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!

White House Pressuring Registrars To Block Sites

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the strange-world-we-live-in dept.

Censorship 569

An anonymous reader writes "While the Senate is still debating a bill that would force registrars and ISPs to block access to sites deemed 'infringing,' it appears that the White House's IP Czar is already holding meetings with ISPs, registrars and payment processors to start voluntarily blocking access to sites it doesn't like. Initially, they're focused on online pharmacies, but does anyone think it will only be limited to such sites? ICANN apparently has refused to attend the meetings, pointing out that they're 'inappropriate.' Doesn't it seem wrong for the US government to be pushing private companies to censor the Internet without due process?"

cancel ×

569 comments

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

Change we can believe in (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751566)

Meet the new boss, same (worse?) as the old boss.
Goddamn idealogues seeing everything in black/white terms. This is your fault.

Re:Change we can believe in (1, Insightful)

Bos20k (444115) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751682)

Yup, 'change'. F'ing idiots voted for 'change'. Um, change to what??? They would have been better off voting for Mickey Mouse. Would have made more sense given the average voter's level of knowledge about history, politics and the Constitution of the United States. Well, here you have it, your 'change'. Change to socialism. Happy now?

Re:Change we can believe in (3, Informative)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751746)

Do you even know what socialism is? Because it isn't this.

Re:Change we can believe in (-1, Troll)

Bos20k (444115) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751866)

If you don't think this is socialism you better take a good look at what is going on in this country. We have been on a slow road to socialism for at least the last 100 years. Obama has kicked it in to high gear. Read the damn Constitution and Declaration of Independence and get back to me...

Re:Change we can believe in (1, Flamebait)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751956)

Nice talking points, but you failed to present a single piece of evidence to support your 'argument,' if you can call it that.

--Jeremy

Re:Change we can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751982)

tyranny =/= socialism you fearmongering nut job.

Re:Change we can believe in (-1, Troll)

Bos20k (444115) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752034)

Uh, yeah. I don't even know why I replied. You obviously know everything. Maybe you should run the country! Not. Read up on the history of socialism and get back to me. Socialism has killed more people than any other idea in the history of human civilization.

Re:Change we can believe in (2, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752108)

No, the idea that leaving our garbage and shit right where we live is ok killed more people than any other idea in the history of human civilization.

Re:Change we can believe in (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752082)

Nice incoherent rant. Bonus points for the non-sequitur bit about reading the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. How about you go read the Second Treatise on Government? It's equally irrelevant to my point.

You have no idea what socialism is. If you're going to be so angsty (and there's certainly plenty to be angsty about these days), try coming up with coherent reasons for it. Right now, you just sound like a lunatic.

Re:Change we can believe in (2, Insightful)

uxbn_kuribo (1146975) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752138)

Please go back to 4th grade civics. This isn't socialism. It's fascism.

Re:Change we can believe in (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751894)

Do you even know what socialism is? Because it isn't this.

You're right, this is tyranny. This is the reason God gave me the right to own a firearm. This is the reason the Founding Father's put restrictions on how they can govern me, such as restricting themselves from interfering with my God given right to the freedom of expression.

Re:Change we can believe in (5, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752150)

Tyranny's a good word for it.

There's plenty of reasons not to like Obama. Socialism isn't one of them. Throwing words around meaninglessly does not help anything--it just helps to marginalize those with actual coherent complaints and causes more harm. That's my point.

Hate Obama's policies all you like. There's plenty to hate. But hate them for what they are, not for the bogeyman they aren't.

Re:Change we can believe in (0, Troll)

uxbn_kuribo (1146975) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752164)

Rights are not granted by gods but by societies. According to the Bible, "God" gives you the right to beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them. And, also, "God" gives men but not women the right to speak in church, and gives women the right to force their rapists to marry them.

Re:Change we can believe in (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752178)

This is the reason God gave me the right to own a firearm.

Really? Care to quote that section of the bible to us?

Re:Change we can believe in (2, Interesting)

KDN (3283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751996)

Its not USSR style socialism where the companies are run by the state. But it is Nazi Germany style socialism where the government tells the companies what to do or else. Hm, now that I think of it, that is kind of like present day China.

