×

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!

DHS Wants Mozilla To Disable Mafiaafire Plugin, Mozilla Resists

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the just-a-polite-note-from-the-well-armed-neighbors dept.

Government 360

Davis Freeberg writes "The Department of Homeland Security is hard at work again, protecting the industry from websites that the big studios don't want you to see. This time they're targeting the Mafiaafire plugin by asking Mozilla to disable the addon at the root level. Instead of blindly complying with the government's request, Mozilla has decided to ask some tough questions instead. Unsurprisingly, when faced with legitimate concerns about the legality of their domain seizure program, the DHS has decided to clam up."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

360 comments

A reasonable stance (5, Insightful)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042182)

It's good to see that Mozilla is holding strong to their core values. DHS needs more people willing to question what they do. Blind compliance to government demands is anti-American and it saddens me to see so many people simply fall in line.

Re:A reasonable stance (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042224)

I still don't understand why the Department of Homeland Security has to be involved with websites. Shouldn't that be reserved for the cyberpolice? That's where I report all the people who'd done goof'd.

Re:A reasonable stance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042306)

Shouldn't they be more concerned with getting Osama Bin Laden and not a blood relative?

Re:A reasonable stance (5, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042318)

Yea, I'm not sure on what child pornography or even (the horror!) media/software pirates have to do with National Security either...

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042888)

Media/Software piracy hands out media for free.

This is clearly a commie plot to destroy American values.

Re:A reasonable stance (2)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042508)

I kind of figured that web sites were shielded by the first amendment. Since when did a person need a web site to download, FTP has been around longer than WWW.

Re:A reasonable stance (5, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042302)

Absolutely. I was particularly glad to see, in the full list of questions asked [scribd.com] , that they question the seizure program itself, not just the dubious claims about the plug-in. The list is as follows (the source linked above is apparently a copy of the official email):

April 19, 2011 email from Mozilla to US Department of Homeland Security Special Agent
To help us evaluate the Department of Homeland Security's request to take-down/remove the MAFIAAfire.com add-on from Mozilla's websites, can you please provide the following additional information:
1. Have any courts determined that MAFIAAfire.com is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)
2. Have any courts determined that the seized domains related to MAFIAAfire.com are unlawful, illegal or liable for infringement in any way? (please provide relevant rulings)
3. Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.
4. Has DHS, or any copyright owners involved in this matter, taken any legal action against MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domains, including DMCA requests?
5. What protections are in place for MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domain owners if eventually a court decides they were not unlawful?
6. Can you please provide copies of any briefs that accompanied the affidavit considered by the court that issued the relevant seizure orders?
7. Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down MAFIAAfire.com is based?
8. Please identify exactly what the infringements by the owners of the domains consisted of, with reference to the substantive standards of Section 106 and to any case law establishing that the actions of the seized domain owners consti tuted civil or criminal copyright infringement.
9. Did any copyright owners furnish affidavits in connection with the domain seizures? Had any copyright owners served DMCA takedown notices on the seized
domains or MAFIAAfire.com? (if so please provide us with a copy)
10. Has the Government furnished the domain owners with formal notice of the seizures, triggering the time period for a response by the owners? If so, when, and have there been any responses yet by owners?
11. Has the Government communicated its concerns directly with MAFIAAfire.com? If so, what response, if any, did MAFIAAfire.com make?

Re:A reasonable stance (5, Insightful)

davide marney (231845) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042516)

12. Under which section(s) of the law is your request authorized, and what are the names and contact information of the DHS agents who are requesting that this action be taken?

Re:A reasonable stance (3, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042810)

13. Who died and made you God?

(they think they are!)

Re:A reasonable stance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36043008)

Your individuality.

The DHS.

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36043112)

14. Since I am a voter, you work for me. So, you won't be mad when I tell you to go fuck yourself.

Re:A reasonable stance (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042362)

>>>Blind compliance to government demands is anti-American and it saddens me to see so many people simply fall in line.

I had a former classmate call me an "idiot" because I refused to let my car be searched by the Homeland SA. He's right that it would be easier to comply, but the law is the law. I obey the law and I expect government employees to obey the law too.

No search without court-issued warrant,
and affirmed by oath before the judge.

Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit, like if a mass murderer just escaped from prison, but not while I'm trying to enjoy a nice summer drive and no emergency exists. They've ALL sworn to obey that law. So let them obey it, instead of ignoring it.

