Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Community Choice Award "Most Likely to be Shut Down By Govt"

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the make-your-sarcastic-vote-heard dept.

News 246

Last week we took nominations for a Slashdot category at the SourceForge Community Choice awards. Our category was 'Most Likely to be Shut Down By Government Agency'. Your nominations were tallied, and we arbitrarily selected a few that we think are the best. Today is the day where you can at long last determine the winner, using the incredibly scientifically accurate Slashdot Poll. Our nominees are Truecrypt, EFF Patent Busting, GNU Software Radio, WikiLeaks, Cryptome.org, Tor, Freenet, and CowboyNeal.

cancel ×

246 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711383)

Hot grits!

Re:First! (0, Troll)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712179)

Damn, I clicked before I saw all the nominations. I'd have voted hot grits too had I seen it.

Wait, I still don't see it? Cowboy Neal must have eaten 'em. Somebody put a lasso 'round that boy and tie him to a chair before he eats TOR and wikileaks!

Most likely to be shut down by the government? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711401)

Slashdot of course!

Re:Most likely to be shut down by the government? (2, Funny)

Ibn al-Hazardous (83553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712393)

Slashdot of course!
No, it's the other way around.

It's not hard to shut down the government - all it takes is a decent slashdotting!

Re:Most likely to be shut down by the government? (2, Interesting)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712527)

How's that?

Would it be "course of Slashdot!" or "!esruoc fo todhsalS"

So I'm guessing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711405)

TrueCrypt has already changed it's name to TueCrypt to avoid pursuit.

Re:So I'm guessing (2, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711671)

404. The internet's version of: *Waves hand* "This isn't the page you were looking for. Move along" *waves hand*

Re:So I'm guessing (2, Funny)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712233)

Just to keep the Fed's guessing how about www.071124062565071103070171005164.org where the domain name changes every 15 microseconds or so via a fast-flux domain name server hack. Ok Feds, just try and shut *that* web site down! The down side is trying to download and install the applications you need to be real fast fingered with the web browser. ;)

Re:So I'm guessing (1, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712455)

Did you get your joke backwards? I thought that fast flux DNS was used to obscure the servers while keeping the domain stable, not to obscure the domain while keeping the server stable...

Frost pit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711419)

HEH FIRST POST!!!!!!!

Re:Frost pit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712241)

FAIL!

-- The Hot Grits guy who got FP!

what? (0, Troll)

Weezul (52464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711437)

Wait? What is CowboyNeal.org? Or you meant he /. editor?

Oh, your talking about that young boys thing?

Re:what? (0, Offtopic)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711665)

Which young boys thing? NAMBLA?

Re:what? (3, Funny)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711861)

No, Thats the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes.

Re:what? (5, Funny)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712021)

Was I the only one who punched in http://www.cowboyneal.com/ [cowboyneal.com] and got blocked because it's a porn site?

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712083)

yes

Re:what? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712109)

You're the only one who reported back and got modded Interesting.

Re:what? (3, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712427)

What else would it be?

Re:what? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712595)

Was I the only one who punched in http://www.cowboyneal.com/ [cowboyneal.com] and got blocked because it's a porn site?
It appeared to be a domain-squatter when clicked.

Government Agency? (3, Insightful)

forsetti (158019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711459)

Hmmmm... any government agency? Based on the earlier story [slashdot.org] , it seems the U5 governments should be on the list, being shutdown by some Chinese Government agency ...

The Most Likely Choice... (5, Interesting)

Fragholio (574860) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711473)

...has got to be WikiLeaks.

Among the nominees, it's the biggest threat to the governments themselves. And make no mistake, the governments will deal with threats to itself before others.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (3, Interesting)

JediLow (831100) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711559)

But hasn't WikiLeaks already been shut down once?

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (4, Interesting)

packeteer (566398) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712617)

Yes and it wont be shut down again in the same way. They learned a lot from that shutdown. They are pretty paranoid about hosting in different jurisdictions and coming up with technical ways to get around any shutdown.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (4, Funny)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711575)

The Truth Is Out Th-*WHACK*

WikiLeaks domain sold to the Urinary Tract Infection Society Of America.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (5, Insightful)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711883)

Depends on your definition of shutdown. More likely, I see the service being manipulated by social engineering.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (3, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711903)

It's also the one that's the most blatantly illegal and steps on the most toes inside and outside of government. I'll vote for the illegal squeaky wheel any day.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (3, Interesting)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712043)

What exactly is illegal about Wikileaks? (no seriously, I want to know).

