Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/pipa_letter/?akid=799.99906.eC_82P&rd=1&t=1

I found this, and I am curious on other people's stance on this particular issue. Does anyone know where we can find more information on this specifically?

From what the video shows there, TI could easily file that Brandonw.net violates laws because it has a picture and information on hacking their calculators. Am I correct in this assumption or do you think it is something that won't go that far?
I don't think the government would take down BrandonW's site because it doesn't contain copyrighted material as far as I can tell, which seems to be the bill's main purpose. I'm against this bill since I feel that it's a violation of the First Amendment, and because the government can't really regulate what its citizens do on the Internet. Even if this bill was passed, there would definitely be ways to go around it.
I think corporations will do whatever they want as long as the government doesn't oppose them. If they want to arrest you for talking about hacking calculators, they'll do it. They just need to buy enough congressmen to pass laws like this.
souvik1997 wrote:
I don't think the government would take down BrandonW's site because it doesn't contain copyrighted material as far as I can tell, which seems to be the bill's main purpose. I'm against this bill since I feel that it's a violation of the First Amendment, and because the government can't really regulate what its citizens do on the Internet. Even if this bill was passed, there would definitely be ways to go around it.


The first amendment, contrary to popular belief, does *NOT* allow you to say anything you want. Nor does it allow you to do anything you want. The government can absolutely regulate what you do on the internet just as they regulate everything else you can do.
The bill, if passed, would do effectively nothing except increase the number of proxy servers available. Anyone who wanted to get around the bill could do so very easily. That's ignoring the fact that sites could just change the server IP if they have the ability. The only "solution" for companies in response to that is to blacklist whole blocks, which may or may not be reasonable.
Qwerty.55 wrote:
The bill, if passed, would do effectively nothing except increase the number of proxy servers available. Anyone who wanted to get around the bill could do so very easily. That's ignoring the fact that sites could just change the server IP if they have the ability. The only "solution" for companies in response to that is to blacklist whole blocks, which may or may not be reasonable.

It's certainly feasible for Omnimaga admins in their zealous pursuit of banning all those who disagree with them.
Kllrnohj wrote:
souvik1997 wrote:
I don't think the government would take down BrandonW's site because it doesn't contain copyrighted material as far as I can tell, which seems to be the bill's main purpose. I'm against this bill since I feel that it's a violation of the First Amendment, and because the government can't really regulate what its citizens do on the Internet. Even if this bill was passed, there would definitely be ways to go around it.


The first amendment, contrary to popular belief, does *NOT* allow you to say anything you want. Nor does it allow you to do anything you want. The government can absolutely regulate what you do on the internet just as they regulate everything else you can do.


Actually, I've discovered over time that the Constitution and all it's amendments mean exactly dick. It's like the Bible. It'll say exactly what the people who "interpret" it want it to say.
Qwerty.55 wrote:
The bill, if passed, would do effectively nothing except increase the number of proxy servers available. Anyone who wanted to get around the bill could do so very easily. That's ignoring the fact that sites could just change the server IP if they have the ability. The only "solution" for companies in response to that is to blacklist whole blocks, which may or may not be reasonable.
Which would turn into an escalating cat-and-mouse game, like all other adversarial security situations, like DRM and DRM cracking, or piracy and anti-piracy efforts, or even security researchers that write crypto algorithms and the whitehat security researchers that try to break them.
The one thing I could see happening is the possibility of the emergence of rouge DNS hosts that while not hosting any illegal material could be setup to return the proper IP's for sites that have been blocked by bills like this. Its easy enough to set alternative DNS servers on any OS. This IMO would be terrible as if it gets out of hand because in the long run it could lead to a distrust of the currently very stable and mostly secure DNS system.

It was bad enough when verisign and then ISP started to break things by returning bogus results for unknown hosts instead of the proper not found response. The thought of any organization being able to just decide which IP that host belongs to bothers me greatly.
DShiznit wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
souvik1997 wrote:
I don't think the government would take down BrandonW's site because it doesn't contain copyrighted material as far as I can tell, which seems to be the bill's main purpose. I'm against this bill since I feel that it's a violation of the First Amendment, and because the government can't really regulate what its citizens do on the Internet. Even if this bill was passed, there would definitely be ways to go around it.


The first amendment, contrary to popular belief, does *NOT* allow you to say anything you want. Nor does it allow you to do anything you want. The government can absolutely regulate what you do on the internet just as they regulate everything else you can do.


Actually, I've discovered over time that the Constitution and all it's amendments mean exactly dick. It's like the Bible. It'll say exactly what the people who "interpret" it want it to say.


Huzzah, for once I agree with you 100000% Laughing

The constitution can say whatever it wants, but the judge makes the final judgement; they are the ones meant to interpret its meaning. Even if their meaning is different than what interpreted.

For example: the first amendment gives freedom of speech; yet you can't say "I'm going to kill the president" or "I have a bomb on this airplane" without going to jail. You can say it, yeah, once. A second example is if you say something politically-incorrect like "black people a generally poor and stupid" -- no one will even arrest you for that, but good luck finding a job Wink
Ashbad, Freedom of speech =/ Freedom to say whatever you want

@Nikky, any school that would accept you isn't likely to produce any BrandonW's, so that's okay Razz

@Kerm, and the people in violation of the law would win through sheer numbers and anonymity.
Qwerty.55 wrote:
\@Nikky, any school that would accept you isn't likely to produce any BrandonW's, so that's okay Razz

I have no idea what this even means. School? Brandon W? Are you on crack or something?
Qwerty.55 wrote:
Ashbad, Freedom of speech =/ Freedom to say whatever you want


Didn't I pretty much exactly say that, and more?
Does pointing a laser-dot at the president's head during a town hall constitute free speech?
allynfolksjr wrote:
Qwerty.55 wrote:
\@Nikky, any school that would accept you isn't likely to produce any BrandonW's, so that's okay Razz

I have no idea what this even means. School? Brandon W? Are you on crack or something?

I guess he was thinking that Western Valley State Agricultural Community College (go bovines!) was banned or something. If this occurred, I suppose I had forgotten about it entirely. I was more referring to their practices of simply banning entire /8 blocks when they felt like it.
DShiznit wrote:
Does pointing a laser-dot at the president's head during a town hall constitute free speech?


You have the right to hold arms Wink
DShiznit wrote:
Does pointing a laser-dot at the president's head during a town hall constitute free speech?
How is that speech? I don't see how that's in any way speech or something the freedom of which should be protected. How about shining a laser dot on your or my head from a hidden location? I wouldn't want that to be protected "speech" somehow. But what the hell does this have to do with copyrighted material? You guys are just the tops at derailing topics.
Ashbad, I believe you mean "Right to _bear_ arms", not "hold".

Let's get back to the main topic and forget this stuff about laser pointers and such. As Kerm said, laser pointers have nothing to do with copyrighted material. Try and keep things pertaining to the original topic or wait for another topic to come along where you can talk about laser pointers, presidents, etc.

I really hope something like this bill doesn't pass. Doing something like this will just cause people to find new ways around it. And as they do that, the government will just keep thinking of new ways to block them, until everything is locked down and the Internet is unusable. Granted, it probably won't reach that point. And, AFAICT, BrandonW's site doesn't have any copyrighted materials. Except for, perhaps, the signing keys, but I don't think those count since they are everywhere, too.
*ahem* brandon's site does contain certain things I won't mention.
*ahem*

http://www.hidemyass.com/proxy-list/

Filter out US-based proxies and you're golden.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 3
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement