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

[woolfe9999]

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.

This law is one of three specific examples you used in the thread. It's "a" topic of discussion here.

- wolf

 

[Modelworks]

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

I can't speak for other industries but in film how much a film will make is rarely discussed first and is almost never the reason for creating it. Usually it starts with a good concept, then the cost to produce it is determined, then will the film make enough to cover the cost, finally profit comes into it as further reasons to make it. It is not a process of 'how can we make some money, oh I have an idea"

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.

That is the remedy that the law allows. Most copyright violators are actually in countries that have copyright laws. The problem is usually the anonymity of the person violating the laws, not the inability to prosecute them.

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.

It will prevent nothing. Proxies can bypass anything they implement. I guess you would be for them having the ability to view SSL, VPN taffic too ? That is what the first bill I posted about wants. It falls right in line with this thinking. You can't have a private VPN between you and a site, that might contain access to an off shore ISP that allows access to blocked sites. Connecting to your friends PC in another country from the USA ? That friend might be relaying a blocked site, they need to see that traffic too.

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

Read up on the Harrison Act. It was just a little tax law that morphed into drug control. . The public never would have known about these laws had someone not leaked the details. That isn't democracy , that is getting caught trying to sneak something past the people you supposedly work for.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.

The ruling states that, since the fetus is not a person, the mother's implicit right to privacy overrides any interest the state has in said fetus as a future taxpayer. Thus, it would easily be possible for any rational USSC decision to overturn Roe without decreasing the implicit right to privacy, as the fundamental concern is whether or not the fetus is a person. I'm not saying that it will ever happen, only that privacy is a secondary concern in that ruling.

 

[her209]

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

If by "monitoring" you mean "looking at the publicly viewable content being posted to it by Internet users" then I don't think you don't need a warrant for that. But I suspect, it doesn't mean that.

 

[bfdd]

Wolf, I see your point, but we don't need it. Why add MORE legislation when what is currently there handles copyright infringement? More control that's the only reason why. If the means to an end already exist in law, compounding it further does nothing but hand more control over to the people who write the laws.

 

[Thump553]

The ruling states that, since the fetus is not a person, the mother's implicit right to privacy overrides any interest the state has in said fetus as a future taxpayer. Thus, it would easily be possible for any rational USSC decision to overturn Roe without decreasing the implicit right to privacy, as the fundamental concern is whether or not the fetus is a person. I'm not saying that it will ever happen, only that privacy is a secondary concern in that ruling.

Nowhere in Roe v. Wade does any opinon talk about the State's rights in a fetus as future taxpayer-that analysis is a total perversion of the US Constitution, which is a document granting limited powers from the people to the government-under ANY construction. So under your twisted reconstruction of Roe v. Wade-a construction I didn't get from reading the opinion, nor have I ever since a legal journal espousing that theory-that "strict constructionists" are perfectly happy with there being an implied right to privacy found in the Constitution? Certainly not according to Scalia, Alioto and Clarence Thomas.

I said by what I said before-be careful what you wish for, for the results will be a massive grant of authorian power to the government.

 

[Zebo]

Osama Bin Laden is the greatest general of the 21st century no doubt about it. Makes us be fools at every turn, bankrupting us, and still kicking ass with rag tag militia.

 

[CycloWizard]

Nowhere in Roe v. Wade does any opinon talk about the State's rights in a fetus as future taxpayer-that analysis is a total perversion of the US Constitution, which is a document granting limited powers from the people to the government-under ANY construction. So under your twisted reconstruction of Roe v. Wade-a construction I didn't get from reading the opinion, nor have I ever since a legal journal espousing that theory-that "strict constructionists" are perfectly happy with there being an implied right to privacy found in the Constitution? Certainly not according to Scalia, Alioto and Clarence Thomas.

I said by what I said before-be careful what you wish for, for the results will be a massive grant of authorian power to the government.

A person is a citizen is a taxpayer. The state's interest in the person is overridden by the privacy concerns of the mother because the fetus isn't a person. Thus, the personhood is the primary concern and privacy is secondary. I absolutely support privacy rights, as my posting history here clearly indicates, but it would take a decision even more ridiculous than Roe if the USSC overrode the implied right to privacy in overturning Roe. Like I said, it's not out of the question, but I don't see that the two are necessarily coupled (in fact, they should not be).

 

[Zorba]

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.

So you bash slippery slope logic and then in the same paragraph claim that we are a slippery slope heading to no new IP? From what I can tell, IP creation has accelerated since the formation of the internet, regardless of pirating.

 

[BoberFett]

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

Wa wa wa, you're not agreeing with me. The government should force you to agree with me!