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (5, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712257)

Copyright infringement, people posting things they're legally/contractually obligated not to post, etc.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712331)

Sure, some people might use WikiLeaks to do illegal things. But what's illegal about the site itself? Does it refuse to comply with DMCA takedown orders?

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712439)

Copyright infringement is a maybe (depends heavily on how good your lawyer is...), but under US law Wikileaks can't be held responsible for displaying things that other people weren't supposed to be sharing. Wikileaks can't very well violate an NDA that they never signed onto and all that. Of course, this is also almost entirely irrelevant, since Wikileaks is based in Sweden, which is also noted for a rather laid back stance on the whole copyright infringement bit (of course, that doesn't mean that individual contributors can't get in trouble in their home countries, especially since many of them are Chinese, but Wikileaks itself isn't terribly vulnerable). So, um, yeah... What exactly is illegal here?

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712377)

What exactly is illegal about Wikileaks? (no seriously, I want to know).
Illegal is irrelevant. Annoying is the operational word.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712555)

What exactly is illegal about Wikileaks? (no seriously, I want to know).
New 'round here, are ye? We don't fuss so much about 'illegal' here. Not anymore, anyway.

Re:The Most Likely Choice... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711929)

Actually, no. Governments will deal with threats to their sponsors first, then threats to themselves. But that's another argument in favor of WikiLeaks.

Why would the govt care about Tor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711481)

It offers them an easy chance to sniff traffic people consider private.

Missing option (4, Interesting)

phsdv (596873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711485)

Missing Option: All of the above...

Re:Missing option (2, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711775)

Was about to suggest the same. Give the "intelligence" agencies something as easy to digest as a list of what they should shutdown, and they probably will (you know, subliminal messages like a poll always work). Probably for most they will notice their existence and/or meaning for first time.

Dont worry, CowboyNeal, we will bring you lime cakes to prison.

Any Serious Chance It'll Happen???!!! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711493)

Think about it, what exactly has been shut down by the government lately? Freenet or Truecrypt anyone???!!

I challenge anyone to even find one credible attempt by anyone in government to shut down one of the nominees.

This story is just hysterical scaremongering.

Re:Any Serious Chance It'll Happen???!!! (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712151)

There may not have been much direct government take-downs recently, but there's definitely a chilling effect at work here. Which is exactly what the government wants, it's better if it doesn't have to shut down the sites, just scare off the people who run them. Look at Oink, or Overgrow, for examples.

Re:Any Serious Chance It'll Happen???!!! (4, Interesting)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712197)

I wouldn't call this scaremongering. Just having a little fun.

There is something about geeks that leads them to be more suspicious of authority. Perhaps it is being ostracized at a young age or the fact that there are simply a lot of really dumb people out there who have somehow manage to get a little power.

Tuecrypt (2, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711501)

I see a typo.

Re:Tuecrypt (3, Funny)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711689)

It's not a typo, the 'r' is merely encrypted in seemingly redundant information in the rest of the summary. Or is it? Plausible deniability, suckers!

Re:Tuecrypt (1)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711709)

I see an encrypted message.

**AA (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711505)

I've lost track. Is the **AA is counted as a government agency, or is the government counted as an **AA agency? Can anyone clarify?

Links please? (1, Funny)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711507)

I hate to whine-- well all right, in point of fact I love to whine-- but this poll is going to be a little difficult to do without links to the projects. I know, I know, Google and all that, but the whole point of the Web in general, and a blog in particular, is linking. Some of us might not be familiar with one or more of these projects, and/or might want to get at them before they are, in fact, shut down by the government.

So, uh, please?

Re:Links please? (5, Informative)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711687)

Re:Links please? (1)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711933)

Thank you.

Re:Links please? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711715)

This [justfuckinggoogleit.com] one sums up all of them pretty well.

Re:Links please? (4, Funny)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711731)

Please link me to this Google website you speak of, thanks.

Re:Links please? (-1, Flamebait)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711751)

I hate to whine-- well all right, in point of fact I love to whine-- but this poll is going to be a little difficult to do without links to the projects.

