Barbara Bush has moved from her former stance that there have been too many Bushes in the White house.
She was right the first time. None of the Bush presidents has been a truly conservative force (in fact, no 21 century Republican presidential candidate has been conservative).
The Bush presidents (and every Republican candidate since) have been generally socially conservative - but fiscally they've been "Democrat light". And just like light beer, the Republican candidates aren't really exciting to anyone. Democrats wouldn't (generally) consider voting for a Republican, Independents see Democrat and Democrat Light, and if they're inclined to vote for someone other than an Independent candidate they'll probably vote for the Democrat. Republicans see Poisoned Kool-Aid and Possibly Poisoned Kool-Aid, and they aren't really certain they want to partake of either. Some of them will choose to just not drink either kool-aid, leading to low voter turnout. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Once the election is over, the voters have chosen one or the other, and every has to take a drink.
What you need is a fiscally conservative candidate who can tell the MSM that most social issues belong at the state and local level and make it stick.
Given a choice of Poisoned Kool-Aid and Possibly Poisoned Kool-Aid, I'll pick the Kool-Aid that is only possibly poisoned. But I really just want water.
Showing posts with label Big Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Government. Show all posts
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Thursday, August 29, 2013
An attack on Freedom
California, already one of the least free states of the Union, is rapidly becoming less free. A bill that is currently passing through the California legislature would enable the government of California to take away the tax exempt status of private groups with "discriminatory" policies.
I'm a more than a little pissed off about this, for several reasons.
I'm a more than a little pissed off about this, for several reasons.
- This bill is aimed directly at an organization that I am affiliated with, the Boy Scouts of America. While the BSA has decided to allow openly gay scouts, it still refuses to allow openly gay adult leaders. This is a blatant attempt to force the BSA, a private organization, to do what the government of California wants it to do.
- It isn't people's livelihood on the line here. Making laws to prevent discriminatory hiring practices in a business? Understandable. Making laws to prevent discriminatory entrance requirements in a non-profit volunteer organization? Reprehensible.
- If you don't like the entrance requirements for an organization, go start your own that does the exact same things, only with different entrance requirements. Don't like the BSA's stance on homosexual adult leaders? Go form your own organization and let homosexuals become adult leaders.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Friendly...
There is a saying: There are friendly foreign governments, but there are no friendly foreign intelligence agencies.
Most nations in the world have at least one agency devoted to espionage and/or counter-espionage. How well those twin missions executed can have a major impact on how well a nation does, and if performed right can give a nation a major advantage over other nations. Thus, any nation without an intelligence agency of some sort is at a distinct disadvantage, and is either too poor or too incompetently led to be a serious threat to any nation with a more than token military.
Thus, when other countries steal our secrets I don't get mad at those countries. I just want the various intelligence agencies here in the US to work extra hard to prevent more secrets from being stolen and for the US to retaliate against whomever stole the secrets. And when we're the ones stealing secrets from other countries I want our government to do its best to avoid any serious repercussions. After all, when it comes to intelligence gathering, even among allies, it is not a case of "want". It is a case of "need". It is immoral for a nation to not gather intelligence, engage in counter-intelligence, attempt to reprise against those who steal it's secrets, and attempt to avoid reprisal when it is caught stealing secrets.
The problems come when intelligence agencies spy upon the citizens that they're supposed to protect.
Most nations in the world have at least one agency devoted to espionage and/or counter-espionage. How well those twin missions executed can have a major impact on how well a nation does, and if performed right can give a nation a major advantage over other nations. Thus, any nation without an intelligence agency of some sort is at a distinct disadvantage, and is either too poor or too incompetently led to be a serious threat to any nation with a more than token military.
Thus, when other countries steal our secrets I don't get mad at those countries. I just want the various intelligence agencies here in the US to work extra hard to prevent more secrets from being stolen and for the US to retaliate against whomever stole the secrets. And when we're the ones stealing secrets from other countries I want our government to do its best to avoid any serious repercussions. After all, when it comes to intelligence gathering, even among allies, it is not a case of "want". It is a case of "need". It is immoral for a nation to not gather intelligence, engage in counter-intelligence, attempt to reprise against those who steal it's secrets, and attempt to avoid reprisal when it is caught stealing secrets.