Re:Change we can believe in (4, Informative)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752024)

Nazi Germany was not at all socialist. Today's China is barely socialist.

Education is your friend.

You are defined by your hatreds... (5, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752036)

Do you even know what socialism is? Because it isn't this.

Socialism - Anything political that is disliked by a conservative.

Fascism - Anything political that is disliked by a liberal.

Re:You are defined by your hatreds... (0)

IshmaelDS (981095) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752154)

If only there was an "unfortunate but true" mod.

Re:Change we can believe in (2, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751762)

Change to socialism

We doing this now? Last time I checked, there are literally hundreds of thousands of privately owned businesses, and you can't name me a single solitary industry which government controls every aspect of it, including marketing, distribution, R&D, and everything else (which is the definition of socialism.)

There have been flutters of socialism in this country for decades...completely independent of anything else, we aren't really any more "socialistic" now than we were 10 years ago.

Re:Change we can believe in (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751880)

you can't name me a single solitary industry which government controls every aspect of it, including marketing, distribution, R&D, and everything else (which is the definition of socialism.)

Err, no, it's not.

Re:Change we can believe in (1, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751926)

Err, no, it's not.

You sure about that? [merriam-webster.com]

Re:Change we can believe in (0, Troll)

Bos20k (444115) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751906)

We have been on a slow road to socialism for at least the last 100 years. Obama has kicked it in to high gear. Read the damn Constitution and Declaration of Independence and get back to me...

Re:Change we can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752094)

We've read it. Word for word. YOU are reading between the lines to suit your own benefit. YOU are closer to a Socialist than Obama. Idiot.

Re:Change we can believe in (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751964)

The Defense Industry. Over four million workers outside of the DoD's 2.1 million employees. Everything is orchestrated by and for the US military or Foreign Military Sales.

That and it's offshoots NASA and the Aerospace Industry are as close to completely socialized sectors of the economy as you'll get.

Oh, two that are government controlled - AMTRAK and US Postal Service.

Re:Change we can believe in (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752064)

The Defense Industry

Seriously? You mean you've never heard of all those companies that make all of the military's hardware [wikipedia.org] ?

That and it's offshoots NASA and the Aerospace Industry are as close to completely socialized sectors of the economy as you'll get

Also not true. Orbital (formerly Fairchild) is just one of hundreds of private companies that do contract work for the Aerospace industry. In fact, comparatively, there is far more money in the private Aerospace industry than there is in NASA.

The government sure as hell doesn't own all the satellites orbiting this planet. They don't get up there by themselves, you know...

Oh, two that are government controlled - AMTRAK and US Postal Service.

Those aren't industries...those are companies. You do know there are train services other than AMTRAK and postal services other than USPS...right?

Re:Change we can believe in (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752088)

Seriously? You mean you've never heard of all those companies that make all of the military's hardware?

Sorry...meant to include private contracters as well. Blackwater ring a bell?

Re:Change we can believe in (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751846)

When you grow up and get an education, you'll see that the "left" Dems are further to the "right" than the "right wing" parties found in Europe and elsewhere. But hey, keep deluding yourself into thinking any party gives a flying fuck about you.

Re:Change we can believe in (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751882)

keep deluding yourself into thinking any party gives a flying fuck about you.

I was having a conversation about just that earlier today with a co-worker. Both major parties have proven many times over that they can't be trusted...how anyone can still be a registered Democrat or Republican in this country defies belief.

Re:Change we can believe in (1)

Bos20k (444115) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751978)

When you assume... Both parties are statist pieces of crap who care about nothing but maintaining and increasing their power. Just for different reasons. One is slightly less crappy than the other but that is basically splitting hairs.

Re:Change we can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752174)

So according to you, COICA started the day Obama got inaugurated and became preseident. Well, it has to be that case. Seeing as you think he is the magical hand that started this and all other problems this country is fighting through ***cough***millionaires aren't on slashdot so everybody here is having their taxes lowered***cough***.

The entire US government is not Obama, by himself, turning the country to a socialist society.