I can see that. Its also apparent that you hate to read.

Had you read the summary, you'd know that the poll has already been conducted and that this post is merely announcing the winners

Re:Links please? (3, Funny)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711793)

Had you read the summary, you'd know that the poll has already been conducted and that this post is merely announcing the winners

Oh the irony of this post in light of how wrong I am.

I apologize and retract my statement

Re:Links please? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712429)

You must be new here

Summary Error (2, Funny)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711527)

The current Slashdot Poll is about utensils. The Article Poll seems more relevant.

Can we vote for... (1, Redundant)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711591)

CowboyNeal as the project we'd most like for govt to shutdown?

Re:Can we vote for... (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711753)

No, but if we all vote for him in the poll, he gets put on the "no fly list" as a possible terrorist, so it'll be a bitch for him to get through airport security,... ;-)

Re:Can we vote for... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711985)

Given the rising airfare prices and the move to make fat people buy two tickets, fatties like CowBoi Kneel (I think he's a 3-seater) won't be flying anywhere.

Re:Can we vote for... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712493)

Especially if we make them take a trip through security for each ticket that they have.

Re:Can we vote for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712079)

Yeah I think with his shear size he has enough trouble getting through without any no fly lists. Also I think they revoked fat people from using 4 seats on the plane.

Re:Can we vote for... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711909)

Well it was either that or the Goatse project.

YouTube? (4, Informative)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711593)

I read the earlier story, but it only now just occurred to me that another prime candidate for this is YouTube. The freedom to "Broadcast Yourself" is scary in a lot of general contexts that have already led to a number of government agency censorships around the world.

Also, giving Google the ability to self-censor the content posted (currently, I believe objectionable violence and pornography is banned by the TOS) provides for a bias on the site.

Re:YouTube? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711799)

You're right... removing stag films from YouTube is terrible. Everyone should be able to post whatever they want on there... ugh.

Likely? (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711601)

What difference does it make if something is "likely" to get shut down by a government agency?

It matters if something is actually shut down. The answers on this "likely" poll are just a measure of the prejudice (in the dictionary sense of the word prejudice [reference.com] ) of the people answering the question.

Where's the answer for "none of them should be shut down, but I prefer to keep an open mind and deal with reality rather than wallow in my own preconceptions about things that haven't happened yet"?

Re:Likely? (2, Funny)

Nushio (951488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712065)

Where's the answer for "none of them should be shut down, but I prefer to keep an open mind and deal with reality rather than wallow in my own preconceptions about things that haven't happened yet"?
I believe its called "CowboyNeal"

Re:Likely? (1)

xkhaozx (978974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712073)

Just use the CowboyNeal option.

Tor? (2, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711617)

I don't get it, why would the government want to shut down a sci-fi/fantasy publisher?

Unless... I knew it! That whole wheel of time thing really WAS a government conspiracy designed to cause me to fail out of junior high/high school/college! I thought it was a little fishy when RJ supposedly passed away just before finishing the final installment.

Re:Tor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712053)

No, he just bored himself to death reading books five to eight to remember where he was up to.

Re:Tor? (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712469)

I'll take books five through eight again as long as I never have to read book 10, Crossroads of Twilight, ever again.

Vote for CowboyNeal, that way we can ..... (2, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711723)

confuse and throw the gov. off the Wikileaks trail.

Plugging the 'Leaks (3, Informative)

ZackZero (1271592) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711747)

It's got to be WikiLeaks. It's one of the only sites to post that completely crazy garbage that Scientology calls the "OT" levels. And who can forget that draft version of ACTA that got mention here?

Wikileaks has a legal team and the balls to use them to keep running, but that likely won't stop the insensitive clods in the government.

Re:Plugging the 'Leaks (1)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711841)

If your wiki is leaking, you probably need to see a doctor.

Badda-bump!

Vote None! (4, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711833)

The government doesn't shut down websites. They can't, legally, unless there's something criminal going on.

Re:Vote None! (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711941)

Until they figure on some exigent circumstances. "pedophile terrorist communists use freenet!" use of freenet is then banned.

Someone posts to wikileaks about how the govt made up the charges about freenet, and then freenet gets taken down over "state secrets" or something.

Notions of law and justice are really somewhat quaint these days.