The problems come when intelligence agencies spy upon the citizens that they're supposed to protect.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Constitution Outdated? I don't think so!
From CBS:
Professor: Take our country back, from the Constitution
Original article tabbed and bolded:
Jefferson: An Anti-Federalist, the party originally in opposition to the Constitution - and which only agreed to the Constitution on the condition that the Bill of Rights be added.
Lincoln: A Republican, engaged in Constitutionally questionable activities to keep the United Stated, United. Article One, Section Ten of the Constitution has a list of things that the States are not allowed to do. It is the only part of the Constitution that places limits upon the powers of the individual states. Secession is not on the list of powers prohibited to the states. Its important to remember that the South seceded because of state's rights and slavery (Confederate Constitution), and Lincoln contested the issue because he didn't want the Union to break apart (which is why the Emancipation Proclamation is kind of a joke - It only applied to the seceding states, which Lincoln had absolutely no control over at the time it was written).
Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, instituted the draft to fight WWI, and afterwards fought with the Senate to join the League of Nations, the the even less effective precursor to the absolutely corrupt and ineffective UN.
FDR takes the cake, so I'll summarize: Social Security, Medicare, the rest of the New Deal, the draft during WWII. There is a reason why, after he died, the 22nd amendment was easily passed and ratified. He stacked the Supreme Court so that they would rule in his favor. He was elected for an unprecedented four terms and gained so much power that when he died, everyone else took immediate action to ensure no one could gain that much power ever again.
In conclusion, one of the examples took care of his objections to the constitution by amending it, one of them abused his power to hold the Union together, and two of them violated the Constitution for personal power. The Constitution didn't cover everything, but it's nice to know that when abuse of power happens, it is a violation of the Constitution.
It provides an extra layer of protection to an absolutely necessary right. I'll take a guarantee of a right over rationality in a discussion.
Original article tabbed and bolded:
I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution.And what makes you think that this is a good idea?
I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.Thank you for pointing that out. You're right that many presidents often disobeyed the Constitution, and that many of them had doubts about it. Let's go over your examples, shall we?
For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.
Jefferson: An Anti-Federalist, the party originally in opposition to the Constitution - and which only agreed to the Constitution on the condition that the Bill of Rights be added.
Lincoln: A Republican, engaged in Constitutionally questionable activities to keep the United Stated, United. Article One, Section Ten of the Constitution has a list of things that the States are not allowed to do. It is the only part of the Constitution that places limits upon the powers of the individual states. Secession is not on the list of powers prohibited to the states. Its important to remember that the South seceded because of state's rights and slavery (Confederate Constitution), and Lincoln contested the issue because he didn't want the Union to break apart (which is why the Emancipation Proclamation is kind of a joke - It only applied to the seceding states, which Lincoln had absolutely no control over at the time it was written).
Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, instituted the draft to fight WWI, and afterwards fought with the Senate to join the League of Nations, the the even less effective precursor to the absolutely corrupt and ineffective UN.
FDR takes the cake, so I'll summarize: Social Security, Medicare, the rest of the New Deal, the draft during WWII. There is a reason why, after he died, the 22nd amendment was easily passed and ratified. He stacked the Supreme Court so that they would rule in his favor. He was elected for an unprecedented four terms and gained so much power that when he died, everyone else took immediate action to ensure no one could gain that much power ever again.
In conclusion, one of the examples took care of his objections to the constitution by amending it, one of them abused his power to hold the Union together, and two of them violated the Constitution for personal power. The Constitution didn't cover everything, but it's nice to know that when abuse of power happens, it is a violation of the Constitution.
To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.Just propose amendments, like everyone else.
Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?There is a reason for that one. If Obama isn't a natural-born citizen, he will no doubt have sympathies for his place of birth, which, if his place of birth is hostile to the US, could very well lead to the US getting walloped because of the Chief Executive's sympathies.
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control.That's good.
I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree.
But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.What they thought about it two centuries ago was that it is a necessary right for us to remain a free people, and therefore required protection (at least, the Anti-Federalists thought it needed protection - Turns out, they were right) .
Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.
It provides an extra layer of protection to an absolutely necessary right. I'll take a guarantee of a right over rationality in a discussion.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.They might not know anything of our country as it currently exists, but they don't rule our country so it doesn't matter. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but in the end, its all about limiting the power of those who rule, not ruling our nation.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.An ancient and outdated document that protects your rights and limits the powers of government so that it can't take them away.
Monday, January 21, 2013
The Congressional Budget Office Infographic (2011)
From the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) we have an interesting infographic for the 2011 budget. Go look at it.
Total Expenditures: $3.6 trillion
Total Revenues: $2.3 trillion
Difference: $1.3 trillion
Is it any wonder why we're having a continuous debt crisis now?
"Mandatory" spending is made up of four major categories: Social Security ($725 billion), Medicare ($480 billion), Medicaid ($275 billion), and "Other" ($545 billion, consisting of "unemployment, federal civilian and military retirement, veteran's benefits, earned income tax credit, food stamps, and other programs" - I interpret other programs as "pork").
"Discretionary" spending is made up of: Defense ($700 billion), and Non defense ($646 billion consisting of "health, income security, education, veteran's benefits, transportation, and other activities")
Net interest on debt already accumulated in 2011 equaled $227 billion.
Looking back only a few years, this current debt crisis could have been easily avoided - and forget about that "hindsight has 20/20 vision" BS. When your income only covers 2/3 of your spending, you're not going to be solvent for long.
Total Expenditures: $3.6 trillion
Total Revenues: $2.3 trillion
Difference: $1.3 trillion
Is it any wonder why we're having a continuous debt crisis now?
"Mandatory" spending is made up of four major categories: Social Security ($725 billion), Medicare ($480 billion), Medicaid ($275 billion), and "Other" ($545 billion, consisting of "unemployment, federal civilian and military retirement, veteran's benefits, earned income tax credit, food stamps, and other programs" - I interpret other programs as "pork").
"Discretionary" spending is made up of: Defense ($700 billion), and Non defense ($646 billion consisting of "health, income security, education, veteran's benefits, transportation, and other activities")
Net interest on debt already accumulated in 2011 equaled $227 billion.
Looking back only a few years, this current debt crisis could have been easily avoided - and forget about that "hindsight has 20/20 vision" BS. When your income only covers 2/3 of your spending, you're not going to be solvent for long.
POTUS Defends Entitlements
From Fox News:
Also "safety net"? Medicare and Social Security were never intended as such - they are supposed to be retirement programs, not welfare.
Medicaid on the other hand... People who do nothing of utility and pay little to nothing in taxes get Medicaid. Medicaid is a welfare program, plain and simple. It is unnecessary and cost $275,000,000,000 in 2011 (I'll be doing a post on that infographic later).
Our president chose to take a stand against reforming or abolishing the largest part and most wasteful part of our budget. It is obvious that while he talks a great talk, he could care less about actual fiscal responsibility.
President Obama launched into his second term with a sharply worded inaugural address Monday -- using the platform to "reject" steep cuts to entitlements, press for an immigration reform package and wag the finger at Washington's penchant for "name-calling" and "spectacle."There is no easy solution to the Social Security/Medicare problem. There are a great many individuals who paid into both programs for their entire lives, expecting that when they retired, the money would still be there. The problem is, politicians (on both sides of the aisle) used these programs like a piggy bank, and spent the money on pet projects. Now there is no money there, and Social Security and Medicare rely upon current contributions to pay for those currently collecting. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and eventually the whole construction will fall apart. So while just abolishing the programs will not work, serious reform is needed.
The president quickly toggled through a host of agenda items, but used some of his most forceful language to defend costly entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that could be the target of cuts in upcoming fiscal talks.
Declaring that the country cannot succeed "when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it," he described those programs as a vital safety net -- though, without some intervention, budget forecasters warn they will not be sustainable in the long term.
Also "safety net"? Medicare and Social Security were never intended as such - they are supposed to be retirement programs, not welfare.
Medicaid on the other hand... People who do nothing of utility and pay little to nothing in taxes get Medicaid. Medicaid is a welfare program, plain and simple. It is unnecessary and cost $275,000,000,000 in 2011 (I'll be doing a post on that infographic later).
