Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Internet Censorship on the Table

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    131

    Internet Censorship on the Table

    "Several lawmakers and the current Cyber Command chief Gen. Keith Alexander are toying with the notion of creating a ".secure" domain where Fourth Amendment rights to privacy are voluntarily foregone in order to keep that corner of the Internet free of cyber criminals."

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...cyber-threats/

    I think someone is getting a little nervous about Anonymous. All I can say is, good luck.

  2. #2
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by impulse418 View Post
    "to keep that corner of the Internet free of cyber criminals."
    hahaha...

    Thats funny.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    The U.S. Internet, by virtue of its adherence civil liberties, is more like the wild west. Everyone does everything online anonymously, and while that's great for liberties, it's also dangerous when cyber criminals/foreign hackers are roaming the cyber countryside.
    Idiots.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    I love how they think that they can "control" the internet, the infrastructure of which, isn't comprehensively mapped.

    IPV6 is going to give them a little bit of aid in achieving their goals, but truth be told, eventually somebody will find a way around that too.


    Long live darknets.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Saying they can make a "secure" corner of the internet by creating a 4A-free registration zone is like saying they can make Washington DC safe by making the carry of handguns by law-abiding citizens illegal.

    How's that working out for ya, Washington?

    There will be scores of teenage hackers from Eastern Europe and Asia climbing all over this "secure Internet zone" within weeks of it being created, totally PWNing the entire thing...

    Idiots.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    On one of the forums I visit, my screen name is censorshit.

    Few things are more offensive to me than censorship.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Censorship....Boooooo!





    I sure as heck wouldn't use that domain. Talk about the government knowing everything about you.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    My bank requires me to jump through some extra hoops to absolutely establish my identity before they grant access to my account. This is not censorship. This is not a violation of the 4A. The proposal is to create a substructure of the Internet that similarly requires such absolute ID in order to voluntarily participate if he wants to be fully identified and if he wants all whom he deals with to be fully identified. That is not censorship. That is not a violation of the 4A.

    Personally, I think the idea is silly and that BGs will find a way to abuse it anyway. That does not mean that the idea is not worth exploring. Just as silly is the hyperbole of calling this idea a "violation of the 4A" or "censorship." The wild-west Internet will continue to exist. A voluntary subset will also exist. Don't like it? Don't use it! That is true Liberty: The right to choose not to exercise a right!

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Why censor boobs anyhow, half the world has them, the other half wants to play with them.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    My bank requires me to jump through some extra hoops to absolutely establish my identity before they grant access to my account. This is not censorship. This is not a violation of the 4A. The proposal is to create a substructure of the Internet that similarly requires such absolute ID in order to voluntarily participate if he wants to be fully identified and if he wants all whom he deals with to be fully identified. That is not censorship. That is not a violation of the 4A.

    Personally, I think the idea is silly and that BGs will find a way to abuse it anyway. That does not mean that the idea is not worth exploring. Just as silly is the hyperbole of calling this idea a "violation of the 4A" or "censorship." The wild-west Internet will continue to exist. A voluntary subset will also exist. Don't like it? Don't use it! That is true Liberty: The right to choose not to exercise a right!
    The first part of your post: Non Sequitur
    1. Your bank; isn't required to do so by the government. (My bank doesn't ID me.)
    2. Your bank requiring your ID is not subject to the 4A because it's not the government.

    On the other hand, you're right that it isn't censorship per se and requires you to volunteer to give up your privacy but; and I'm hypothisizing here, the domain will almost certainly be censored. Wait for the bill and see what else they try to slip in there; that's what I'm really worried about.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 07-12-2011 at 02:56 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Your whole post is a non-sequitur. The government will not mandate use of .secure. The existence of the subset for voluntary use is a proposal.

    I gave the example of my bank by way of helping folks understand the actual .secure proposal (as opposed to the myth perpetuated in this thread). To participate voluntarily in the .secure subset, you have to establish your identity, much like I have to establish my identity to participate voluntarily in the subset that is my bank's Internet presence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    My bank requires me to jump through some extra hoops to absolutely establish my identity before they grant access to my account. This is not censorship. This is not a violation of the 4A. The proposal is to create a substructure of the Internet that similarly requires such absolute ID in order to voluntarily participate if he wants to be fully identified and if he wants all whom he deals with to be fully identified. That is not censorship. That is not a violation of the 4A.