 

[firefighter4443]

There is one essential problem with a Democratic Republic like the American one I have been born and raised in, and America is just starting to get old enough to really feel the effects. The one serious problem is:

It is easier to pass a law than it is to remove it.

I know, without a doubt, that before I die, America will come to a point where it will bankrupt itself, and there will be a paridigm shift in our form of Government. I do not know if we as a people will just hold down the power button and give the USA a hard reboot, or if we will install a new OS, but it will arrive before my natural life is supposed to end (~55 years according to the current average life span). This 'reboot' will be forced by an economic catastrophe created by a combination of the bloated and overpowerful federal government, as well as the lack of a good work ethic in a large, and growing, percentage of adult Americans.

Social Secuirty will be one of the major factors in America's coming economic catastrophe. Redistribution of the people's wealth by the Federal Government (aka Social Security) is wrong, and very, very expensive. Worse, Social Security is a self perpetuating problem, for two reasons: First, the original recipients of Social Security paid nothing into it, and the last generation would/will (nothing lasts forever) recieve nothing from it, after paying into it. Second, once someone becomes elligible for Social Security, there is no monetary reason for them to try to get out. Everything they need to survive, with a normal, american standard of living, is provided to them (curtesy of hardworking americans without a legal choice), free of charge.

I repeat, though a lack of work ethic, and a bloated, overpowerful federal government which passes laws (social security) to protect people lacking a good work ethic (by redistributing the people's wealth), America will bankrupt itself in the next ~55 years, and there will be a major, fundamental shift in the American Government.

Redistribution of the wealth is also called Socialism and/or Communisim, depending on the type of implementation. Communisim did not work out too well for the USSR, so why are we trying it here?

Unfortunatly, major political shifts are almost always followed by a wave of violence. Go 2nd Amendment.

 

[Slew Foot]

This is obviously because of that asshole Chimpy McBushHitler and his group of America hating thugs. Oh wait Obama is in charge. It must be for our own good then, most Americans are too stupid to wipe their own ass without the government telling them how to do it. Its good they take over more of our lives.

 

[sandorski]

There is one essential problem with a Democratic Republic like the American one I have been born and raised in, and America is just starting to get old enough to really feel the effects. The one serious problem is:

It is easier to pass a law than it is to remove it.

I know, without a doubt, that before I die, America will come to a point where it will bankrupt itself, and there will be a paridigm shift in our form of Government. I do not know if we as a people will just hold down the power button and give the USA a hard reboot, or if we will install a new OS, but it will arrive before my natural life is supposed to end (~55 years according to the current average life span). This 'reboot' will be forced by an economic catastrophe created by a combination of the bloated and overpowerful federal government, as well as the lack of a good work ethic in a large, and growing, percentage of adult Americans.

Social Secuirty will be one of the major factors in America's coming economic catastrophe. Redistribution of the people's wealth by the Federal Government (aka Social Security) is wrong, and very, very expensive. Worse, Social Security is a self perpetuating problem, for two reasons: First, the original recipients of Social Security paid nothing into it, and the last generation would/will (nothing lasts forever) recieve nothing from it, after paying into it. Second, once someone becomes elligible for Social Security, there is no monetary reason for them to try to get out. Everything they need to survive, with a normal, american standard of living, is provided to them (curtesy of hardworking americans without a legal choice), free of charge.

I repeat, though a lack of work ethic, and a bloated, overpowerful federal government which passes laws (social security) to protect people lacking a good work ethic (by redistributing the people's wealth), America will bankrupt itself in the next ~55 years, and there will be a major, fundamental shift in the American Government.

Redistribution of the wealth is also called Socialism and/or Communisim, depending on the type of implementation. Communisim did not work out too well for the USSR, so why are we trying it here?

Unfortunatly, major political shifts are almost always followed by a wave of violence. Go 2nd Amendment.

/facepalm

 

[Darwin333]

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.

While doing absolutely nothing to stem piracy....

 

[Thump553]

A person is a citizen is a taxpayer. The state's interest in the person is overridden by the privacy concerns of the mother because the fetus isn't a person. Thus, the personhood is the primary concern and privacy is secondary. I absolutely support privacy rights, as my posting history here clearly indicates, but it would take a decision even more ridiculous than Roe if the USSC overrode the implied right to privacy in overturning Roe. Like I said, it's not out of the question, but I don't see that the two are necessarily coupled (in fact, they should not be).

I take it you have never bothered to even read Roe v. Wade, or even any scholarly analysis of it. Any serious analysis of Roe v. Wade concludes it's foundation is the implicit right to privacy found by the Supreme Court. Scalia, et al-the so-called strict constructionists-totally disagree that the Constitution protects any right to privacy.

