Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting July!

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 Nobody who doesn't steal has any cause for concern.

---

500,000 mistakes made in UK DNA Database (the same database where DNA samples for non-criminals (witnesses and victims) are stored.

False Imprisonment for DNA Database Error

Internal leaks from NZ DNA database

Health Risks of TSA Bodyscanners

I could go on and on (and on), but I have neither the inclination or the time.

--

Your position that there's 'nothing to worry about' continues to be ridiculously naive. The links above are examples of other systems designed to catch/deter criminals, and continue to have harmful effects on innocent people. I've given other, more relevant information in this thread for systems that are owned by corporate bodies for the purpose of aiding in digital 'crime' detection, their margin for error is greater.

Upgrade your argument.

[Alisha Matova]

I should keep quiet, as I've said my piece...

In America, if the police think I'm doing something wrong, there are strict procudures they must follow. Ianal, but it goes A little something like this.

The police get some info that I'm being naughty. > then go to a Judge with that info and request a warrant. > That Well educated, well versed, Judge makes the tough decision to break my privacy rights. Only then can officers even(legaly) collect evidence against me. Due process.

I suppose this process has been diluted by craziness like the Patriot Act and Homeland security, but with any luck we will ween ourself off those fear driven programs soon.

Anyway, I see this kind of monitoring as an ugly way around due process and an obvious invasion of Everyone's privacy.

 

Phil, I don't buy that because the are cameras at my ATM(which are there to protect Me from real criminals), that suddenly justifies tracking my web use. America has privacy laws that protect us from the police and other agencies. Hopefully a judge somewhere will clue into this subject and regulate RIAA and the IPSs Big Brother plans.

 

Orwell wrote warnings, not handbooks.

[Freya Mokusei]

Thanks, Alisha.

It boggles my mind that people are happy submitting to warrantless searches, abuses of power and increasing encroachment of our human rights.

More so with recent revelations such as Over-reaching Cellphone Surveillence, FBI tracking thousands of vehicles without warrants and The PATRIOT Act being abused on a massive scale. I can't paste enough links that demonstrate the folly of this viewpoint. I am glad for everyone that chooses to step forward.

When the government (which should serve the people, by definition) is abusing civil liberties to this extent, the thought of giving any power to corporations (which only serve themselves, also by definition) so that they can fight crime 'their way' is flat-out insanity.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag.  Now, maybe that's fine to most people (people such as Phil), but to me, it feels as if I'm being treated as a criminal when I've done nothing whatsoever wrong.  I don't want my ISP checking my receipt, as if I'm some sort of criminal.

Just because corporations can get away with such nonsense, doesn't mean it's right or that common, law abiding citizens have to put up with it.  I hate being monitored as such in the real world, why would I ever accept being monitored that way on the net?  You (Phil) may think it's great to get your freedom sucked away from you in this manner, but don't throw the rest of us under the bus with you.

...Dres

---

So you think it's just fine for supermarkets to be stolen from? Frankly, it's an idiotic attitude that says, by all means catch the thieves but don't ever wonder if I might be one.

The other thing is, you weren't being treated as a criminal. You got that entirely wrong. You were being treated as a possible criminal - just as you are every time you board a plane, use an ATM nachine, walk the city streets, etc. etc. etc.

I had a similar experience a few years ago, when I bought a new computer. It was offered with a monitor but I forgot to take the monitor. So I went back to get it. One of the staff sorted it out and I set off for the outside without going via the till. Another member of staff saw me bypass the till with the monitor and asked me about it. I had to wait a few minutes while he checked that what I said was true, and all was well. It would be an incredibly self-centred stupidity for me to be miffed that I was stopped from taking something out of the store without paying at the till and without a check being made. They dared to consider that I might be stealing it. How stupid an attitude is that for me to have?

 

"Don't you dare treat me like a criminal by checking my luggage for explosives I'm not a bomber! Other people may be bombers, but not me."

