×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

205 comments

Talk to your boss (5, Insightful)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220286)

Hillary,

Talk to your boss and let him know that a "kill switch" is a bad idea.

Thanks,
The Internet

Re:Talk to your boss (5, Insightful)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220302)

and while you're at it, could you talk to him about the whole Patriot Act thing?

Re:Talk to your boss (5, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220340)

And DMCA?

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Vernes (720223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220420)

And Nukes?

Re:Talk to your boss (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220478)

And ACTA?

Re:Talk to your boss (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220556)

I think you all are making the mistake of thinking that what politicians say out of their ass while behind a podium has anything at all to do with what they are really up to...

Re:Talk to your boss (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220642)

We all know better, don't we? Don't we? Yet, so many of us act like it isn't that way. Why do we continue to drink the Koolaid? I guess we like red lips, and I don't mean the ones you normally kiss.

Re:Talk to your boss (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220818)

It's different here in America. We get a lot of things other countries don't. Every 4-8 years we get a new person at the top of the chain. Even though they raise our taxes...quite often...we get most of the things we need done.

We're not being openly murdered by the government, there is LESS corruption in our government than other countries. We are a democracy.

I'm not saying we're perfect, but we're closer to it than all these other countries.

Re:Talk to your boss (2)

kryliss (72493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220956)

Of course our country doesn't openly murder citizens.. That's bad for business.. better yet our government likes to do things like let Monsanto do whatever they want so the citizens are killed off slowly..and the best part is the citizens pay all that money for their own deaths. As far as "we get a new person at the top of the chain." Well I kind of see the only difference of Democrats and Republicans is being one is the left horn and the other the right horn.. They both belong to same devil.

Re:Talk to your boss (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221062)

Even though they raise our taxes...quite often...we get most of the things we need done.

Anyone who believes that, needs to listen to this [youtube.com]. Why is it we are still discussing the same things, just WORSE off?

We're not being openly murdered by the government, there is LESS corruption in our government than other countries. We are a democracy.

Ahahaha, hahahaha. Wait, what am I laughing at again? Oh yea, it's really not funny, even though it is dead wrong. A. I would challenge most believe that politicians can and do get people "bumped off". B. We live in a Democratic Republic. Half right maybe, but we have a republic because of the fear of democracy. As it has been said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." The problem is, we have elected the wolves.

I'm not saying we're perfect, but we're closer to it than all these other countries.

Almost, only in horseshoes and hand grenades. Maybe it was "defective by design", in the way that communism is believed to be.. but I know this much, if you listen to the Youtube link above, you will be reminded of this: ..time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the founding fathers. ..two friends talked to a Cuban refuge, in the midst of his story one of my friends said, "We don't know how lucky we are." The Cuban said, "How lucky you are? I had some place to escape to." In that sentence he told the entire story. We lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. ...
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property, if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property. And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every business man has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government. And freedom, has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp, as it is this moment.

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220820)

And his legal right to assassinate US citizens?

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220924)

Her husband would be the one she needs to talk to about the DMCA amirite?

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220990)

DMCA turned out to be beneficial, no?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/ten-years-later/

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35221050)

Guys, please! Get in line behind the people *cough* *corporations* *cough* that were here before you. You'll get your turn to talk to him as soon as they're done.

Thanks

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35221072)

And WikiLeaks?

Re:Talk to your boss (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220346)

Story over in three comments.
(No kill switch, no Patriot Act, no **AA.)

However, this is just another political Go stone. One stone does not affect a whole policy.

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220356)

Frankly, I think the "kill switch" might be dead in the water after the Egyptian revolution; I'm glad it happened when it did.

Re:Talk to your boss (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220650)

I hope you are right. There will still be more attacks on freedom concerning the Internet in America, however.

Re:Talk to your boss (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220794)

Frankly, I think the "kill switch" might be dead in the water after the Egyptian revolution; I'm glad it happened when it did.

Yes... but the timing is really creepy. Makes you wonder if opposition to the US internet kill switch wasn't somehow behind all that chaos starting in Egypt via Twitter?

Re:Talk to your boss (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221068)

Yes... but the timing is really creepy. Makes you wonder if opposition to the US internet kill switch wasn't somehow behind all that chaos starting in Egypt via Twitter?

It was the CIA!