Our president chose to take a stand against reforming or abolishing the largest part and most wasteful part of our budget. It is obvious that while he talks a great talk, he could care less about actual fiscal responsibility.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Defense Cuts, Pork Spending, War, and the Constitution
As Congress once again struggles with the exact same problems that created the "fiscal cliff", due to their simply kicking the can down the road, rather than actually doing something to solve the problem, the defense budget faces about $500,000,000,000 (500 billion) in spending cuts, and $4,000,000,000 (4 billion) in Stimulus cash has been spent on foreign "green" energy firms by the Federal government, all while we prepare to increase our involvement in Mali.
The DOD often wastes money, but unlike much of the rest of the government's spending, defense spending is actually provided for in the Constitution. Our multi-trillion dollar deficit, mostly a result of out of control spending on things not provided for in the Constitution - including not one, but two useless "stimulus packages". Our debt is too high, but cutting spending on one of the very few items that Congress is supposed to spend money on isn't going to fix the problem - even if the recipient of the money could use a bit of fiscal restraint itself.
The DOD often wastes money, but unlike much of the rest of the government's spending, defense spending is actually provided for in the Constitution. Our multi-trillion dollar deficit, mostly a result of out of control spending on things not provided for in the Constitution - including not one, but two useless "stimulus packages". Our debt is too high, but cutting spending on one of the very few items that Congress is supposed to spend money on isn't going to fix the problem - even if the recipient of the money could use a bit of fiscal restraint itself.
Monday, October 8, 2012
It is not those Who Vote...
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin
Many Venezuelans living here in the US - mostly in Florida - are shocked about Chavez' win, some of them claiming that Chavez engaged in a little creative vote counting. Given Chavez' choice of ideology such actions shouldn't be unexpected. Chavez has created a cult of personality in his goal to create a socialist system in Venezuela. I don't see this ending well for anyone, especially not the Venezuelan people.
Source
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57527944/south-florida-venezuelans-unhappy-with-chavez-victory/
Thursday, May 17, 2012
"Ex-Patriot Act"
Democratic Senators Chuck Shumer and Bob Casey have put forth a bill that would subject high earning emigrants to a nasty capital gains tax. What needs to happen is that the capital gains tax needs to be cut, so that entrepreneurs will be drawn to the US, rather than chased away from it.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
People Eating Tasty Animals (Specifically Horses)
PETA is unhappy. Their attempts to stop the horse slaughtering industry in the US have met with failure. This is in part because when the slaughter was put to a stop, the horses were simply transported across the border, and then slaughtered. So now, the slaughter of horses for food is back.Congress is currently working on legislation to stop the slaughter, and prevent the simple expedient of transporting the horses across the border for slaughter.
All this raises a question: Do PETA and Congress want the smuggling of illegal horse meat to become a problem?
I wonder what horse meat tastes like...
Source: Fox News: Horse Slaughtering Resumes In US as Legislation Languishes in Congress
All this raises a question: Do PETA and Congress want the smuggling of illegal horse meat to become a problem?
I wonder what horse meat tastes like...
Source: Fox News: Horse Slaughtering Resumes In US as Legislation Languishes in Congress
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Why the UN Small Arms Treaty Sucks
The UN Small arms treaty is aimed at preventing or at least alleviating the problem of various terrorist, criminal, and insurgent groups getting their hands upon small arms, in order to help prevent crime and human rights violations. Or at least, that's what the UN would have you believe.
1. It won't work.
The UN is an international joke for several reasons. One of them is their complete inability to enforce anything without target country permission. Iran, "rogue state" is perhaps the best example of this. If a country doesn't want to enforce the provisions of the treaty, even if they've signed the treaty, the UN will be powerless.
2. This treaty isn't about preventing crime and human rights violations. If the UN actually cared about human rights, the People's Republic of China (PRC) wouldn't be on the UN's Human Rights Council. Keeping the terrorists and criminals from getting weapons would be wonderful, but this treaty is more likely to affect the very people whom it claims to help.