Re:A reasonable stance (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042460)

Do you really think that DHS cares about the law? They're jack booted thugs, they couldn't be more neo-Nazi if Hugo Boss were designing their uniforms. If they thought that you had something that they really wanted they'd disappear your ass and throw you in Guantanamo Bay with the rest of the "enemy combatants." The only reason you got away with refusing a search is that they probably didn't think you were worth the effort, and by the sounds of it, you aren't. Not because you "know your rights," which DHS has not, does not and never will give a flying fuck about what rights you think you have.

Re:A reasonable stance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042484)

they couldn't be more neo-Nazi

And... Godwin'ed. 9 posts in. You're slipping, Slashdot.

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042612)

Prepare to get Binned!

Hey mozilla, I recommend you do what they say. Unless, of course, you want a 3AM wake up call by a dozen Navy SEALS with orders to shoot you in the face.

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042714)

You are more naive than you accuse him of being. And you know it, which is why you try so hard to come off as a jaded cynic.

Re:A reasonable stance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042510)

Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit, like if a mass murderer just escaped from prison

Please explain.
I'd hate to go all "but that's a slippery slope" on you.

Are you willing to bend your willingness to allow yourself to be searched if "a murderer just escaped"?
Or are you willing to grant the government powers to search anyone if "a murderer just escaped"?

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042592)

I'm not necessarily saying I agree, but the logic behind granting government/law enforcement relevant and specific increased powers in times of emergency is not necessarily faulty. The actual problem is that we can't trust them not to say "Yup, potential terrorists everywhere. War going on, too. Sounds like an emergency to me; go get the cavity searchin' gloves, Gary."

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042792)

Or are you willing to grant the government powers to search anyone if "a murderer just escaped"?

I'm not the original AC.

But as for me, I'm willing to grant the government that power if, and only if, an officer of the law is willing to say, under oath if required, that the circumstances were exigent. The courts have already ruled that he's got that power, and with pretty good reason.

Knock on my door and ask if you can come in, I'll say not without a warrant. Break down my door without a warrant, and after the dust has settled, we'll either shake hands and go our separate ways, or we'll settle our differences as to whether or not the entry was lawful or not in court.

Maybe the cop really did see a escaped murder ducking into my garage 30 seconds ago. Maybe he's just some roided up pig who wants to vent his roid rage on a random civilian and I'm the unlucky guy in his sights. Maybe it's somewhere in between - he's got a perfectly valid warrant but was too stupid to read it correctly (or the issuing judge was too stupid to type it up correctly!) and accidentally broke down the door of our hypothetical fugitive's neighbor.

The time and place to settle those, and similar, differences of opinion is in court. You settle those differences of opinion with polite words, articles in the newspaper, recall petitions against the DA and mayor, and civil rights lawsuits against the town. You do not settle those issues with bullets and fists. Not just because the cops have an infinite supply of both, but because it's just plain uncivilized for grown adults to settle their differences that way. Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. In that order.

Re:A reasonable stance (5, Insightful)

rjh (40933) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042626)

First, calling them the "Homeland SA" is kind of like referring to "Bushitler." It's both historically ignorant and profoundly offensive to a lot of people. The Sturmabteilung [wikipedia.org] had a career of evil the likes of which I hope to never again see. If you sincerely believe the DHS merits comparison to the SA, then your only choice is to take up arms against your government.

Second, unless the DHS agents said "screw you and the Fourth Amendment, we're going to search you anyway!", then it sounds as if they obeyed the law just fine. They're allowed to ask you for permission to search your vehicle, and you have the right to say no. Where's the illegality?

Re:A reasonable stance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042856)

Yes, it's easier to comply with the law, whether it's to let them search your car without a warrant or give them a bribe, or whatever.

If you want freedom, then you have to fight for it, you have to endure frustration and humiliation and other *ations, I'm sure Americans have a lot of quotes about this considering their experience. No sarcasm intended.

Found some here:
http://thinkexist.com/quotations/freedom/

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042876)

I've had enough relatives murdered by UB ("Bureau of Security") to see the likes of Commission of Homeland Security (KGB), Securitate, Stasi, Gestapo and anything of their ilk as not exactly forces for "not evil".

And yeah, saying "screw you and the Fourth Amendment" is exactly what they're saying.