Re:Talk to your boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220668)

Practically there is nothing like a Kill Switch! Only certain ISP's could be asked to make changes in their routers. The term Kill Switch is just a Metaphor

Re:Talk to your boss (3, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220830)

Practically there is nothing like a Kill Switch! Only certain ISP's could be asked to make changes in their routers. The term Kill Switch is just a Metaphor

That's probably not what they'd do. They'd ask ISPs and telco providers ahead of time to identify major circuits providing internet connectivity.

And the kill switch would be either sending all the telco providers orders to cut those particular fibers.

OR: CALEA-style requirement for telco characters to incorporate "Lawful Disconnect" technology along with their normal "Lawful Intercept" technology, to allow law enforcement to encumber against telcos for all the circuits as they deem essential to shutdown to break internet connectivity for users and critical infrastructure.

It may even be possible law enforcement could add "Remote disconnect" as a required option for Lawful Intercept technology in the future, regardless of legislative action -- if congress doesn't pass the law, and the executive branch decide they really want a kill switch.

Re:Talk to your boss (5, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220680)

I was thinking about the absurd hypocrisy of this yesterday, and I came to a conclusion: politics is a lot like teaching. At the beginning, you get some intelligent, motivated people who think they can do good, and some incompetent, slimy asshats. After a short while, the stress, the petty arguments, the long hours and the excessive exposure to said asshats leaves the decent ones jaded and broken - they no longer have the wherewithal to keep fighting a losing battle and the asshats win. Those who somehow do manage to hold on to their motivation are such a small minority that they can only vary rarely effect worthwhile change.

Re:Talk to your boss (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220770)

Those who somehow do manage to hold on to their motivation are such a small minority that they can only vary rarely effect worthwhile change.

It's worse than that. Democracy actively selects for lying asshats, so even if you are smart and have good ideas you'll be beaten by the charismatic psychopath promising bread and circuses paid for with your neighbour's money (or, these days, money borrowed from the Chinese).

Re:Talk to your boss (2, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220804)

Which is why we need to reform our electoral system, making it easier for candidates not backed by a major party with deep pockets to win meaningful offices. The reason that this would help with burnout is that then regular people with other careers could hold an office for a term, then go back to their regular careers. By not being career politicians, they are much less susceptible to burnout.

Closing the internet caused the revolution (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221042)

I firmly believe the revolution in Egypt was aided by closing the internet. People walked away from their keyboards and got outside. If they wanted to see what was happening they had the Al jazeera sattelite at a freinds house. But without communncation their imaginations could soar a bit and they could look awayf from the screen.

Circuses are well known to keep the roman masses happy.

Re:Closing the internet caused the revolution (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221224)

This is pretty much exactly what I said when it happened. If you want to quell a popular uprising (without just killing enough people that they give up) you need to start handing out food or money or drugs or something (I think THC gas would probably work better than tear gas). Shutting off entertainment so that all the people on the fence have nothing better to do but get outside and check out the protests is probably the worst possible move.

Prove it! (2)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220304)

'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness,'

Good. Now tell the RIAA and MPAA to leave us the hell alone.

Re:Prove it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220342)

Openness != Lawlessness

Re:Prove it! (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220594)

Openness != Lawlessness

Precisely. Which is why the MafiAA, who employ illegal tactics, have been caught numerous times engaging in "investigation" using unlicensed personnel who have tainted evidence, have been caught fabricating evidence, have been caught persecuting people that they knew, or should have known had they done anything resembling due diligence, to be innocent (to wit: EXTORTION), and who have been caught on a regular basis defrauding the artists they claim to "represent" not to mention cooking the books [techdirt.com] to try to claim that movies/albums/etc "lose money [uproxx.com]", ought to be forcibly disbanded by the courts.

Bettery Yet.. (was Re:Prove it!) (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221090)

Hillary, via her official position as Sect. of State was advocating not just for the security of the internets but was also encouraging dissent and the tolerance of it by all governments. How about Hill you go talk to the Justice dept. about tolerating dissent in this country too? Or is it ok for the US to harrass, track and arrest those who dissent and wish (insert # of elected officials here) removed from power and/or the actual form of government changed? This applies to those on the left/middle/right who at any given time in the past 20 years have advocated peacefully for such ideas.