    Personally, I think the idea is silly and that BGs will find a way to abuse it anyway. That does not mean that the idea is not worth exploring. Just as silly is the hyperbole of calling this idea a "violation of the 4A" or "censorship." The wild-west Internet will continue to exist. A voluntary subset will also exist. Don't like it? Don't use it! That is true Liberty: The right to choose not to exercise a right!
    Not all of the internet is "banking". Nobody is talking about account security and the like. Just remember, every piece of software is dependent upon other pieces of software, right down to the firmware embedded on peripheral devices.

    The breaches into Sonys networks were done with a simple SQL injection. One of the most outdated and trivial of "crack" attacks. Also, one of the easiest to prevent against as well. These are the people you entrust your credit card info to. Similarly, the sites affected by lulzsec that were child sites of the FBI, or one of their highly reputable "whitehat" partners (A whitehat is a hacker, or hacking group and/or company dedicated to peacefully test outside entities, usually by contract, for security risks to their IS infrastructure.), supposedly whitehats of such reputability that hacking their own systems should have been a nightmarish task for hackers/crackers/phishers to breach. These are the people you trust your security to.

    Determining what media, or content, is being passed back and forth between a client computer on a given ISP, is actually a little more dynamic than what many people think is possible.

    The ability to transfer information over the internet comes to us by segmenting information into little bits of code called "packets". A packet, in layman terms, is nothing more than say, taking a document, and cutting it up into little bits of "data" with a bit of fault tolerance to check the following packets data consistency (TCP/IP transmissions anyways), until eventually the other end is looking at the same document you sent to them, piece by itty-bitty tiny piece.

    Intercepting these documents should be, certainly, a violation of the 4th Amendment.

    We can talk about cybersecurity all we want, but so long as there is software, and so long as there are millions of routing paths, leading to millions upon millions of lines of code, you should be careful about what you submit over the internet.



    If you guys want to see some serious stuff, look up the Narus STA 6400.

    It's what the FBI and Homeland Security use in conjunction with the Patriot Act to compromise your privacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Your whole post is a non-sequitur. The government will not mandate use of .secure. The existence of the subset for voluntary use is a proposal.

    I gave the example of my bank by way of helping folks understand the actual .secure proposal (as opposed to the myth perpetuated in this thread). To participate voluntarily in the .secure subset, you have to establish your identity, much like I have to establish my identity to participate voluntarily in the subset that is my bank's Internet presence.
    My first post? Yeah, I'll go along with that; even though I was posting in reference to the OT posts above. admittedly, I was in more of a hurry to post my pictures than read the article thoroughly. My second post? Hardly. Anyway, calling mine non-sequitur dosn't make yours follow. After all, that would be a different logical fallacy.

    Back on topic, as for the hypothesis part of my second post, history has shown that once the government has something controlling in place they are extremely likely to start mandating it's use. Maybe all online payments will have to go through .secure...for our safety of course. I guess we'll find out. Bet ya 5 bucks I'm right.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 07-12-2011 at 03:20 PM. Reason: Spelling
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    The ambiguity of the Internet is probably the modern cornerstone of free speech. Even if you can't say what you want at some particular place, you can certainly do it somewhere else, and get your point across.

    The beauty of which, allows you to not go to that particular site, if you choose not to.



    The presence of "security" that the government wants to achieve is actually better defined by the word "control". A transition to IPV6 will greatly add to this ability.

    Do not kid yourself. The government wants to be able to absolutely control every facet of your internet experience, and they ARE tooling up to do so comprehensively.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Lightbulb We have a winner!

    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    The ambiguity of the Internet is probably the modern cornerstone of free speech. Even if you can't say what you want at some particular place, you can certainly do it somewhere else, and get your point across.

    The beauty of which, allows you to not go to that particular site, if you choose not to.