"But we can't catch bombers unless we check people's luggage."

"So check the luggage of bombers - not mine!"

"But we don't know who the bombers are until we find bombs, so how can we check only their luggage?"

 

It's astonishing that some people are so full of themselves that they ..... I don't know what to say. The attitude is so idiotic and irrational. They don't care if Wal-Mart gets stolen from all the time - just as long as Wal-Mart doesn't check their receipts when they are carrying unbagged items out of the store. It's idiotic!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Alisha Matova wrote:

 

Phil, I don't buy that because the are cameras at my ATM(which are there to protect Me from real criminals), that suddenly justifies tracking my web use.

---

1. Cameras at ATM machines are not there to protect you. They are there to put a face to anyone who is stealing - using other people's cards, for instance. They are their to catch thieves who steal from banks (the banks return any money that is stolen from you in that way, whether or not they catch the thief, so it's not you who is being protected by them).

2. The topic of this thread isn't about tracking your web use at all. That's not going to happen. It's only about watching for illegal downloads. What's about to happen is nothing whatsoever to do with tracking your web use.

3. If you were mugged in the street, would you prefer that the cameras weren't there, and the muggers got away with it, or would you prefer the cameras to be watching you (and everyone else) in case someone mugs someone - what some people in this thread wrongly regard as treating you as a criminal? Personally, I prefer the cameras, and I see them as a protection rather than an intrusion into my privacy.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 Nobody who doesn't steal has any cause for concern.

---

500,000 mistakes made in UK DNA Database

 (the same database where DNA samples for non-criminals (witnesses and victims) are stored.

False Imprisonment for DNA Database Error

Internal leaks from NZ DNA database

Health Risks of TSA Bodyscanners

I could go on and on (and on), but I have neither the inclination or the time.

--

Your position that there's 'nothing to worry about' continues to be ridiculously naive. The links above are examples of other systems designed to catch/deter criminals, and continue to have harmful effects on innocent people. I've given other, more relevant information in this thread for systems that are owned by corporate bodies for the purpose of aiding in digital 'crime' detection, their margin for error is greater.

---

Of the links you provided:-

The first is about mistakes in the system and not about invasion of privacy, so it's irrelevent.

The second is about a mistake at a lab, so it's irrelevant.

I didn't bother to look at the other two. If the two I looked at are the best you can do, the others are no doubt irrelevant too.

Mistakes happen everywhere, and no doubt more can be done to ensure they don't happen, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a company, or companies, protecting themselves against theft.

People in the thread talk about human rights. What rights would those be? What right to complete privacy does anyone have? Where is it enshrined? Does an individual's so-called right of privacy trump the rights of society? It does according to some people in this thread, but, imo, they are dead wrong. Anyone who wants to live in a society has obligations to that society. You would do better to think about society rather than your own personal individual interest, which is just based on principle (flawed principle) and has nothing to do with the society you live in. Your principle is all about me me me. It's a bad principle to have.

 

---

Upgrade your argument.

---

I don't need to. My argument is sound. Yours is flawed.

 

 

 

[Freya Mokusei]

Present a sensible response with facts that cement your position and maybe we can try this again. So far you have demonstrated a poor understanding of TCP/IP, Data Protection, Consumer Rights and Civil Liberties (both UK and US) and seem to have no prior experience in this area, other than an opinion. I see no value in correcting your singular misunderstanding of this issue.

[Alisha Matova]

1. Camera usage at banks is irrelevant to this thread. My point was about the leap from private cctv(usually deleted hourly) to full blown privatized copyright law enforcement. And copyright enforcment for only the elite copyright owners at that. Just try to use this as an artist...

 

2. How will they find the bomber, if they don't check my bags?

 

3. Where I live, fortunately, there are no cameras on the streets. So I don't rely on a false sense of security and make my safety my own responsibility.