Frankly, I do not believe the US (federally or at state/local level) would tolerate the kind of events which took place in Egypt or Tunisia.

openness (5, Insightful)

crimperman (225941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220338)

> "For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness"

Oh that's good - I'll let Julian Assange know.

Re:openness (3, Funny)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220358)

What? Are you going to listen to a rapist? If you support wikileaks, you're not supporting openness. You're supporting rape. Do you want to side with rape? Thought not.

Re:openness (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220432)

>>>Do you want to side with rape? Thought not.

You really shouldn't answer for your audience. Rape is a vicious assault and violation of rights, but it also has been SELECTED for by Nature. The act of rape sometimes leads to pregnancy and continuation of the man's genes to the next generation (which is defined as "success" by nature). Just ask Genghis Khan - who produced more children than any other man - via rape of his conquered subjects.

As for wikileaks, the one thing has nothing to do with the other. The fact Assange had sex with two women, voluntarily, is NOT rape. They spread their legs willingly. - Plus it has no relevancy to Wikileak goals to expose heinous crimes by the US Government (such as killing journalists and stealing credit card numbers from visiting diplomats). The People have the right to know how their employees are acting and/or misbehaving.

Re:openness (1)

jimmetry (1801872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220530)

I do recall reading claims that in one of the cases, the morning after he slid his johnson back in while she was asleep, and when she asked if he was wearing a condom he replied "I'm wearing you". Doesn't quite fit the rape label but if they're legitimate claims I wouldn't really call that "willingly".

Re:openness (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220604)

Well rape is non-consensual sex, yes? Hard to give consent while you're asleep.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

Re:openness (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220792)

But there's no proof that "sleep sex" ever happened. It's just her CLAIM that it happened, and I suspect she (and the other woman) are jealous lovers writing fiction. After all they didn't file the claim of rape until AFTER they learned about one another.

Assange should be presumed innocent.

Re:openness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220434)

If that is what we are going to call rape now, then I for one whole heartily support rape.

Consensual sex, er I mean consensual rape, is every mammals God given right.
Humans have been having sex, er I mean rape, for millions of years and that is not going to stop now just because you wish to redefine a word.

If a woman says she wants to have sex with me, and I want to have sex with her, then let the rape commence!

Besides, what two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home, is not for you to dictate. When and where we choose to have sex, I mean have rape, is none of your or anyone else business.

Re:openness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220446)

It seems that the charge against Assange should have been translated from the Swedish not as "rape" but as "failed to call the next day and called somebody else". I am sure that connections between one of the women and an organization funded by the CIA have nothing to do with it.....

Re:openness (1)

sirdude (578412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220492)

um, you mean the rape charge that conveniently surfaced once Wikileaks released the cables? The rape charge wherein no formal charges have been placed against him in Sweden? The rape charge where nobody is allowed to view the evidence? The rape charge that resulted in a "red notice" by Interpol (for sex crimes, something that the organisation rarely does) and not a warrant for arrest? Bollocks.

Besides, the veracity of the leaked information has never been called into question. So there is not question of whether to listen to him or not. Also, considering the overwhelming amount of good that has come from the leak (Tunisia, egypt and more), openness is what this has brought about and freedom & justice is the result.

Re:openness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220542)

detecting sarcasm fail

Whoosh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35221048)

I'm pretty sure you just got whooshed.

Re:openness (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220614)

Good lord, it seems every single responder to you deserves a giant WOOSH

mod parent up funny please, as many readers seem to need that as an indicator of sarcasm.

Re:openness (2)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220716)

What? Are you going to listen to a rapist? If you support wikileaks, you're not supporting openness. You're supporting rape. Do you want to side with rape? Thought not.

Erm...., expressing sarcasm is via text is an art form. Both the writer and the reader have to be "in on it". As such, sometimes it misses the mark. So if I'm the dullard who doesn't get your sarcasm, bad on me.

Julian Asange is not a rapist. He has been accused of rape by persons with questionable (to understate it a bit) credibility. He has angered a great many powerful people who believe that they have good reason (and who certainly have more than ample resources) to engineer any manner of dirty tricks to marginalize him, or just deliver some payback. If, in the face of this suspicious confluence of facts, you actually believe Asange is a rapist you are a naive fool. You might be right, of course, but at this point, that would be based on dumb luck, not reason.

Re:openness (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220856)

Yes. You're the dullard. But take comfort in the fact that you're not alone in being a dullard, and this particular joke seems to have been a good indicator of that.