Re:A reasonable stance (2)

rjh (40933) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042932)

Yeah, but we've already established that in the OP's anecdote the DHS agents did respect the Fourth Amendment. They had neither a warrant nor his consent, so he wasn't searched. Where's the 'screw you and the Fourth Amendment' you're talking about?

Re:A reasonable stance (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042388)

this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

Re:A reasonable stance (2)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042482)

this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

There's a Chrome plugin too; maybe the lesson is to not use IE or Safari.

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

BinarySolo (1951210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042534)

this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

There's a Chrome plugin too; maybe the lesson is to not use IE or Safari.

The point of his comparison has nothing to do with the plugin or its availability.

Re:A reasonable stance (1)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042752)

this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

There's a Chrome plugin too; maybe the lesson is to not use IE or Safari.

The point of his comparison has nothing to do with the plugin or its availability.

Well, until Google removes its own version of the plugin without telling anyone, it kind of is. We've already seen Google stand up to censorship before [cnn.com] , and in fact stands to lose hundreds of millions, even billions, in doing so, so while I'll admit they're not as pure as I'd like them to be, they still are a sight better than some other companies I can name.

Re:A reasonable stance (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042584)

NO. He meant you should *support* Mozilla because they fight government tyranny. Google would have just complied with this request w/o a fight.

I'm concerned about what I've read about this addon: "MafiaaFire Redirector hasn't any build-in list of redirected sites. MafiaaFire Redirector download the "redirect list" from 4 websites:
http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list.php [mafiaafire.com]
http://ifucksexygirls.com/xml-update/xml-list2.php [ifucksexygirls.com]
http://ezee.se/xml-update/xml-list3.php [ezee.se]
http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list1.php [mafiaafire.com] "

Re:A reasonable stance (2)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042970)

How can you have concerns with downloading updates fro ifucksexygirls.com

on a serious note, I could see DHS seizing the 3 .com domains in that list just because of this plugin.

Re:A reasonable stance (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042436)

Many, if not most humans seem to be authoritarians, who are comforted by the idea of some all powerful authority overseeing things, be it God, the Government, Karma, or the Company. When it looks as though they are not actually authoritarians, it is usually just because they don't like that particular authority. Show them one they like and they will fall all over themselves kissing its ass.

Re:A reasonable stance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042906)

I love the wide-brush stereotypical "authoritarian" rant. It ironically lends credence to the wide-brush "Slashdotters are angsty anti-social misfit libertiarians" rant.

GJ fitting the mold.

A Pompous Stance (1)

Chicken_Kickers (1062164) | more than 2 years ago | (#36043044)

So, Mozilla can't win can they. IF they stick it to the Man, then it is because they coincidentally don't like this particular Man. If they bow down to the Man, then it is as expected. I wonder how you go through life with such a jaded and cynical outlook. Mozilla has done the right thing, morally and legalistically. They deserve to be praised.

LOL, American freedom! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042190)

LOL! American freedom! LOL!

This will drive a record number of people (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042196)

This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

Re:This will drive a record number of people (5, Insightful)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042468)

I'd never heard of it before, but now I'm trying it out.

Streisand Effect is go.

Re:This will drive a record number of people (1)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042496)

This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

Wish I could; where the heck is it? I don't see it on the Mozilla website. I could certainly just download it from MAFIAAFire.com or whatever, but shouldn't it be there too?

Re:This will drive a record number of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042704)

There you go:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/

Re:This will drive a record number of people (5, Interesting)

Groo Wanderer (180806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042596)

I don't go to 'seized' sites, and have never been to one. I have no reason to go, but the ICE's illegal actions, not to mention the MAFIAA's, make me fundamentally distrust my own government.

Like many others, I just installed the plugin. And will promote it. Yay to teh intertubes.

            -Charlie

Re:This will drive a record number of people (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042852)

I have no reason to go [to seized sites]

This is a strange way to look at it, since it presumes that you know something about what sites whose names may be seized. I can understand that, since the seizures are currently being characterized as being for anti-piracy purposes, so if you're not into piracy, it makes sense to believe this won't affect you.

But as usual with runaway government, one of the main reasons people are so pissed about this has more to do with the lack of due process than the stated agenda itself. You don't know that only "bad" sites will be seized, because no one is overseeing the seizures and watching the watchers. You only have their word that they've only been interfering with piracy-related sites, therefore you only have their word that you have no reason to go to the kinds of sites which may be seized. This is purely an article of faith, and really has nothing to do with the kinds of sites that you visi-- oh, wait, I get it. You only go to pro-government-religion sites. Aha. Ok, never mind, I believe you now.