Here is an example: getting put on latrene duty and doing a bad job of cleaning. This does not mean you are responsible for the sh&@ that is there, you are responsible for cleaning it. I would not start yelling at that guy about the fact that he decided to throw poop everywhere when it was the people before him, and now his job is to clean it.

As for COICA, the problem with this is what they personally see as bad. What if there is a slashdot article about piracy (possibly something that talks about a game or movie getting pirated before it is released) and then all of slashdot is blocked. That is a high possibility kids. The government does not want you to go to a site that will inform you of when a new movie is piratted before release.

This is not Obama doing this chunk (you do remember that there are 3 branches of the government, correct?) The people up in arms about this being socialism are the ones that are going to be messing up everything. You are protesting about the wrong issues. Once the government can block what it thinks is bad, even if it isn't, than how am I going to watch internet porn? That will be non-existant. Slashdot will be dumbed down and some categories and articles will no longer be allowed. They are trying to censor the internet you idiot. They are not trying to even out your paycheck with somebody who gets welfare.

Do you even realize how this is different? Open your eyes and get out of that "Every single problem is America is Obama turning society into socialism" and look and see what is happening. You are clouded by that Republican mindset that since you did not vote for Obama, you have nothing to do with this and absolutely everything that happens to this nation is Obama's fault and your hands are wiped clean.

NO! Go to your local congressman. Go to your local representative. I already have. Get them to talk on your behalf. If the people speak up, the congressman represents them and will say something. Blaming Obama for this is stupid. Get your head out of the clouds and realize that this happening IS YOUR FAULT. You blamed Obama for everything while turning a blind eye to everything going on. Thanks buddy, thanks for coming out and supporting slashdot getting shut down once this bill goes through. You are truly, a team player

No, not worse than the old boss (5, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751798)

Meet the new boss, same (worse?) as the old boss.

I voted for Obama based on my belief that he would make better decisions than McCain. We tend to forget that the election was not a yea or nay vote for Obama. It was a contest between two contenders.

Has Obama done everything I want him to do? No. Has he made decisions (like this one) that I disagree with? Yes. Am I still happy that I voted for him rather than McCain, the guy who wanted to put the freak from Alaska a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Abso-freakin-lutely.

As for being worse than the old boss, your memory must be failing. Bush was the most corporate-friendly President we've seen. Undoing the damage he did to civil liberties and the environment alone will take years.

Re:No, not worse than the old boss (5, Insightful)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751938)

Undoing the damage he did to civil liberties and the environment alone will take years.

I see President Obama is making great headway in undoing the damage President Bush did. Policies like this are sure-fire ways to improve the status of civil liberties in this country. Or not.

At least with Bush we could fall back on, "hey, the guy's a stooge for corporate interests, what did we expect?" Obama on the other hand is doing pretty much exactly what he promised not to do regarding liberties, transparency, and many other areas that made people want to vote for him.

Somehow we need to put a stop to this practice of appointing "Czars". Anyone who can't pass muster with the Senate shouldn't be calling shots in the Executive Branch.

Re:No, not worse than the old boss (5, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751946)

Undoing the damage he did to civil liberties and the environment alone will take years.

Dunno about the environment, but the current administration is taking quite the opposite approach to undoing damage to civil liberties.

Re:No, not worse than the old boss (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751950)

Oh my fucking god. I am throwing away 5 mod points posted elsewhere for this. You, sir, are the problem.

It was a contest between two contenders.

No it fucking was not. There were 5, count them, 5 candidates who were registered on sufficient ballots to win the presidency. The fact that you are too fucking ignorant to be even dimly aware of what they show outside of CNN is utterly pathetic.

Stop being part of the problem.

Re:No, not worse than the old boss (2, Insightful)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752020)

Lemme know when one of the others gets more than about 1% of the vote. Until we get rank order voting or instant runoffs or something it's just not going to change.

Re:No, not worse than the old boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751976)

>As for being worse than the old boss, your memory must be failing. Bush was the most corporate-friendly President we've seen. Undoing the damage he did to civil liberties and the
>environment alone *would take years if the current party were actually working on it instead of adding to the damage*

Fixed that for you. I voted for Obama, would do it again, saw this sort of thing coming, and hate the fucker.