Re:openness (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221064)

It was pretty obvious sarcasm. The italicized words put it over the top, IMHO. But, well, what can you expect from RAPE SUPPORTERS!!!!!1!

Re:openness (2)

serps (517783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220384)

An excoriation of Clinton's hypocrisy [crikey.com.au] on this subject.

Re:openness (5, Insightful)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220600)

This article deserves more than just a link:

QUOTE:

âoea false debate. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase.â That is, WIkileaks isnâ(TM)t really about the internet, but about a crime. Clinton then goes on: "There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our countryâ(TM)s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct."

These comments constitute a remarkable series of lies and hypocrisies.
1 - The US Government has regularly harassed Wikileaks associate and internet activist and Tor founder Jacob Applebaum, subjecting him to extensive and, in the end, almost comical seaches of his electronic equipment whenever he returns to the United States.

2- In further contrast to Clintonâ(TM)s emphasis on âoeenforcing the rules transparentlyâ, the US Governmentâ(TM)s legal campaign against Wikileaks has been secret from the outset. Despite military officials admitting theyâ(TM)re unable to link Julian Assange to anything with which he could be charged, a secret grand jury process in Virginia continues against Wikileaks, aided by a secret Department of Justice subpoena. This was only revealed when Twitter took the commendable step of applying for confidentiality to be removed from a DoJ demand for an extraordinary range of information, including on Applebaumâ(TM)s Twitter account and everyone who is a Twitter follower of Wikileaks.

3- In addition to the Department of Justice attempt to conjure up a charge against Julian Assange, the FBI has undertaken an aggressive investigation of online group Anonymous in relation to its âoeOperation Paybackâ attacks on Visa, Mastercard and PayPal after their suspension of payments to Wikileaks, but there has been no action, indeed apparently no investigation, of the DDOS attacks undertaken on Wikileaks itself, from within the United States, for which an individual has claimed responsibility. Nor has there been any apparent law enforcement action in response to the plan developed by HB Gary Federal, Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies for Hunton and Williams to attack Wikileaks and Salonâ(TM)s Glenn Greenwald.

4- Clintonâ(TM)s attempt to dissociate the Obama Administration from corporate decisions about Wikileaks is sophistry of the highest order.

5- Clintonâ(TM)s comments about the dangers of transparency in diplomacy â" which forms the guts of her straw-man comments on Wikileaks â" have already been refuted by her Cabinet colleague Robert Gates, who stated in December that Wikileaks would not do any âoeserious damageâ to US foreign policy, that its effect was merely to embarrass

Re:openness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220652)

Don't get the liberal Slash dotters all worked up, remember liberals are smarter than the rest, I read it here yesterday.

Openness? Right . . . (3, Insightful)

cusco (717999) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220364)

we place ourselves on the side of openness

Horsepuckey. They're just jealous that the same shutdown ability doesn't exist here in the Untied States.

Re:Openness? Right . . . (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220838)

we place ourselves on the side of openness
  Horsepuckey. They're just jealous that the same shutdown ability doesn't exist here in the Untied States.

The Untied States? That is quite a interesting spelling in this context.

Read between the lines (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220388)

The internet must be open and fair to all American companies which have the money to fund our election campaigns, to spread the word of those companies wonderful products and good deeds, to keep the world safe from people we don't like, and to prevent all of those with ideas that differ from ours from speaking out. Can't we all just get behind my version of freedom?

The best way to protect the internet... (2)

Onuma (947856) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220400)

...is to allow the private entities which own the servers, networks, technology, and businesses to manage it themselves.

For many organizations, the internet is about profit, growth and accessibility. Those organizations have an obligation to ensure the functional operation and security of their systems, if they'd like to say doing what they do. No connection = no revenue. Having government involvement with the internet will hinder one or all of those facets, even if the intent is for the betterment of society and the world. Just like the economy -- eventually it will right itself without too many dicks stirring the pot.

In short, Secretary Clinton, GTFO of its business.

Re:The best way to protect the internet... (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220510)

...is to allow the private entities which own the servers, networks, technology, and businesses to manage it themselves.

yes. so at&t can cut off all access to wikileaks, just like how amazon did with its cloud.

amazon also had an obligation to ensure the functional operation and security of their systems. yet they didnt see any problem in censoring a customer, when it was not to their liking.

had it been in the moronic, ayn rand believer way you wanted, at&t, comcast would ensure that no american saw any wikileaks document, thanks to the pressure the banks would put on them.

private does not mean 'good', or 'free'. private means, something is owned by a group of PRIVATE bunch, with no obligations to your freedom, but to their profit.