 

As far as some of us sounding like we have this right to privacy, well, it's because we Do. It's the fourth amendment.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#section_8

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Present a sensible response with facts that cement your position and maybe we can try this again. So far you have demonstrated a poor understanding of TCP/IP, Data Protection, Consumer Rights and Civil Liberties (both UK and US) and seem to have no prior experience in this area, other than an opinion. I see no value in correcting your singular misunderstanding of this issue.

---

Then stop trying to correct me. There's nothing to correct. You want privacy and you can't have it in the society you live in. Learn to live with that fact.

If you don't want anyone else to have the ability of knowing what you do on the internet, don't use the internet because, when you do, other people have the ability to know what you do. It's always been like that.

If you don't want your actions to be recorded anywhere, don't leave your home because, if you do, you are sure to be recorded.

If you don't want to be scrutinised for potential theft in stores, don't shop in stores where they do it.

The problem you have is that, in the society you live in, you don't, and can't, have as much privacy as you would like. You don't have that right, and neither should you have that right. Get used to it.

Oh, and stop bleating about. You link to reports of errors and it's shown that they are irrelevant. You have no argument against that so you ignore it and carry on regardless. You don't have any arguments to stand on. All you have is that you don't like others having the ability to know what you do, and that's no argument at all. The only way you can avoid that is go and live alone on a desert island but, as long as you live in the society you live in, you have a responsibility to the well-being that society, and one of the ways of doing it observing people in an effort to catch criminals and prevent crime. Live with it. The bottom line is that the only people who need be concerned about being observed are criminals and, to be perfectly honest, I strongly suspect that there are people who knowingly download pirate stuff participating in this thread.

[Phil Deakins]

I used ATMs as one of the examples to show that total privacy does not exist, and neither should it exist. I agree that it's not specifically relevant to the topic of this thread, but I cited examples of society acceptably watching its people to show that it's very commonplace.

The 4th ammendment doesn't appear to give anyone a right to total privacy, and neither should it. I'm not in the U.S. so I'm not used to your ammendments but it appears to only be about what the government can and cannot do. It isn't about companies on the lookout for thieves. Companies have every right to be on the lookout for thieves.

 

---

Alisha Matova wrote:

1. Camera usage at banks is irrelevant to this thread. My point was about the leap from private cctv(usually deleted hourly) to full blown privatized copyright law enforcement. And copyright enforcment for only the elite copyright owners at that. Just try to use this as an artist...

---

So explain why full blown privatised copyright law *enforcement is wrong in your opinion. I can't come up with anything against it. If my stuff is being stolen regularly, I see nothing wrong with getting everyone I can find to be on the lookout for it, especiually if the official law agencies do nothing. The copyright law exists, and it's a right law, so what can be wrong with actively looking for breaches of it?

*Actually, it's not about law enforcement. The companies don't enforce the law. They merely look for people who steal from them so that the courts (officialdom) can enforce the law.

[Alisha Matova]

Wait, did you just call people standing up for their privacy and civil rights, thieves? nice one.

 

*waves

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

If you don't want your actions to be recorded anywhere, don't leave your home because, if you do, you are sure to be recorded.

The problem you have is that, in the society you live in, you don't, and can't, have as much privacy as you would like.

You have no argument against that so you ignore it and carry on regardless

All you have is that you don't like others having the ability to know what you do, and that's no argument at all.

The bottom line is that the only people who need be concerned about being observed are criminals

---

All provably false. Still no facts or evidence to support your points. Corporations aren't society, and no-one is forced to live under their rules (except their employees). We don't yet live in America, Inc.

Attacking me and what you imagine my privacy requirements to be is irrelevant. This isn't about me, it's about corporations deciding amongst themselves who should have copyright defended, and who should be allowed access to the Internet. It's about the scraping of profits through outdated and bloated supply chains using outdated archetypes. The reality is that the profit-drivers in this marketplace are mostly dinosaurs who would rather stop the world changing around them than risk a cent of their money on helping the average citizen.