Re:No, not worse than the old boss (5, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751986)

It's too bad you don't have the courage to vote your conscience. If you did, we might get a candidate that you actually want, instead of the second-most-objectionable candidate.

To quote Penn Jillette, "Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil." [hutnick.com]

-Peter

Re:No, not worse than the old boss (5, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752002)

"Undoing the damage he did to civil liberties and the environment alone will take years."

Especially at the rate Obama is going.

Re:Change we can believe in (0, Flamebait)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752116)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I find, as soon as someone pulls out this tired cliche, I completely ignore anything else they have to say....

Translation: Big Pharma is bleeding (5, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751568)

I wonder how many WH officials worked for or intend to work for Big Pharma companies that don't want Americans to pay the same CHEAP prices for medications that the REST OF THE WORLD pays?

I'm guessing most of them.

Single payer - what we should have done.

Re:Translation: Big Pharma is bleeding (1)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751676)

Unfortunately, many of these sites don't actually sell the real drugs and instead sett knock-offs that are sugar-pills coated or mixed with lead paint or other harmful substances.

Re:Translation: Big Pharma is bleeding (1, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751712)

And this is different from all the other generics out there how?

Re:Translation: Big Pharma is bleeding (5, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751958)

huh.

in my experience... not so much.

In fact, the guy they are busting in colorado was shipping real drugs.

There are plenty of scam sites, but once you get a site that gives you the real thing, you stayed with it.

Cost?

36 Viagra.. 25mg
$360 with a prescription legally...
Go to doctor every 3 months.

33 Viagra.. 100mg (so 132 uses when pill-cut to 25mg)
$100 - go to doctor once every six months.

Thyroid Medicine?
$105 with prescription & insurance
$180 with prescription & no insurance
$50 online.

Dirty secret?
Same medicine legally in Medicine? $20
Same medicine legally in India (by the same damn manufacturer)? $2.00

You can tell pretty quickly if viagra, thyroid medicine, or blood pressure medicine are fake.. you know, in 2 or 3 days your BP shoots back up to 175/100. You can tell pretty quickly if your thyroid medicine is fake, you get really tired and your hair starts falling out. And of course, you can tell within 30 minutes if your viagra/cealis, etc are not real.

---
Now some you can't- cholesterol medicine (Lipitor) for example. Your blood would change in a couple weeks but you'd have to take a test (available for $10 at Walgreens).

Fact is we are GROSSLY overcharged for pills in the U.S. And the government is doin everything it can not to stop bad pills but to stop good pills.

Re:Translation: Big Pharma is bleeding (1, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752166)

>>>"White House's IP Czar...start voluntarily blocking access to sites"

You see what happens when you don't pay attention? I spend the summer playing videogames and watching movies, and while I'm distracted President George Duh Bush comes back to office. Jeez. I thought we go rid of that joker and his-anti free speech ways.

Re:Translation: Big Pharma is bleeding (1)

Stellian (673475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751800)

The solution to fight big pharma is reducing patent monopolies to the point they are really maximizing innovation, and easing access of generics on the market.
Chinese online stores that sell counterfeit Viagra are not part of the solution.

Re:Translation: Big Pharma is bleeding (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752158)

This is why I get stuff from Canada or Mexico - nations with real pharmacies.

MAFIAA will be next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751858)

With all those RIAA lawyers in the government, I have to believe that sites the MAFIAA hates will be next on the blacklist...

For once, I'm glad ICANN had sense enough to avoid the meetings. And couldn't someone issue some FOIA requests and consider suing? This feels like an end run around the First Amendment. Can you imagine if the government was going around to publishers asking them to voluntarily burn certain books?

Oh, wait... they already did that.

No, they cut a deal and this is the payoff (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752022)

Big Pharma saw the pot at the end of the Rainbow with the Health Care Bill. So they made a deal, this is simply part of the payoff. Of course they will be paying those who pushed the law onto the land with nice contributions to their political campaigns.