Re:The best way to protect the internet... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220664)

Are freedom and profit inherently mutually exclusive?

There are many companies who have chosen to make "bad" business decisions, in favor of "good" moral ones. As a result, those companies build a better reputation than their competitors, and reap greater profits. If there's any sign that ISPs have started blocking access to particular services, it's a perfect opportunity for another company to offer a secure forwarding service. Such places already exist (for privacy reasons, rather than content access). If it comes at the small cost of seeing some advertising for that company's other services, so be it.

Re:The best way to protect the internet... (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221242)

Are freedom and profit inherently mutually exclusive?

Sometimes yes sometimes no, if a large private entity were to offer a major ISP a large sum of money to deny access to a number of sites then protecting the freedom of a user to view that information would be mutually exclusive to profit from that revenue stream. And once that revenue stream is open the laws of market competition strongly encourage other ISPs to follow suit if they want to stay competitive and keep market share.

Of course that's just the theoretical case, the real life case is much worse. Senators, the current administration, and other influential people will remember the ISPs that helped them and Net Neutrality will be a few votes shy of passing. ISPs get to keep their current regulatory capture, and the gov't gets to keep its shadow influence on internet content while the two major parties consolidate their base. The Republicans will kowtow to the conservatives explaining they had to vote against it to avoid nasty gov't regulation and more regulatory capture and the Democrats will throw up their hands in mock defeat saying there just isn't the support for such a "liberal" policy, but "we'll get them next year".

Re:The best way to protect the internet... (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220736)

>>>allow the private entities which own the servers, networks, technology, and businesses to manage it

.....except for the government-created monopolies, such as Verizon and Comcast, which need to be regulated the same way the govt-created Electric, Telephone, and CNG monopolies are regulated. i.e. Price fixed at the very least, and preferably given "common carrier" status to prevent discrimination.

Patriot Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220404)

....in other news the Patriot Act was renewed by Congress today continuing the erosion of 4 Amendment rights...

Cutting off the internet helped the revolution (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220406)

Some guy that works for Google was on the news the other day saying that cutting off the Internet accelerated the public protests by letting everyone know that the regime was scared. So, taking steps to ensure that a regime like Mubarak's can't do that in future is counter-productive if you consider the protests in Egypt to have been a good thing.

Sorry Hillary (1)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220410)

"Achieving both liberty and security; protecting both transparency and confidentiality; protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility; are the three major challenges government as a whole is failing at today,"

but I fixed that for ya.

Too late ma'am (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220422)

is this the same lady that killed wikileaks.org?
not that i'm supporting what the (then) egyptian government did, but how is that different from what she did?

Same as the old boss... (3, Informative)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220444)

Yes, nothing to see here...it's "openness" as long as it is in the best interest of the United States. What a load of bs. DNS records all over the world taken over by force, Julian Assange threatened with assassinations, kill switches, patriot acts...just a plantation with a different name.

Will they start endorsing Wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220448)

Will they start endorsing Wikileaks?

Open Government (1)

rodneylee (1639303) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220464)

yep our Government has always been open and Honest, listening to its people... NOT! not when its easier to cover everything up, and lie to us. I am sure they will tell us one thing and do another.

Good luck with that (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220472)

Good luck with that. I am sure you will be able to get all those Muslim countries to sign up to the ground rules for the Internet right after they sign up for gender equality, freedom of religion, freedoms of speech and the end of forced marriage, "honour" killings, and victimisation of minorities.