It is a pity that you can only see the small picture, and petty battles of morality.

[Phil Deakins]

It's not a matter of civil rights. People in societies can't have all the pirvacy they may wish to have. It's as simple as that.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It's not a matter of civil rights. People in societies can't have all the pirvacy they may wish to have. It's as simple as that.

---

Your shining example not-withstanding, people can have as much privacy from corporations (corporations != society) as they please. Corporations don't get to adjust civil rights.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

All provably false. Still no facts or evidence to support your points.

---

Then prove it. You haven't shown anything yet. There's nothing to show, of course, so I won't hold my breath.

 

---

Attacking me and what you imagine my privacy requirements to be is irrelevant. This isn't about me, it's about corporations deciding amongst themselves who should have copyright defended, and who should be allowed access to the Internet. It's about the scraping of profits through outdated and bloated supply chains using outdated arch

---

No. It's about corporations deciding to defend their copyrights.

No again. It's nothing to do with anyone's access to the internet. If anyone loses internet access via certain ISPs, it's their own fault for ignoring the 3 warnings, by continuing to dowload pirated stuff - by continuing to steal. Such people should be denied internet access, but nobody will deny them access. It will just be some ISPs who denying them access through them. It's their right, you know. Unless you are saying that ISPs must allow anyone and everyone to have access to the internet through them.

 

 

---

It is a pity that you can only see the small picture, and petty battles of morality.

---

Morality is petty, eh? As long as your activities are totally ignored, I assume

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Your shining example not-withstanding, people can have as much privacy from corporations (corporations != society) as they please. Corporations don't get to adjust civil rights.

---

But that's not true. When you go shopping (corporations) you are often on camera, and the cameras are there to see if you steal anything. No civil rights are being infringed by that. We simply can't have all the privacy that we want. We simply can't decide what level of privacy we will have.

You are right that corporations don't get to adjust civil rights, but no corporations are trying to adjust them. All they are doing is getting whoiever they can to be on the lookout for pirated versions of their stuff. There can't be any sensible objection to that.

 

[Freya Mokusei]

I'm reducing your response because most of it is tiresome and repetitive.

---

Phil Deakins (abridged) wrote:

If anyone loses internet access via certain ISPs, it's their own fault for not doing exactly as they're told. Such people

should

be denied the right to do online banking, read online news, participate in the growing online world.

---

Equivilence.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Unless you are saying that ISPs

must

allow anyone and everyone to have access to the internet through them.

---

I'm saying (as I've always been saying) that ISPs shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the right to access the Internet. Court orders, fine. Criminal prosecutions by jury, fine. Blocking access without public court records, the right to appeal or the right to trial by jury (I have pasted those links already) is NOT fine.

 

 

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

But that's not true. When you go shopping (corporations) you are often on camera, and the cameras are there to see if you steal anything. No civil rights are being infringed by that. We simply can't have all the privacy that we want. We simply can't decide what level of privacy we will have.

---

False equivilence. Their cameras don't record my chip & PIN entry on my debit card, therefore they don't have the right to record everything they can see.

[Phil Deakins]

Your editing of what I wrote is just plain silly so I won't bother responding to that. If you want make a point about banking or anything, make it. I'll just say that, if a person loses the ability to do online banking and such, it'll be their own fault for ignoring the 3 warnings that are given before anything is done.

It's not unlike drink-driving. A habitual drink-driver, who loses his driving license because of it, and who has a job that relies on driving, has nobody to blame but him/herself that s/he loses his job.

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I'm saying (as I've always been saying) that ISPs shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the right to access the Internet. Court orders, fine. Criminal prosecutions by jury, fine. Blocking access without public court records, the right to appeal or the right to trial by jury (I have pasted those links already) is NOT fine.

---

ISPs won't get to pick and choose who gets the right to access the internet. Nothing will change. Each ISP will behave as they have always behaved - get to pick and choose who connects to the intenet through them. Surely you're not suggesting that ISPs must take absolutely everyone who wants to connect through them? Surely you're not trying to deny a company the right to be selective about who it has as customers? It would be nonsense if that's what you were suggesting.

No ISP can deny anyone access to the internet. All they can do is refuse to have a person as a customer. And they have every right to do that.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

But that's not true. When you go shopping (corporations) you are often on camera, and the cameras are there to see if you steal anything. No civil rights are being infringed by that. We simply can't have all the privacy that we want. We simply can't decide what level of privacy we will have.

---

False equivilence. Their cameras don't record my chip & PIN entry on my debit card, therefore they don't have the right to record everything they can see.

---

But they do record your activities. If you pick something from a shelf and put it in your pocket instead of paying for it - if you steal something - it's recorded. That's a much better equivalent.

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding about the topic. It sounds like you imagine that everything you do on the internet will be recorded by your ISP, but that's not the case at all. The only things that will be recorded by your ISP are your downloads of pirated stuff. If you don't do any of that, nothing will be recorded.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

ISPs won't get to pick and choose who gets the right to access the internet. Nothing will change. Each ISP will behave as they have always behaved - get to pick and choose who connects to the intenet

through them

. Surely you're not suggesting that ISPs

must

take absolutely everyone who wants to connect through them? Surely you're not trying to deny a company the right to be selective about who it has as customers? It would be nonsense if that's what you were suggesting.

No ISP can deny anyone access to the internet. All they can do is refuse to have a person as a customer. And they have every right to do that.

---

Again, my criticism is against your perspective that no-one should question corporations or their activities.

And again, I'm not saying they MUST take everyone. I'm saying that disconnection without due process shouldn't be allowed, ONCE they're connected and contracted to provide this service.

Repetition is boring.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding about the topic. It sounds like you imagine that everything you do on the internet will be recorded by your ISP, but that's not the case at all. The only things that will be recorded by your ISP are your downloads of pirated stuff. If you do any of that, nothing will be recorded.

---

So sayeth the ISPs, so it must be true.

How, prey-tell, will they ONLY inspect pirated stuff? How can they be sure that nothing else is inspected?

These are the facts I'm asking for.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Again, my criticism is against your perspective that no-one should question corporations or their activities.

And again, I'm not saying they MUST take everyone. I'm saying that disconnection without due process shouldn't be allowed, ONCE they're connected and contracted to provide this service.

Repetition is boring.

---

Then stop repeating things if they are too boring for you.

I didn't say, or imply, that nobody should question corporations or their activities. All I have said is that, what certain corporations are about to do makes an awful lot of sense, and they are right to do it.

I disagree with you about "disconnection without due process". Nobody will be denied access to the internet, and every ISP has a perfect right to choose not to have a certain person as a customer.

I'm not sure that it will result in an ISP choosing not to have a thief as a customer. It may just result in a thief being taken to court if s/he fails to heed the 3 warnings. Either way is perfectly good though, and either way amounts to the same misplaced objections concerning privacy.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

So sayeth the ISPs, so it must be true.

How, prey-tell, will they ONLY inspect pirated stuff? How can they be sure that nothing else is inspected?

These are the facts I'm asking for.

---

16 explained the most likely process earlier in the thread.

ISPs can't inspect everything you download. What they can do is flag when you download something from specific sites. Then perhaps they can inspect what it is you downloaded.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

16 explained the most likely process earlier in the thread.

ISPs can't inspect everything you download. What they can do is flag when you download something from specific sites. Then perhaps they can inspect what it is you downloaded.

---

Still researching 16's claims.

If you have no facts of your own to add, that's fine. I would just rather you didn't accuse everyone who didn't immediately support this of being a pirate.

Thanks, and apologies for my curtness. I'm not built for GD, the signal to noise ratio is far too high.