Re:This will drive a record number of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042948)

This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

I was vaguely aware of this, but didn't think to much about it.

Now?

Plugin installed.

DHS chose the wrong people (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042202)

Of all places, why would the DHS think that Mozilla would cooperate with their domain seizure program?

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (5, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042236)

Because DHS exists in a fantasy land where everything in the world serves the interests of the United States and her wealthy ruling class. Disagree and we'll send a few hookers to blow you, then claim rape and extradite you to Guantanamo.

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042342)

rant on: (I agree with you assemblerex, this is not voiced at you)

Yea, because people with different morals than the population at large are such a risk to National Security that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. ... what the FUCK people!?

OK, I get that you think Child Porn is wrong. I personally agree, but even so, what the fuck does that have to do with National Security? The same can be asked about media piracy! You might as well just say it: you're all equating MP3 downloads to terrorism or treason. Once more. What the FUCK!?

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042476)

Becaue Pakistan hiding Bin Laden is less important than Joey age 17 getting fondled. Lights Out.

Another piece elsewhere profiled a 3 year Seattle infiltration case for big dollars that really didn't do much.

We seriously need to shake up Big Gov, but it's getting harder.

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042944)

> Becaue Pakistan hiding Bin Laden is less important than Joey age 17 getting fondled. Lights Out.

If this was true then the head of DHS and all the TSA staff who sexually assault and film the sexual assaults of adults and children at airports would have been shot in the same manner as Bin Laden by law enforcement - or at the very least jailed. Ergo it isnt.

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042570)

The claims I have seen is that media piracy, counterfeit goods, and child porn are being sold by groups who then use them to fund terrorism and other anti-American activities. That said, counterfeit goods I could see, child porn less so, but media piracy from torrent sites and streaming sites? Yeah, giving stuff away for free really helps to fund terrorism.

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#36043062)

Yea, because people with different morals than the population at large are such a risk to National Security that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. ...

'Department of Homeland Security' was much easier to ram rod through Congress than "Department of Pretty Much Everything and the Kitchen Sink that isn't Covered by the Other Big Departments'. It has nothing to do with security (that should be obvious). Gotta have a catchy title these days or it just doesn't fly.

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (5, Insightful)

joe_frisch (1366229) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042462)

Hey - I'm, a member of the US "wealthy ruling class" and DHS doesn't serve my interests! I think Mozilla acted completely appropriately.

I think our freedom from unlawful seizure, and our freedom of speech is more important than tracking down people swapping stolen entertainment content,or distributing child porn. (assuming that DHS's actions even helped with either of those - something I'm not sure I believe).

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042962)

No offense, but if someone is actually a member of the "wealthy ruling class", they aren't posing on /. You sir... are the middle class, because only the middle class likes to think of themselves as uber wealthy while still posting on /.

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (2)

joe_frisch (1366229) | more than 2 years ago | (#36043094)

How wealthy and how small is this "wealthy ruling class". You are talking more than people who made a killing on stock options during the internet boom? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a few ultra-wealthy ex-nerds post on slashdot, though possibly anonymously.

Re:DHS chose the wrong people (2)

dcollins (135727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36043100)

Granted that (a) 99 places in 100 will comply immediately, and (b) it costs next to nothing to send a request like this out, the cost/benefit analysis is (sadly) in favor of sending the request prior to anyone even spending time making a judgment about the character of the specific institution. That's a Tier 2 job.

Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it out.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042214)

Streisand effect. Before today, I never heard of the Mafiaafire plugin... but I'm going to look into it right now.
probably download it, even if I don't use it whatever it may be.

Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou (4, Interesting)

omglolbah (731566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042226)

There are some trust issues with the redirect lists but other than that it is nice

Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042256)

Yeah if they can fix that up I will install it, now that I have heard about it... not that I even think I am likely to run into a banned domain.

That's exactly what they want (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042526)

They put some DHS code into mafiaafire right before they did this, to subvert subversive people.

Re:That's exactly what they want (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042924)

They put some DHS code into mafiaafire right before they did this, to subvert subversive people.

But users of subblock-plus will never see the subvertizement.

Well (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042228)

I'm glad to see that DHS has lots of free time on their hands, now that OBL is dead.

But if they aren't going to spend time on homeland security, we should disband the monster.

Probably should anyway...

Re:Well (1)

godless dave (844089) | more than 2 years ago | (#36043124)

No kidding. We already have a Defense Department and a National Security Agency. Or is there a difference between the "nation" and the "homeland" that I'm unaware of?

So Glad (5, Insightful)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042268)

That US ICE even considers "pirate" and "child porn" websites to be in the same category.

fuck you lameoids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042280)

Herp derp the "mafiaa". Yes, let's trivialize the people who have suffered at the hands of the real mafia by whining that some other group is trying to prevent you from taking movies, music, etc for free.

Re:fuck you lameoids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042316)

Name one person.

I dare you.

Where's your warrant? (5, Interesting)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042296)

Good call. Whatever you want to call the system of government, one thing it *isn't* supposed to be is an autocracy. Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

Yeah right (3, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042352)

Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

[crickets]

Thought so...

Re:Yeah right (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042724)

Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

[crickets]

Thought so...

...And yet, the largest grass-roots citizen group whose goal is to reduce the size & scope of the Federal Government precisely to avoid this kind of heavy-handed un-Constitutional crap is regularly ridiculed and disparaged by most of the posters here who claim to hate this sort of government intrusion and overstepping of powers.

I should form a company and grab some ad space on /. to sell "foot-guns". I'd be able to buy-out both Trump and Soros in a year.

Strat

Re:Yeah right (3, Insightful)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36043012)

Nope, nope, nope. The Teabaggers are ridiculed because they are a bunch of mentally diseased lunatics\idiots being led by mentally disease lunatics\puppets for the ruling class. You don't really think that Glenn Beck wants to stop the DHS from policing the internet, do you?
99% of them are just there because they think that the 500$ they would save by shutting down all schools would make them rich. And the other 1% are there to convince the other 99% that that is in their best interest.

Re:Yeah right (4, Insightful)

lennier (44736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042858)

Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

They already have, and loudly. Everyone who votes for one of the two mainstream parties thinks this, or they'd be voicing their displeasure by voting for a third party. That's why third parties exist. The fact that third parties don't get elected means that the majority of US voters don't, in fact, feel enough of a disconnect with the Democrats or Republicans to actually vote them out.

It's pleasant to think that your views about the unrepresentativeness of mainstream US elected government are widespread and the majority - but the facts don't seem to actually bear this out.

The majority actually do think their government is working for them - when their party is in power - and are quite happy to turn a blind eye to any abuses of the rights of the other 49% of Americans. The other party is of course committing the most horrible atrocities since Hitler, and creating the biggest constitutional crises since Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon, and the other 49% of voters are all evil, stupid, deluded sheep who adhere to a morally corrupt and self-contradictory political philosophy - but their party and supporters are entirely composed of hard-working, honest, shining crusaders for political reform who arrived at all their political positions from first principles derived from the Law of Identity.

The minority party supporters laugh at this, because they know that it's really only their party who are honest shining crusaders and 99% of the voters who are deluded and philosophically bankrupt.

Re:Yeah right (1)

serialband (447336) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042926)

Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

[crickets]

Thought so...

So what are you doing to change that? The government is working for us in a way, but you need to speak up. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the smaller wheels need to squeak louder to get heard.

Consider Donating (4, Insightful)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042308)

Even though this doesn't look like it's going to trial, you might want to consider saying "thank you" by donating [mozilla.org] .

Re:Consider Donating (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042582)

Good job sir,

You just gave me a wonderful excuse to end up with a Mozilla plush toy! :)

*glee*

Re:Consider Donating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042844)

Does anyone really know who fondled your plush toy last? Did they even wash beforehand? Did they wash afterward? Did they wash the plushy? I think I'm about to be sick - just the thought of plushy porn makes me ill!

I hate Government (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042314)

This story is one of the main reasons why. Instead of doing the job the government was created to do (protect individual rights from thieves, murderers, etc), the politicians/bureaucrats are the ones doing the infringing on those rights.

"If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

Re:I hate Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042564)

My question is: why do you hate Jefferson and if he sues you for libel, would you hate government for that too?

In fact, what Jefferson said was "Perhaps it will be found that to obtain a just republic (and it is to secure our just rights that we resort to government at all) it must be so extensive as that local egoisms may never reach it’s greater part, that on every particular question, a majority may be found in it’s councils free from particular interests, and giving therefore an uniform prevalence to the principles of justice. The smaller the societies, the more violent and more convulsive their schisms."