Hypocrisy (5, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220500)

I read in the newspaper that the US will help the citicens of Iran to keep the internet running. Obama and Clinton promised that. I find that extremely hypocritic behaviour. Where was the US when Egypt's internet was shut down? Oh yeah, they liked Mubarak so they did nothing. But they don't like Ahmadinejad so now they help the Iranian people. And in the meantime Obama wants a kill switch so he can switch the internet off whenever he wants.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220712)

Maybe Iran can help open the internet in the US. They most certainly won't, but I think they have the tools to do it.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

LastGunslinger (1976776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220842)

Can you point me to sites that are available outside the US, but not within it? Where is this censorship you speak of? If I opened up shop in a brick-and-mortar store, started distributing bootleg copies of music and movies and the authorities shut me down, would that suggest to you that the government was oppressing free speech? Don't conflate arguably flawed or misguided copyright and piracy laws with censorship.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220848)

I read in the newspaper that the US will help the citicens of Iran to keep the internet running. Obama and Clinton promised that. I find that extremely hypocritic behaviour. Where was the US when Egypt's internet was shut down? Oh yeah, they liked Mubarak so they did nothing. But they don't like Ahmadinejad so now they help the Iranian people. And in the meantime Obama wants a kill switch so he can switch the internet off whenever he wants.

it's more complicated than that, the us couldn't really state which side they were because egypt owns something very important, the suez canal, so if they helped one side and the other one won it could have blocked the canal for us ships as retaliation
In Iran instead they don't have anything to lose since Ahmadinejad already hate them

Re:Hypocrisy (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220914)

How is that hypocritical? It's doing two different things in two similar but different situations, not saying one thing and doing the opposite. It's just doing what is in you own intererst as opposed to what is "right".

And Obama already has a "kill switch" and hence claiming he "wants" one is a bit silly. Which part of the text of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3480%3A [loc.gov] do you find to be so troubling and what new "kill switch" power is is granting that the President hasn't had since 1934 anyway?

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35221096)

As an non-US citizen. My perception is that US is the most hypocritical country in the world.

They like to bash Iran about human rights and they have Guantanamo bay and death penalty.
They *say* they like Democracy and Freedom and yet they have a corrupt bipartisan regime and a convoluted electoral voting system. The puppets change but the Master is the same.
They say they don't like "dictators" (Fidel, Chavez, Ahmadinejad) but when is convenient to them (Mubarak) they actually want to keep them in power.
And not forget about the many dictatorships that the US have basically put in to place or help to sustain it*.
They say they have Freedom of Speech and yet they want Assange.
The motto of US foreign relations is "Do as I say, not as I do", and exert pressure by all means necessary to accomplish what they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_of_authoritarian_regimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy#Exporting_Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_military_government#United_States_involvement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reorganization_Process#Attitude_of_the_United_States_Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#U.S._Backing_of_the_Coup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noreiga#United_States_invasion_of_Panama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Support_of_U.S._business_and_government

Positioning for 2012 (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220520)

Clinton is clearly positioning herself for another Presidential run in 2012. Obama's track record on openness and freedom for the Internet is abysmal, but few if any of his transgressions came out of the State Department. If Clinton can separate herself from her boss on this issue, she can make inroads to the young and energetic netizens who helped Obama so much in '08.

If I'm right, expect her to start making noises about cutting the budget and ending wars in the near future.

Re:Positioning for 2012 (1)

LastGunslinger (1976776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220578)

Yes, because Obama is so unpopular that he would be challenged from within his own party for his reelection bid. /s Try 2016, not 2012.

Re:Positioning for 2012 (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220942)

Ah, but you assume that the only goal of such a move would be to gain the nomination and take over Obama's job. I think the real goal would be to garner enough support to be a serious challenger, then force Obama to take her as his new Vice President. Which would put her on even surer ground for 2016.

Re:Positioning for 2012 (1)

LastGunslinger (1976776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221146)

That's a definite possibility, although her role at Secretary of State is still very high-profile and enables her to affect more change than she would be able to as VP.

The two faces of Hillary .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220608)

'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness,', U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

"Hillary Clinton ordered American officials to spy on high ranking UN diplomats, including British representatives" link [dailymail.co.uk]

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned on Monday the leak of more than 250,000 classified State Department documents, saying the U.S. was taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who "stole" the information" link [msn.com]

We don't need another hero. (Ms. Clinton) (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220610)

Out of the Ruins [youtube.com]
Out from the wreckage
Can't make the same mistake this time
We are the children
The last generation
We are the ones they left behind
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear, till nothing else remains

We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome

Looking for something
We can rely on
There's gotta be something better out there.
Love and compassion
Their day is coming
All else are castles built into the air.
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear till nothing else remains

All the children say
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome

So what do we do with our lives
We leave only a mark
Will our story shine like a light
Or end in the dark
Give it all or nothing

We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome

Hello Anti-piracy laws (2)

adewolf (524919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220648)

Hmmm meanwhile at home they are pressing an anti-piracy law spending millions of $$$ for corporate benefit..meanwhile unemployment is a record levels (15-20 %). Is this how we want our tax money spent? Not me. RIAA and MPAA you enforce your IP, not the American public.