"A person is a citizen is a taxpayer"-I never seen that "analysis" put forth in any Supreme Court opinion, much less any opinion in Roe v. Wade. No US court has ever tied citizenship, much less recognition as a person, to taxpaying status-is your view of the USA a pay to play society? Implicit in your argument is that a nontaxpayer (child, laid off worker, disabled, eldery, etc.) are not citizens or even persons-totally contradicting what you originally asserted-that unborn, nonviable fetuses are persons and citizens.

 

[BigDH01]

Redistribution of the wealth is also called Socialism and/or Communisim, depending on the type of implementation. Communisim did not work out too well for the USSR, so why are we trying it here?

It's funny to see something like this written in a thread about Orwell's work.

 

[Binarycow]

Centuries from now, historians will look back and will see that the ultimate victor of this era is Osama Bin Laden. He single-handedly started the domino chain that ended up bringing the mightiest empire on earth down to its knee started with 9/11.

In so many ways he had turned (or at least provided an excuse for others) America into as un-american as possible.

 

[CycloWizard]

I take it you have never bothered to even read Roe v. Wade, or even any scholarly analysis of it. Any serious analysis of Roe v. Wade concludes it's foundation is the implicit right to privacy found by the Supreme Court. Scalia, et al-the so-called strict constructionists-totally disagree that the Constitution protects any right to privacy.

"A person is a citizen is a taxpayer"-I never seen that "analysis" put forth in any Supreme Court opinion, much less any opinion in Roe v. Wade. No US court has ever tied citizenship, much less recognition as a person, to taxpaying status-is your view of the USA a pay to play society? Implicit in your argument is that a nontaxpayer (child, laid off worker, disabled, eldery, etc.) are not citizens or even persons-totally contradicting what you originally asserted-that unborn, nonviable fetuses are persons and citizens.

"I never seen (sic)" anyone claim that the right to privacy supersedes the right to life. That includes my reading of the decision, as well as numerous texts analyzing the decision. Addressing privacy in this context requires one to first address the right to life. Only once the right to life is ruled out is a privacy concern even on the table. In your world, I would be fine to kill you, as long as I did it in the privacy of my own home.

 

[Amused]

I take it you have never bothered to even read Roe v. Wade, or even any scholarly analysis of it. Any serious analysis of Roe v. Wade concludes it's foundation is the implicit right to privacy found by the Supreme Court. Scalia, et al-the so-called strict constructionists-totally disagree that the Constitution protects any right to privacy.

Um, that's a base misrepresentation. In fact, in many privacy cases, (especially unconstitutional search cases) it's Scalia and the right protecting us from the left side's "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" stance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/21/opinion/essay-scalia-on-privacy.html

With thermal imagery, you can see just about EVERYTHING going on in a home. The court, LEAD by Scalia on the majority in a 5/4 decision, stood up and stopped the virtual government camera in every home. Gee, what does that sound like? Oh yeah, 1984.

 

[Thump553]

Amused: You linked to an opinion piece that doesn't name the decision it refers to. Without going on a wild goose chase to figure out what Safire was referring to, I'm going to take an educated guess that it was Kyllo v. United States. Scalia's opinion in Kyllo was based upon the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and had nothing to do with any Constitutional right to privacy, which Scalia has consistently scoffed at under his "originalism" school of Constitutional intrepretation.

Also I take great offense at you attributing the authoritarian creed "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of" speel to the left. Who rammed through Homeland Security under that pretense-those lefties, GWB and Cheney?

 

[Amused]

Amused: You linked to an opinion piece that doesn't name the decision it refers to. Without going on a wild goose chase to figure out what Safire was referring to, I'm going to take an educated guess that it was Kyllo v. United States. Scalia's opinion in Kyllo was based upon the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and had nothing to do with any Constitutional right to privacy, which Scalia has consistently scoffed at under his "originalism" school of Constitutional intrepretation.

Also I take great offense at you attributing the authoritarian creed "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of" speel to the left. Who rammed through Homeland Security under that pretense-those lefties, GWB and Cheney?

If you haven't noticed, it is the left who is becoming increasingly authoritarian. The new left is anything but liberal in reality. Everything from the left is about elitist government control of everything from our bodies to our businesses to our thoughts.

BTW, who is keeping the Partriot act in place? A far left admin and filibuster proof majority left congress didn't even try to water it down.

You see, the sad thing about you is you think the left is any better than the right. Open your eyes...

So take all the offense you want. Just stop being so biased and partisan that you're blind.