Re:Vote None! (4, Insightful)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712263)

Just because some of our 535 crazies committed to Congress this session want to shut it down, doesn't mean it'll happen.

A bill was introduced in 1955 to ban Rock and Roll music, for the same "protect the children" reasons used as excuses to ban anything. Of course, that didn't happen - what would've happened to "Guitar Hero?"

Congress wants to look like it's doing something - actually doing it is hard. Watch them ban Wikileaks, make a press release, and then do nothing within their (limited) power to actually shut the site down. They get their press time, everyone's happy.

But, in some ways, that's a good thing. An ineffectual government is better than one with "quaint" notions of law and justice.

Re:Vote None! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711949)

The government doesn't shut down websites. They can't, legally, unless there's something criminal going on.
spoken like a true naive highschooler....

Re:Vote None! (1)

plus_M (1188595) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711999)

Yes but some of these are really toeing the line of what is legal and what is not, wikileaks and cryptome especially.

Re:Vote None! (-1, Troll)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712037)

with tor and freenet then you can rest assured that a large portion of the traffic is illegal. I set up tor once and about half of all the material in the tor network that i saw was links and references to child porn. Not something I want to be associated with. I can only assume that most of the time when people want "transmission without censorship and complete annomnity" then it is something illegal or immoral. There isnt much need for complete annomnity to send a video of your kids soccer game to grandma.

I know there are some legit uses for stuff like Tor, (in fact I plan on trying it again to get past my schools port blocks on IMs) but I dont think that is the main usage.

Re:Vote None! (2, Interesting)

zopf (897522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712071)

RIP OiNK :(

Re:Vote None! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712129)

the site may have vanished, but the community lives on.

Whew! (3, Insightful)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712103)

What a relief.

I guess we're all safe, just as long as there aren't any laws [cornell.edu] or regulations [gpo.gov] that these websites might be violating. I'm sure the authors of Freenet double-check their regulatory compliance every week. After all, the index volume for the Code of Federal Regulations is only 1100 pages, and the other 50 volumes can't be too much bigger. And why even bother reading the US Code? You barely have to skim the thing to determine that there could never be anything illegal about providing assistance to third parties who want to covertly transmit large amounts of unspecified data.

Re:Vote None! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712127)

But who... exactly decides what's criminal?

Re:Vote None! (2, Interesting)

Saint Aardvark (159009) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712171)

They can't, legally, unless there's something criminal going on.

You mean, like telling you how to decrypt DVDs [2600.com] ?

(Which, incidentally, is why I voted for the GNU Software Radio project. If "Think of the children!" is the constitution's rootkit, "Think of the IP!" is its moneyed, bastard son.)

Re:Vote None! (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712305)

You seem to be forgetting it is the government that defines what is "criminal".

Not even one word needed to rebut your claim (2, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712389)

2600 [wikipedia.org]

For those of you to whom the number "2600" has no meaning, the courts stopped 2600.org from posting and even linking to DeCSS or the source code (which the last I saw was seven lines of code and still shrinking). It is the website of 2600: The Hacker Quarterly [wikipedia.org] . Amazing that anyone at slashdot hasn't heard of it.

The courts held that source code isn't speech, pissing off a LOT of programmers who only know a few languages, all of which are computer languages.
</script>

HA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23711899)

Those buffoons in the government could not shut do a wex!#2 4

Not a suggestion (5, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23711939)

Given that most governments now consider George Orwell's classic: 1984 more as an instruction manual than a warning, someone should make it clear to the govt. that we are not asking them to close these sites down.

Re:Not a suggestion (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712487)

Maybe we should ask them to. They generally do the polar opposite of what we dirty damned computer hackers, libertarians, and other such terrorists want them to.

GNU Radio (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712017)

Lets see, you can encode or decode any signal... hdtv, gps. Create ad hoc networks. Communicate directly to others using unknown protocols over an essentially analog medium that cannot be recorded exactly. And you aren't plugged into the grid... there's no account numbers and monthly fees so the man doesn't even know you are doing any of this.

Some people say 'wikileaks' because the man doesn't want you knowing, but imo worse than that is the man not knowing. The man being any of the govt, riaa, mpaa, cable, bells, etc.