Doesn't it seem wrong... (4, Insightful)

Androclese (627848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751576)

Doesn't it seem wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?"

Does it seem wrong? Yes.

Is it surprising with this Administration, coming from a made-up post that was not vetted by Congress and is not supposed to have any operational power? Not in the least.

Re:Doesn't it seem wrong... (2, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752090)

> Doesn't it seem wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?"

No--it seems wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet *with or without* due process.

Censorship is only legal in relatively narrow situations. Commercial speech that is not truthful, for example. (e.g. "100s of television stations for free" scams.)

Our argument about blocking prescription sites is basically a slippery slope argument--they'll block other things. It's true, they will. But it seems to me there's a more libertarian freedom-to-contract argument that most of the people on slashdot would endorse: buying drugs across borders should be legal. People should have to disclose where the drug is coming for, and maybe someone should have to agree that if they sell to the US, they are subject to US laws regarding their liability if they send the wrong drug or send cyanide instead of codeine. But when a consumer goes to an adequate length to show he or she really wants a drug, and it's not, for example, cocaine, why the hell shouldn't the consumer be able to order it from another country? Maybe it's not approved here yet. There may be good reasons for that. The consumer decides he doesn't care. That should be okay.

Or at least, that's the libertarian/freedom-to-contract/anti-paternalist argument.

(The counter is that it breaks down the entire medical regulatory system.)

Due Process? (5, Insightful)

Akido37 (1473009) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751600)

When the Obama Administration claims the right to ASSASSINATE CITIZENS [salon.com] without due process, I'm not surprised that a little thing like blocking websites doesn't merit due process either.

Re:Due Process? (2)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751672)

When the Obama Administration claims the right to ASSASSINATE CITIZENS [salon.com] without due process, I'm not surprised that a little thing like blocking websites doesn't merit due process either.

Don't know why the parent got modded troll. Guess putting your fingers in your ears and modding someone troll is an appropriate response to news you don't want to believe.

Re:Due Process? (0, Troll)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751770)

Pffffft. Bush claimed it first, by Executive Order. That's politics as usual for you. Frankly, I'm less surprised about this than I am that there are so many Republicans out there who think voting for their candidate will help. Far from it. Under President Bush, assassinations by Hellfire missile in crowded city streets was standard practice. Unless you complained then, complaining now has no credibility.

Re:Due Process? (2, Insightful)

sanctimonius hypocrt (235536) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751810)

Maybe off-topic, or maybe not, but it's not trolling. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8606584.stm [bbc.co.uk] I'm fine with killing al-Awlaki, but targeted assassination, just on the say-so of the National Security Council, is open to abuse. There needs to be judicial review or congressional oversight. If the Whitehouse shuts down your website, at least you're still alive to take it to court.

Re:Due Process? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752112)

I'm not fine with killing anyone. It's not a solution.

Security or Protectionism? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751604)

Initially, they're focused on online pharmacies,

So the worry is that instead of "just" protecting the US drug industry from international competition (like getting drugs cheaper from Canada or Mexico or wherever) they'll start protecting the US music industry too from whomever is their demon of the moment?

Isn't the stated, uh... elevation... just as bad as the slippery slope?

Re:Security or Protectionism? (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752176)

There are legitimate safety and regulatory reasons for limiting the import of overseas drugs, it's possible that these reasons do not warrant the increased cost for many patients, but that doesn't change the fact that the reasons exist. The same argument can't be made for movies, music, and video games so I would argue that since their current actions have a logical basis and the slippery slope does not, the slippery slope is far worse.

Fuck that (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751614)

Fuck this bullshit. Fuck every last czar. All should be fired. Get government the fuck out of shutting down sites it doesn't like. Fuck Obama for not stopping this. Fuck Congress for not stopping this. Fuck the mainstream media for not correctly covering this, and the only correct way to cover it is in terms of the dangerous expansion of executive power.

And the Difference is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751618)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:And the Difference is.... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751794)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Correction: Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.

After selling out to big pharma and the insurance industries with the Health Industry Corporate Welfare Act, why should we expect different?

True health-care reform would have been some variant of the single-payer system that works in other countries to keep costs lower and spread the burden more equitably - not an "If you can't afford (an inadequate) health care insurance plan, we're going to fine you another grand on top of that".

It's gotten so bad that even Sarah Palin is starting to look better - after all, how much damage can she do when she'll quit half-way through?

A minor setback (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751632)

So, something I've been thinking a bit about lately as I watch the last vestige of freedom get choke-slammed by our government. One they finally do take away our Internet (in form of access and concept), what's to prevent us from then just building a new one requiring more technical acumen to get to, putting them back at square one. It's a minor setback for us, but really, where is the horror?

Re:A minor setback (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751690)

Don't worry, when they order all the "Darknets of Evil" to be removed, the horror will come to you. As will heavily armed people in the employ of the US Government.

Re:A minor setback (2, Insightful)

Firemouth (1360899) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751692)

...what's to prevent us from then just building a new one requiring more technical acumen to get to, putting them back at square one. It's a minor setback for us, but really, where is the horror?

Money.

Re:A minor setback (1)

jimmydigital (267697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751848)

...what's to prevent us from then just building a new one requiring more technical acumen to get to, putting them back at square one. It's a minor setback for us, but really, where is the horror?

Money.

Hey you like money too? We should hang out!

Re:A minor setback (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751714)

I've always wondered why we don't just as a group - as a ant hill style mess - just create our own web on top of the existing - run everything through tunnel connections run our own fault tolerant internet on top of the existing.. sure its a fragmenting net but it would be a private and resilient net.

Re:A minor setback (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751754)

Can you afford to lay huge amounts of fiber all over the place? Can you get the easements and deals to allow you to string cables either along poles or underground? I thought not. The geek know-how is important, but unfortunately is not enough to build much more than a somewhat more sophisticated BBS.

Remember who funded the original ArpaNet?

Re:A minor setback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751994)

there have been signifigant advances in wireless technology...

This is just a stopgap measure (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751656)

until the *AA's can buy enough congressional support to give them the effective right to decide the content of the internet. Don't worry, they'll have enough votes bought soon.

Root servers located in the US would be orphaned. (2, Interesting)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751668)

It often seems the US is trying to turn itself into a has-been ghetto on the world stage. Due process is one of those pillars of democracy that they fight so hard to bring the rest of the world.

Re:Root servers located in the US would be orphane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751836)

I'm european, and totally unrelated, for a time I was disgusted with americans, the Bush presidents, wars and all the other fuck-ups. Until one day I saw a banner with the american flag that said "I love my country, but I fear my government". I was completely changed by that one phrase.

Re:Root servers located in the US would be orphane (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751952)

welcome to most of the United States.
You know, the part that contains the normal everyday Joe's who just go to work, do their jobs, and go home to be with their families / friends.

That's the majority of Americans.
Not the moron's displayed on the national/world media on a daily basis.

Re:Root servers located in the US would be orphane (2, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752040)

That is generally a right-wing attitude, the "I love my country, but I fear my government", many vehicles that have that slogan as a sticker also have something about right to bear arms.

In a word: Yes. (2, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751718)

Son, I am disappoint. Did I get magically transported to Iran during the night and not notice? If a site is doing something illegal, then by all means shut them down, but you do NOT get to arbitrarily censor things just because you don't like them.

And then they wonder... (1)

MoriT (1747802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751738)

Obama keeps whining about people who supported him when he was speaking about Google about the importance of an open internet don't want to vote for him anymore. Gee, I wonder....

Re:And then they wonder... (1)

whoop (194) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752072)

Or, maybe people don't vote for him anymore because he hasn't been on any ballots since 2008.

Just sayin'. It will be interesting though if he can turn this attitude around in the next two years before his reelection. Or he'll just say he inherited the ill-will from Bush.

This all seems very wrong (3, Insightful)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751758)

Is ICANN tied to the UN or the USA?

This all seems very bad and very wrong. Using online pharmacies as the primary reason just doesn’t wash with me. No one country should 'own' the internet. And without due process you have to really wonder what the hell is going on here. I thought the Australian government was going to far with mandatory censorship but this is pretty frightening.