Dose of Reality (0)

LastGunslinger (1976776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220696)

Many of you here who are Americans like to pretend we live in an Orwellian distopia and many of you who aren't American like to bash on us because it's been fairly fashionable since we became less useful to you following the Cold War. However, let's be real for a minute. The kill switch is a bad idea, but we all should know that the government would only use it in the case of massive attacks from a foreign entity. It's a misguided attempt at having a protective measure, not a tool to control communication and access to information among the citizenry. The US hasn't ever shut off radio, television, or telephone networks en masse, and it isn't going to shut off the Internet. I oppose the kill switch because the government shouldn't have that power, but I also know that the likelihood of it ever being used for nefarious purposes is close to nil.

Re:Dose of Reality (2)

mrjb (547783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220892)

many of you who aren't American like to bash on us because it's been fairly fashionable since we became less useful to you following the Cold War.

Let's be real for a minute indeed. I suppose you're talking about the "protection" the USA offered to other countries against the evil USSR, even though both countries had enough cumulative fire power to blow up the planet ten times over. How much do you think such a promise was worth? Sorry, but "In case of a global thermonuclear war we'll make sure the planet will be blown up only twice over" still doesn't sound very safe to me.

Rest assured, the real reason it became fashionable to bash the US is all the freedom people lost worldwide due to the politics of W. post 9/11. USA may get a thumbs up from me for finally ending the cold war, but two thumbs down for the 9/11 aftermath.

Re:Dose of Reality (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221150)

s/USA/Mubarak Regime/ and it reads a bit different.

Even worse if you consider that 'massive attack' could mean too many Lady Gaga songs being illicitly downloaded for the MPAAs liking.

Re:Dose of Reality (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221218)

However, let's be real for a minute. The kill switch is a bad idea, but we all should know that the government would only use it in the case of massive attacks from a foreign entity

Which 'reality' do you live in where the government would never abuse its power for its own ends?

Well, which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35220728)

Are we protecting the internet, or the world-wide web? Or this distincition just not made on slashdot any more?

What are "ground rules" exactly? (3, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220786)

From Wikipedia:

In baseball, ground rules are special rules particular to each baseball park (grounds) in which the game is played. Unlike the well-defined playing field of most other sports, the playing area of a baseball field extends to an outfield fence in fair territory and the stadium seating in foul territory. The unique design of each ballpark, including fences, dugouts, bullpens, railings, stadium domes, photographer's wells and TV camera booths, requires that rules be defined to handle situations in which these objects may interact or interfere with the ball in play or with the players.

So a "ground rule" that warrants an Internet kill switch in my ballpark, doesn't necessarily mean that you can hit the kill switch in your ballpark.

In other words, the US is allowed to hit the Internet kill switch in their ballpark (ground rule). Egypt isn't (no ground rule).

Constitutional Amendment (0)

tarlss (627609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220798)

How about federally guaranteeing every citizen has a connection to the internet?

How about treating internet providers like utility providers? Every land lord should have the duty to make heat, electricity, water, and internet available to citizens.

Honestly, I think we should make it a constitutional amendment to grant citizens the right to access an unfettered and open internet.

Clinton? (2)

karios (1501875) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220824)

Damn! The first time I read Clingon instea of Clinton. That would be newsworthy alright! ( I need more coffee )

Oh really? (1)

Poodleboy (226682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35220922)

Presumably, then, by "openness" Ms. Clinton means "subject only to regulation by big media," because until the Obama administration makes material strides to back the FCC in regulating real net neutrality, that's what we get. Our internet speech may not be impeded by the red-herring "kill switch," but it surely will by the Verizons and Comcasts and AT&Ts that control the packets.

Oh what's da point? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221098)

Even if we make it so the megalomaniacs and powermongers can't touch the Internet, they'll just find a way around it like cutting all power to the grid....

Can't have it both ways (1)

dead_user (1989356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35221256)

From TFA: "protecting both transparency and confidentiality" Yeah, those are basically mutually exclusive.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...