 

[Acanthus]

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

COICA is for any sort of warrant.

The website is taken down while under investigation.

I'm hoping if this passes some smart lawyers will find ways to take down every major corporations websites, as they are constantly suing one another.

 

[Amused]

Amused: You linked to an opinion piece that doesn't name the decision it refers to. Without going on a wild goose chase to figure out what Safire was referring to, I'm going to take an educated guess that it was Kyllo v. United States. Scalia's opinion in Kyllo was based upon the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and had nothing to do with any Constitutional right to privacy, which Scalia has consistently scoffed at under his "originalism" school of Constitutional intrepretation.

Also I take great offense at you attributing the authoritarian creed "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of" speel to the left. Who rammed through Homeland Security under that pretense-those lefties, GWB and Cheney?

Reply #2 to this ignorant garbage:

See bolded...

Oil change reignites debate over GPS trackers
Published October 16, 2010
| Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO – Yasir Afifi, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student, took his car in for an oil change earlier this month and his mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage.

The wire was attached to a strange magnetic device that puzzled Afifi and the mechanic. They freed it from the car and posted images of it online, asking for help in identifying it.

Two days later, FBI agents arrived at Afifi's Santa Clara apartment and demanded the return of their property — a global positioning system tracking device now at the center of a raging legal debate over privacy rights.

One federal judge wrote that the widespread use of the device was straight out of George Orwell's novel, "1984".

"By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives," wrote Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a blistering dissent in which a three-judge panel from his court ruled that search warrants weren't necessary for GPS tracking.

But other federal and state courts have come to the opposite conclusion.

Law enforcement advocates for the devices say GPS can eliminate time-consuming stakeouts and old-fashioned "tails" with unmarked police cars. The technology had a starring role in the HBO cops-and-robbers series "The Wire" and police use it to track every type of suspect — from terrorist to thieves stealing copper from air conditioners.

That investigators don't need a warrant to use GPS tracking devices in California troubles privacy advocates, technophiles, criminal defense attorneys and others.

The federal appeals court based in Washington D.C. said in August that investigators must obtain a warrant for GPS in tossing out the conviction and life sentence of Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner convicted of operating a cocaine distribution ring. That court concluded that the accumulation of four-weeks worth of data collected from a GPS on Jones' Jeep amounted to a government "search" that required a search warrant.

Judge Douglas Ginsburg said watching Jones' Jeep for an entire month rather than trailing him on one trip made all the difference between surveilling a suspect on public property and a search needing court approval.

"First, unlike one's movements during a single journey, the whole of one's movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood anyone will observe all those movements is effectively nil," Ginsburg wrote. The state high courts of New York, Washington and Oregon have ruled similarly.

The Obama administration last month asked the D.C. federal appeals court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency."

After the D.C. appeals court decision, the 9th Circuit refused to revisit its opposite ruling.

The panel had concluded that agents could have gathered the same information by following Juan Pineda-Moreno, who was convicted of marijuana distribution after a GPS device alerted agents he was leaving a suspected "grow site."

"The only information the agents obtained from the tracking devices was a log of the locations where Pineda-Moreno's car traveled, information the agents could have obtained by following the car," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the three-judge panel.

Two other federal appeals court have ruled similarly.

In his dissent, Chief Judge Kozinski noted that GPS technology is far different from tailing a suspect on a public road, which requires the active participation of investigators.

"The devices create a permanent electronic record that can be compared, contrasted and coordinated to deduce all manner of private information about individuals," Kozinksi wrote.

Legal scholars predict the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the issue since so many courts disagree.

George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr said the issue boils down to public vs. private. As long as the GPS devices are attached to vehicles on public roads, Kerr believes the U.S. Supreme Court will decide no warrant is needed. To decide otherwise, he said, would ignore a long line of previous 4th Amendment decisions allowing for warrantless searches as long as they're conducted on public property.

"The historic line is that public surveillance is not covered by the 4th Amendment," Kerr said.

All of which makes Afifi's lawyer pessimistic that he has much of a chance to file a successful lawsuit challenging the FBI's actions. Afifi is represented by Zahra Billoo of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic civil rights group.

Afifi declined comment after spending last week fielding myriad media inquiries after wired.com posted the story of his routine oil change and it went viral on the Internet.

Still, Billoo hopes the discovered GPS tracking device will help publicize in dramatic fashion the issue of racial profiling the lawyer says Arab-Americans routinely encounter.

She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.

"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."

--------------------------------------------------

So Obama is all for no-warrant GPS trackers on your car??? YEP!

Um, yeah, keep taking "great offense" while the left keeps taking your rights.