Re:This all seems very wrong (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751930)

It's tied to the US government, but not directly. It's not a federal agency, but a non-profit corp. with the blessing of the US gov. to do what it does.

Why are we censoring at all? (2, Interesting)

webdog314 (960286) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751768)

Screw the reason for the censoring. ISP's shouldn't be making decisions on content AT ALL. Today it's online pharmaceuticals. Tomorrow it'll be sites pertaining to Islam, or in opposition of the government. How long do you think it will take our leaders to demand a system by which THEY can add sites or domains to the blacklist directly?

Re:Why are we censoring at all? (3, Insightful)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752042)

How long do you think it will take our leaders to demand a system by which THEY can add sites or domains to the blacklist directly?

Not very long. [govtrack.us]

United Socialist States of America (1)

xannash (861526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751782)

Ah Yes! Welcome to the USSA. China already does this....

Theocrats in Congress (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751784)

The U.S. Congress has a large number of Christian fundamentalists particularly in the Republican Party but some are in the Democratic Party as well that belong to a group called 'The Fellowship'. Author Jeff Sharlett has a book about them titled 'The Family'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)

The craziest legislation comes from the members of this organization.

why not pressure visa to cancel the pharmacies? (1)

Marrow (195242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751788)

These online pharmacies want to get paid right? So if you dont want them doing
business in the US, yank or freeze their CC vendor accounts. Can't they do that?

Never mind, thats what a payment processor is. (1)

Marrow (195242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751814)

sheesh.

Story summary bias (3, Insightful)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751854)

"Doesn't it seem wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?"

If Bush had been president, this headline would have read: "Doesn't it seem wrong for the Bush Whitehouse to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?" But the Slashdot editors voted for Obama, so they can't make him look bad, even if they disagree with him

Re:Story summary bias (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752008)

Not only that.. who says there wouldn't be "due process" to get a site blocked?

you call this 'weather'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33751868)

it's no wonder censorship is making such a big comeback, what with all the 'secrets' about inhuman behaviors, manipulation of populations, deceptive taxation without representation etc....

as far as we can tell, there has been no (0) public minded political representation here (US) in more than 20 years, which is as long as we've been watching 'it' (the process). so, in order to to maintain taxation without representation..... 'they' must falsify the already phony #s over&over. phewww. that's how we feel. that's US. many/most of us anyway. it's quite doubtful any invisible/imaginary 'enemy' could out do our own fauxking murder & mayhem system, both at home & around the (now under reported) shaking globe. they treat us as though we came from monkeys, & they ?didn't?, as evidenced by their tendency to encourage us to do/use less, while they continue to suck DOWn/waste/destroy immeasurable amounts of stuff, & feast on nubile virgins (of both sexes) in their palatial conclaves, surrounded by armies of (infinitely corrupted) hired goons. paid for by.... there we (?monkeys?) go again.

the search (for one honest/selfless person) continues;
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+oil+rumsfeld+wmd+oil+freemason+blair+obama+weather+authors

modifying this search makes it even more interesting/scary. it's likely just a coincidence that the same names turn up together in 1000's of documents re: murder, mayhem & just generalized felonious underhandedness.

meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our ?creators?, who may not be what we were forced to (not) believe in. why would descendants of monkeys need to worship anything (except maybe the 400 lb/megaton 'gorilla')? the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there? cup of primordial ooze we are/anyone?

too late to whine, get ready to meet jahbulon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752078)

we should have been paying even a little bit of attention (always free). butt, when we got whatever we want by signing for (a lifetime of unrepayable, high interest debt) it, why would anybody need to lie to us about the total permanence/prosperity of our 400 year old babylonian crusader empire (there have been many). another great victory MUST be at hand?

Damn straight that's wrong (3, Funny)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751900)

Doesn't it seem wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?

Yes, it's wrong. Those powers should only be used to kidnap American citizens and ship them off to be tortured and killed in secret.

Besides, why not just have Cyber Command hack their domain registration accounts? Much simpler.

The WTO will just give more free IP! pharmacies ? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751914)

The WTO will just give more free IP! pharmacies are much bigger then on line betting / poker.

Any ways if we where to push it candida may just end with rights to us tv / other media for free.

BIG drugs sucks and we pay more then any other place for meds!

So use the first amendment (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751962)

These "objectionable sites" may consider adding some political commentary (perhaps a policy statement on the topic of drig regulation) and then if the governement tries to shut them down, sue using the 1st amendment .

The only solution for the government then perhaps becomes a much finer grained block list (specfiic pages) which the web sites can evade by moving stuff around, or, by having political speech on every page.

The question would then be how the US Supreme court would view a "voluntary" block list that was published (or caused to be published) by the government?

It's His Fault (4, Insightful)

dugn (890551) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751974)

Down with Bush Hitler! Wait...

I have an idea (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751984)

How about if they pull whitehouse.gov on the grounds that they're promoting breaking the Internet.

Freedom means the right to think and express (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 3 years ago | (#33751988)

I'm sure there are sites that each of us wish weren't there. But we can't have free speech without the freedom to express our ideas, and yes, our opinions. We need both the freedom to express our ideas, and the freedom to express our disagreement with some ideas, should that be the case.

The Obama administration is not the first to try to squelch free speech, but it does seem to be more driven in this direction than others. This is no different that a giant book burning, except it effectively keeps the ideas from ever being expressed in the first place.

Maybe we should outlaw computers while we're at it, or (here's a great idea!) license them only to responsible individuals who pass a test on correctthink. That would also have the benefit of producing more revenue for the government to squander.

Of course it's inappropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752004)

It's woefully inappropriate to spend tax dollars trying to protect something that doesn't exist.
Intellectual property isn't.
Thoughts, ideas once released are owned by everyone that they've been shared with.
Only physical things can be owned, can be protected against theft.

websites? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752058)

so they're blocking port 80 and 443?

ok fine with me. I think I'll manage somehow =).

Said this before, I'll say it again... (5, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752066)

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it...

If you are in the U.S. and you want change, and I really mean serious change, then you have the power to make a difference. All it takes is for you to do a little bit of research and maybe 30 minutes of your time to VOTE. The biggest problem is that we have these two parties who are totally out of touch and/or basically just don't give a rats ass, about the citizens.

Make a change and do the following:

  • Don't just vote for the republicans and just don't vote for the democrats, this time try to find some independant candidates (Trust me, they are out there. Big media just doesn't want you to know about them)
  • Don't be fooled by the parties marketing. It's marketing, it's supposed to razzle-dazzle you, it's not real.
  • Find an independant candidate who you can relate with and vote for them.
  • Don't buy into the hype that a vote against the Republican/Democratic party is akin to throwing away your vote.
  • Research your candidates, if they have money, then ask where did they get that money from?
  • Try to persuade your friends and family to do the same.

Sure, your guy might not make it in, but hopefully you can sleep better at night and send a message to these scummy politicians that we are fed up.

Re:Said this before, I'll say it again... (5, Interesting)

wizkid (13692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33752182)

I've been voting for non-democrap/republishit candidates since the patriot act, which violates the constitution.

If republican's are for a smaller government, why did the federal gov balloon during their era.

If Democraps are for a socialist government, why do the give in to every corporate request that they make?

Why are people so clueless that they can't figure out what these a$$holes are up to?

Jesus Christ (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752070)

Motherfucking shit. I voted for your ass knowing that some stuff like this would happen, but it's been all shit like this from day one. What did we get out of it? A half-assed health plan with no public option and a mandate. Everything else? Same as the last crowd, and worse. WHAT THE FUCK.

DNS itself is voluntary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33752128)

You can only fuck with DNS within certain limits, before people decide to quit using your DNS. It's understandable to think there is such thing as "The DNS" but it's more of a consensual illusion. Break the consent and you'll break the illusion. Every time someone in government says, "Hey, let's make it illegal for certain servers to reply to certain requests," a dozen hackers start thinking about how they might design a tamperproof naming system.

People, why do you try? All you can possibly accomplish is create anger and expose yourself as untrustworthy, without even accomplishing the censorship that you desire.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?