    The presence of "security" that the government wants to achieve is actually better defined by the word "control". A transition to IPV6 will greatly add to this ability.

    Do not kid yourself. The government wants to be able to absolutely control every facet of your internet experience, and they ARE tooling up to do so comprehensively.
    Ding ding ding ding!
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    My first post? Yeah, I'll go along with that; even though I was posting in reference to the OT posts above. admittedly, I was in more of a hurry to post my pictures than read the article thoroughly. My second post? Hardly. Anyway, calling mine non-sequitur dosn't make yours follow. After all, that would be a different logical fallacy.

    Back on topic, as for the hypothesis part of my second post, history has shown that once the government has something controlling in place they are extremely likely to start mandating it's use. Maybe all online payments will have to go through .secure...for our safety of course. I guess we'll find out. Bet ya 5 bucks I'm right.
    Then object to the mandate. Objecting to the creation of the .secure subset sans mandate is a bit like objecting to the ownership of a gun that someone might misuse!

    Again, folks, don't buy into the mythology that is being perpetuated in this thread. Find out what is actually being suggested.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Then object to the mandate. Objecting to the creation of the .secure subset sans mandate is a bit like objecting to the ownership of a gun that someone might misuse!

    Again, folks, don't buy into the mythology that is being perpetuated in this thread. Find out what is actually being suggested.
    I disagree that this is anything like objecting to a private citzen having a gun; which I have no right to do. Also, yes; as long as it remains optional. But what won't they tell you about the information they are collecting optional or not?

    If I may use your same tactic; what you are implying is like saying that it's wrong to object to gun registration because it will never be used to confiscate guns. Come on man!

    This is fertile ground for government abuse.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 07-12-2011 at 03:39 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It is still the objection to a useful tool simply because it might be misused. Foolishness. Object to the misuse.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It is still the objection to a useful tool simply because it might be misused. Foolishness. Object to the misuse.
    How can it be foolishness when "useful tools" have been misused by the government throughout history? Not looking at history is the foolishness. History has taught us that if it can be misused it will be misused; especially where the government is concerned.

    I mean; after all, the commerce clause is certainly a useful tool for government. The 16th amendment also is most useful to them. Heck, even the 14th amendment which was useful to us as well is about to get misused. I won't even get into the Liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause. Do I really need to list the hundreds of "useful tools" that have been misused over the years? Foolishness!? Ha!
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 07-12-2011 at 04:15 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    How can it be foolishness when "useful tools" have been misused by the government throughout history? Not looking at history is the foolishness. History has taught us that if it can be misused it will be misused; especially where the government is concerned.

    I mean; after all, the commerce clause is certainly a useful tool for government. The 16th amendment also is most useful to them. Heck, even the 14th amendment which was useful to us as well is about to get misused. I won't even get into the Liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause. Do I really need to list the hundreds of "useful tools" that have been misused over the years? Foolishness!? Ha!
    Again, object to the misuse. Objecting to the tool because it might be misused could foolishly justify removing all tools from everyone.

    This is getting repetitive. Moving on.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, object to the misuse. Objecting to the tool because it might be misused could foolishly justify removing all tools from everyone.

    This is getting repetitive. Moving on.
    I have no problem with useful tools in the hands of the citizenry.

    I'm going away (well maybe, 'cause I'm not promising anything) because "Moving on" is so 2010......
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 07-12-2011 at 04:25 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    OMG.....This is just too juicy to pass up!

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It is still the objection to a useful tool simply because it might be misused. Foolishness. Object to the misuse.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, object to the misuse. Objecting to the tool because it might be misused could foolishly justify removing all tools from everyone.