"If you don't want to look like a moron, do your fucking research and stop parroting retarded libertarian bullshit you read online." - Thomas Paine

Re:I hate Government (4, Funny)

lennier (44736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042936)

The smaller the societies, the more violent and more convulsive their schisms.

"They told me a city at the bottom of the ocean populated entirely by paranoid sociopaths would fracture into civil war, so you know what I did? I set them on fire. With bees." -- Andrew Ryan.

Re:I hate Government (4, Interesting)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042840)

This story is one of the main reasons why. Instead of doing the job the government was created to do (protect individual rights from thieves, murderers, etc), the politicians/bureaucrats are the ones doing the infringing on those rights.

I love America because Mozilla can do what they did, and are right by it.

I also enjoy exercising my free speech and calling you a fucking idiot.

"If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

"only to protect our rights" in no way minimizes the role of government.

What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

Don't forget this question (1)

tryggth (879914) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042418)

Who within the Dept. Initiated the request, and what prompted them?

Re:Don't forget this question (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042880)

AHHHH-HAAAA! Had you RTFA, you would know that was one of the questions that Mozilla asked DHS! Gotcha!

Source (1)

Banichi (1255242) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042438)

Would someone inform me of what changes to make regarding stopping the plugin from redirecting traffic every 15 pages? Or even provide a link to a version of the plugin that doesn't do that?
http://mafiaafire.com/wall-of-text.php#s [mafiaafire.com]

Re:Source (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042620)

Would someone inform me of what changes to make regarding stopping the plugin from redirecting traffic every 15 pages? Or even provide a link to a version of the plugin that doesn't do that?
http://mafiaafire.com/wall-of-text.php#s [mafiaafire.com]

It's the mafiaafire plugin. Of course it's gonna take a cut.

Re:Source (4, Insightful)

StayFrosty (1521445) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042632)

fireICE [mozilla.org] is a rewrite that gets rid of the nag screen and addresses some of the privacy concerns the author had with the original MafiaaFire.

Futile at best (1)

sl149q (1537343) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042520)

If mafiaafire is removed, I'm sure that mafiaafire2 will soon be added to the plugin lists. Then thisisnotmafiafire, etc, etc, etc.

Re:Futile at best (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042768)

It's nice to remember that we can easily install Firefox extensions that are not hosted at Mozilla.org. There is no way to forbid users from installing any particular extension -- even if Mozilla is required to remove the extension in the official listing, we can get it somewhere else.

Police state. (1)

SeNtM (965176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042658)

Now that Osama bin Fucktard is gone, it is time to take this police state back.

Re:Police state. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042790)

Didn't you hear? Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead, we must be even more vigilant, because there might be some sort of revenge.

Convenient, this whole Osama situation -- when he is a live, you have a boogie man constantly plotting to attack, and when he is dead, you have the looming possibility of revenge attacks. Citizens can always be convinced to give up their rights these days, since we are always fighting wars that have no possibility of a meaningful victory.

Re:Police state. (2)

SeNtM (965176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042834)

This is why he was dumped off the back of a ship with no witnesses. Its hard to be a martyr with no proof of death...

They didn't clam up (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042690)

Unsurprisingly, when faced with legitimate concerns about the legality of their domain seizure program, the DHS has decided to clam up."

This just means that they are in process of preparing the papers to get Mozilla.org, and related domains seized.

what about just host entries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36042742)

Shouldn't this kind of thing be done with either a local DNS or just some entries in /etc/hosts?

A browser plugin restricts it to just the browser, and has certain trust issues.

Seems like plain text is the way to go and much simpler.

Proud of Mozilla (1)

jenic (1231704) | more than 2 years ago | (#36042910)

I normally don't post offhand comments but I just feel really compelled to say how good I feel about the donations I've made to Mozilla. I felt good about them before, but this just makes it that much better!

Copyright enfringement a national security issue? (5, Insightful)

godless dave (844089) | more than 2 years ago | (#36043032)

Why is the Department of Homeland Security involved in copyright enforcement at all? It's not a national security issue. I can see parts of the Justice Department being involved, and certainly the FCC and the department of commerce. But Homeland Security? Aren't they supposed to defend the country from physical attacks by enemies? Forgive me if this has been asked and answered.
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...