Re:GNU Radio (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712411)

Except there's like, 100 projects not based on GNU Radio doing the exact same thing, many BSD licensed or completely unlicensed, free for the picking. So shutting down GNU Radio is of little consequence. (Not to mention the proposed hardware is expensive as hell whereas the hardware for other projects - like SoftRock - can be had for $10 receive onlyu, $30 transmit and receive.)

Re:GNU Radio (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712573)

Glancing at it, SoftRock looks like it does a great job of fulfilling its purpose, but it isn't really all that similar in scope to GNU Radio.

The goernment won't shut down anything (1)

boyfaceddog (788041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712045)

This is the 2000's. The government won't shut down anything. They'll just get their corporate buddies to sic their lawyers on the companies until the money runs out, then the sites will shut themselves down.

As a last resort, I guess the corporations will need to "ask" the government to "step in" to protect some trade secret or stop some piracy, but the government won't just march in and take the servers.

That's what the RIAA is for.

Truecrypt can live underground. Wikileaks can't. (5, Insightful)

scaryjohn (120394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712059)

As much as I think TPTB would like to kill off truecrypt (assuming it's on their radar), it can live on with underground distribution since it's a software project. Development might grind to a halt, since no one could easily validate the source for various underground successor projects. But checksums for the last known, good version would be as easy to find elsewhere as a bootleged disc of code.

The whole point of Wikileaks is to make things public, so driving leaked documents repositories underground would make them indistinguishable from conspiracy theorists and the lunatic fringe.

Community Choice Award (1)

sjonke (457707) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712063)

I agree. The Community Choice Award is the most likely to be shut down by the government.

EFF Patent Busting?? (4, Insightful)

OldSoldier (168889) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712101)

Well.. if the government "shuts EFF Patent Busting down" by fixing the patent system, then that would be a Good Thing.

Seriously, even the patent office is complaining about the backlog of patents. I think they want a solution as much as the rest of us.

Thank you (3, Funny)

akunkel (74144) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712161)

Thank you Slashdot readers. Your research has been a great help. We will get right on this.

Sincerely,
U.S. Govt.

Clearly Neal (2, Insightful)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712189)

I went with Mr. Neal because all the other options are products of our society. You can try to suppress society, but it will only rise up against you. You can however take someone out of society and effectively martyr them. Their voice may remain, but their influence diminished. Everything else will reappear in a different form possibly greater than its predecessor. Even taking someone out of society may have little effect on their cause if their cause is strong enough.

Naw ... None of those ... (3, Funny)

jxliv7 (512531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712211)


 
I must have been busy with something really really important or I would have nominated
 
. . . . . the Sirius and XM satellite radio merger
 
. . . . . the United States Patent Office
 
. . . . . the border between the United States and Mexico
 
. . . . . Amtrak
 

I'd say (2, Insightful)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712213)

either Truecrypt or Tor since they can easily be labeled to the public as terrorist tools. Thinkofthegovt! Panic!!

TrueCrypt (3, Interesting)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712325)

Even though it would be delicious irony for them to shutdown TOR - after all, the US Navy created it - I would say TrueCrypt.

TOR (and Freenet) is too easy to co-opt. Anyone can locally modify their copy of the software and deploy "spyware enhanced" entry and exit nodes. Traffic between the exit node and final destination is not (TOR) encrypted. Also, even if otherwise encrypted, traffic analysis is useful due to the fact that entry and exit traffic can be correlated.

TrueCrypt, however, represents a real problem. While it would be easy enough to foist a back-doored version on to most potential TrueCrypt users, the people who are really serious about keeping their private information private, would build from source and be extremely careful about where they got the source from.

On the other hand, truly shutting down an open source project is likely impossible. Also, it is virtually certain that the software has been extensively analyzed for implementation weaknesses, so it might be decided to allow users to think they are secure.

Aneurysm (1)

no1home (1271260) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712363)

Better than ANY /. poll before, this one's giving me an aneurysm trying to decide which to vote for. In keeping with the political theme, I guess I'll have to vote early, vote often, but keep changing my selection! I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist (well, once in a while), but I think all of these have a high chance of being hit. Well, except for Cowboy Neal. He's too powerful; he's immune!

money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23712421)

wikileaks is the only one that deals directly with money. all the other are toys.

Where is the Pirate Bay? (1)

FataL187 (1100851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712449)

I mean seriously, the government already illegaly tried to shut them down...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>