    This is getting repetitive. Moving on.
    QUOTE FOR TRUTH

    From another thread: http://forums.opencarry.com/forums/s...-OC-ing./page3

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I object to the showing of ID because of the nefarious uses to which an unscrupulous government official might put that information. I suspect that this may have actually happened to me. I was recently "delayed" in the purchase of a Glock. I pressed the issue, knowing that there could be zero in my background that would even slow my approval for a purchase. My lifetime of transgressions that have been adjudicated amount to a single traffic ticket (improper lane usage) and a parking ticket (parking facing the wrong way). I made a pest of myself until the FBI key-presser gave in and explored what was going on. All he would say was that he had never seen what showed up when I was NICSed. He "denied" the original application, keyed in a new one, and "proceeded" it. I am appealing the original "denial." The FBI is trying not to respond, saying that "delays" can't be appealed. However, I have two control numbers. The first was "denied" and can be appealed. I want to know if some key-presser in Montgomery tried to abuse the system based on my having been stopped and, foolishly, having provided ID.

    So, no, I won't provide ID if I do not have to. I don't even carry my DL or CPL while OCing.
    I'm so glad I didn't promise to "go away".
    Since you've "moved on" it should be not only extremely hard, but impossible to defend the hypocrisy of this one.

    And no, I'm not trying to target you eye95 nor am I out to get you or following you around. I'm not aiming for your ignore list either. I just can't help but underline the truth of this matter. I was totally ready to let it go at the last couple of posts as I believe those clarified my belief enough. But this! Oh! This was just too tastey.

    If you reply it will probably be to say that objection to show ID is OK because it's not mandatory. Well, in some states it is. It also most certainly is a "useful tool" for the government. Some differences but more similarities.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 07-12-2011 at 05:20 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If you cannot see the difference between an individual choosing to exercise a right because, if he didn't, he'd expose himself to abuse that might happen and the use of a tool being outlawed because it might be misused rather than the misuse itself being outlawed, then further convo would be a total waste.

    I find your above post repugnant and lost a good deal of respect for you as a result, hence this reply. Go ahead, take another juvenile and incongruent cheap shot. Your behavior can't sink much lower than that exhibited in the above post--and, therefore, won't warrant another response.

    Highly disappointing from a usually mature member.
    Last edited by eye95; 07-12-2011 at 07:57 PM.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If you cannot see the difference between an individual choosing to exercise a right because, if he didn't, he'd expose himself to abuse that might happen and the use of a tool being outlawed because it might be misused rather than the misuse itself being outlawed, then further convo would be a total waste.

    I find your above post repugnant and lost a good deal of respect for you as a result, hence this reply. Go ahead, take another juvenile and incongruent cheap shot. Your behavior can't sink much lower than that exhibited in the above post--and, therefore, won't warrant another response.

    Highly disappointing from a usually mature member.
    Please try to spare me the guilt trip eye. The difference between you and I is that I would have said exactly the same thing while sitting across from you at a table, with a "gotcha" look on my face. On the other hand, you wouldn't be calling my comment "repugnant" and "immature" or telling me I couldn't sink any lower. Also, I admit it when I think I'm wrong as is shown in an above post; something you might actually do in person, but not on this forum.

    As for the rest of your post, you know it's hogwash, but you continue talking in circles; and you know you're doing that too. Of course I know the differences, I said as much in the post but the similarities are too great to ignore.

    If it's the WAY I said it that is offending your (suddenly) tender sensibilities; I apologize, but I won't apologize for what I've said. My post speaks for itself; I won't be guilt tripped into abandoning it.

    Oh, and I don't hold grudges either. (pretty bad attempt at a guilt trip huh?)
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  25. #25
    Regular Member EricDailey X-NRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wake County, NC
    Posts
    209

    Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post


    EXACTLY

    The last night of Ted Bundys' life in prison on death row before he was electrocuted in Flordia, he admitted in a live radio interview that he began murdering girls for sexual pleasure because of his practice of viewing pornographic images of women. He said that pornographic images led him to murder innocent girls. He warned listeners to stop pornography and protect their children. He apologized and asked for forgiveness.
    Get a DVR, a Digital Voice Recorder, carry it 24/7. It's cheap, easy and makes a good witness in Court.

    Triangle Open Carry Meetup
    http://www.meetup.com/r/inbound/0/0/...ry/?a=sharetxt
    This is a link for a "gunz r welcome" sign.
    http://www.gunlaws.com/images/unity.gif
    FORUM RULES (14)
    ....This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •