more times than I care to remember. Does it bother me, somewhat. But I as the content owner have laws I can already use to pursue those who I choose to, I don't need the government assuming the role.

 

[woolfe9999]

Why yes, you're right.

Is your contribution to every single thread basically to play the "I know you are, but what I am I" card? Seriously, your pat response every time someone criticizes an ideology (actually it is always when someone on the left is criticizing the right and never the other way), is to say, yeah, but your side does it too.

Here is the thread topic: there is a law that says a court, after hearing evidence, can issue an order to block access to websites distributing stolen IP? Is that good or bad?

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

How dare anyone have the thought that they should be free! We all know the government and liberal elite should control our every action - for our own good of course.

Nice try, but you're no libertarian.

- wolf

 

[Modelworks]

Here is the thread topic: there is a law that says a court, after hearing evidence, can issue an order to block access to websites distributing stolen IP? Is that good or bad?

- wolf

Actually that is another thread, this one is about the passing of several groups of laws that follow a trend of restricting and monitoring what a person does.

 

[woolfe9999]

I work in the film industry, one of the most targeted groups by pirates. I understand IP more than most. The difference is WHO is handling the process. There are already laws someone who has their IP being infringed can use to remove content from the web. Instead of using those laws that already exist they want the government to do it for them.

If a website post something that is personally copyrighted by me then I can contact a lawyer , file a court case and prosecute them for damages, all without any new laws.

It affects my freedom by giving the government more power than it needs, that is always a danger to freedom.

The incentive to create content is usually not money , especially with creative work. The money is usually necessary to bring it to fruition but rarely the cause for it. I deal with copyrighted creations every day of the week and have had my work stolen more times than I care to remember. Does it bother me, somewhat. But I as the content owner have laws I can already use to pursue those who I choose to, I don't need the government assuming the role.

Depends on the type of content we are discussing. Mainstream movies? Money. The music industry? Money. Pornography? Money.

Copyright violations aren't only civally actionable. They are also criminal. That makes it the business of the state, just like any theft of tangible property. What you are saying is that hiring a lawyer and going through expensive and protracted litigation, against people who are usually in foreign jurisdictions and beyond the reach of U.S. Courts, should be your only remedy? Great, it isn't working well at all, obviously because the cost-benefit isn't there in terms of time and money. You can get *anything* off the internet right now for free. Literally *anything*. That is why this law is a good idea. It will prevent U.S. ISP's from allowing access to websites distributing stolen content, which websites are typically on foreign servers and cannot be reached directly by U.S. Courts either in a civil or criminal capacity.

The rest of your post is just the slippery slope argument that is made in every case where the government does anything. Today it is blocking internet theft. Tomorrow we will be interrogated in room 101. It's not that I think it's impossible for any given government action to morph into something more serious. It's that I believe every piece of legislation should be evaluated on its own merit, not on some hypothetical piece of future legislation. The democratic process obviously worked in this case, and I see no reason it will not work in the future.

- wolf