What's new
By:

Acta signed!!!!

I'd like to see some smart and in the postive aspect of the term "progressive", meaning trying to enhance the quality and value of life, folks like Kicky and One Brow actually get interested in applying their considerable talents in bringing credible public attention to issues of declining personal rights and protection from overlordyism run amok.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people just isn't as good as government of the Corporations, by their toady bought-and-paid-for phony "peoples' representatives", and for the Corporations just isn't going to be as good. . . .

Well, actually, government has been more in the service of the moneyed interests for a lot longer than even this country has been in existence, and we were always "exceptional" when we still had people like Dutchjazzer insisting on human rights.
 
DutchJazzer said:
the problem with internet is if i could hack into your pc/tabelt/smartphone. i have cameras and micropones in your house. ooh wait you dont need privacy in your home just saying acta has far reaching privacy concerns.

under the norm of piracy.
just like patriot act under the norm of terroism

or various internt filters under the norm of child pornography.(the uk one just blocking of sites without a court order

dont get my wrong terrorism and child pornography are wrong and piracy to a certain extent.

but for example the child porn filter is now being used for piracy(the uk one). after they promised to only use it for CP. so now add piracy to the list its a slippery slope sooner or later it would be used to filter other stuff maybe even anti goverment websites.
Click to expand...

Incoherent.
 
babe said:
I'd like to see some smart and in the postive aspect of the term "progressive", meaning trying to enhance the quality and value of life, folks like Kicky and One Brow actually get interested in applying their considerable talents in bringing credible public attention to issues of declining personal rights and protection from overlordyism run amok.
Click to expand...

If you are really going to focus on privacy issues, you need to focus on situaitons where actual privacy is in play, not the illusion of anonymity.
 
Like Kicky, I have only skimmed through the criticisms of ACTA as laid out by the European public interest research group. None of us have the actual language of the current draft of the agreement, and apparently in the course of enlisting more national signatories they are open to amendments and changes. But apparently the very process is being conducted out of the public view, and is therefore inherently elistist, undemocratic strategy for addressing this problem, and obviously being done for the protection of major concerns like the movie, music and other commercial interests who are being "ripped off" in some places by knockoff reproductions. The scope of the agreement has been broadened to include use of materials in the internet and other more or less "free" sharing mediums. In fact the language appears to be so broad and all-inclusive it could conceivably be applied to say, an artist re-drawing the Mona Lisa with maybe some humorous twist.

Why is your set point on dismissing concerns for what this obviously anti-democratic type of "legislative body" is producing, that obviously is going to end up having a huge impact on you and everybody else.

Why are you drinking this cool aid just because it is being offered under a professed good intention?

It is my "insider" knowledge that the purpose ultimately to be addressed will make it impossible for individuals to discuss the news in a comprehensive manner, including quotations and comparisons from different news retailers, without getting permission and maybe even paying for the use. The news will not any longer be for everybody, just those who pay for it. It will also make discussions like this impossible. And force us to purchase our information at virtually every bend in the road.

It is absolutely and undeniably undemocratic, and goes far beyond merely collecting royalties for entertainment.
 
Dutch, logg, and babe, are spot on. I don't see how anyone can be informed about this and not be concerned about it.

Deep packet inspection is bad news. And giving anyone authority to use it, basically whenever they want, with no warrant, is bad news.

There is a reason this is all being done behind closed doors.
 
One Brow said:
If you are really going to focus on privacy issues, you need to focus on situaitons where actual privacy is in play, not the illusion of anonymity.
Click to expand...

To follow up on this point: part of credibility on an issue is not falling victim to the chicken little routine. That's especially true when it's founded upon claims that posting a youtube video of your child's birthday is going to run you into serious piracy problems.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Dutch, logg, and babe, are spot on. I don't see how anyone can be informed about this and not be concerned about it.

Deep packet inspection is bad news. And giving anyone authority to use it, basically whenever they want, with no warrant, is bad news.

There is a reason this is all being done behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

In intenet terms, deep packet inspection would be a lot like the government being able to randomly turn on a camera in your personal bedroom for no other reason than they saw a lot of people enter your home. It seriously compromises encryption and any other algorithm designed to protect data transfer on the internet. I don't think it is chicken-little-ish (word?) at all to be concerned about the precedent this could set and to want to understand better the controls that may or may not be in play when/if this is enforced.

Again, this is very similar to the phone tapping without warrant of the patriot act. Was everyone here in favor of that? The big difference between this and the patriot act is the patriot act at least operated under the auspices of national security from imminent terrorist attack. This new legislation could be twisted to fit almost any nefarious scheme that a company could lobby for, from checking for illegal downloads to bank account information, to personal emails. The possibility of triggering a witch-hunt atmosphere, not to mention bypassing basic constitutionality of due process, is enough to warrant a deeper look and some concern.

Here is a loaded question: Would it be more outrageous if it were happening directly under a republican regime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top