3. They talk of tracing the firearms back to their last legitimate owner, and "holding them accountable". The problem comes when the last legitimate owner was a government, or a citizen of a country that is not a signatory of the treaty, or that chooses to violate the treaty. Then the UN is stuck, impotent.
4. Tracing the firearms to the last legitimate owner would require gun registration, something that is seen as being a precursor to confiscation of firearms, and rightfully so, as the previous examples of Hitler and other totalitarian human rights violators have shown.
I'm not comparing the UN to the Nazis, as the UN doesn't fit that label (they fall under the label of "power-hungry kleptocrats", not "psychopathic sadistic bastards"), but whenever they say that they're doing something to prevent human rights violations, remember that their Human Rights Council includes the PRC, Cuba, and Djibouti, all "single party republics", which is another way of saying "totalitarian dictatorship". It also includes various other countries where human rights are not respected. This is why I consider it to be a sick joke whenever the UN references human rights.
Sources:
Fox News: Proposed U.N. Treaty To Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns For U.S. Gun Owners
Human Rights Council: Membership of the Human Rights Council
United Nations Disarmament: Small Arms and Light Weapons
1. It won't work.
The UN is an international joke for several reasons. One of them is their complete inability to enforce anything without target country permission. Iran, "rogue state" is perhaps the best example of this. If a country doesn't want to enforce the provisions of the treaty, even if they've signed the treaty, the UN will be powerless.
2. This treaty isn't about preventing crime and human rights violations. If the UN actually cared about human rights, the People's Republic of China (PRC) wouldn't be on the UN's Human Rights Council. Keeping the terrorists and criminals from getting weapons would be wonderful, but this treaty is more likely to affect the very people whom it claims to help.
3. They talk of tracing the firearms back to their last legitimate owner, and "holding them accountable". The problem comes when the last legitimate owner was a government, or a citizen of a country that is not a signatory of the treaty, or that chooses to violate the treaty. Then the UN is stuck, impotent.
4. Tracing the firearms to the last legitimate owner would require gun registration, something that is seen as being a precursor to confiscation of firearms, and rightfully so, as the previous examples of Hitler and other totalitarian human rights violators have shown.
I'm not comparing the UN to the Nazis, as the UN doesn't fit that label (they fall under the label of "power-hungry kleptocrats", not "psychopathic sadistic bastards"), but whenever they say that they're doing something to prevent human rights violations, remember that their Human Rights Council includes the PRC, Cuba, and Djibouti, all "single party republics", which is another way of saying "totalitarian dictatorship". It also includes various other countries where human rights are not respected. This is why I consider it to be a sick joke whenever the UN references human rights.
Sources:
Fox News: Proposed U.N. Treaty To Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns For U.S. Gun Owners
Human Rights Council: Membership of the Human Rights Council
United Nations Disarmament: Small Arms and Light Weapons
Deadliness of Cars vs. Deadliness of Guns
A theoretical one metric ton (2679.23 lbs, about 320 pounds lighter than my Chevy S10) vehicle traveling at ten meters a second (about 22 mph) has 50,000 joules of energy. I’ll admit that I used this theoretical vehicle because I wanted a nice round number.
A 180 grain 30-06 rifle (Hornady 30-06 Springfield 180 gr. InterLock® SP) bullet traveling at 822.96 mps (2700 feet per second) has 3948.44 joules of energy.
A 240 grain 44. Magnum (Black Hills Ammunition, 44 Magnum 240 gr. JHP) pistol bullet traveling at 384.05 mps (1260 fps) has 1146.77 joules of energy.
Why then, can I buy and drive a car at 16, but have to wait until I turn 18 to buy a rifle, and until I turn 21 to buy a pistol?
For those who wish to quote death statistics, I’ve got a few from the CDC.
According to CDC’s WISQARS site, unintentional motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of accidental death in 2009 with 34,485 deaths, while firearms are the number 16 cause of accidental death with 554 fatalities.
Even with firearm suicides (18,735) and homicides (11,493) added to the firearm accidents, the total comes to 30,785, 3700 less than car accidents alone. No matter how you look at it, firearms are less deadly than cars.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
SOPA/PIPA
After considering the language in SOPA/PIPA (specifically SOPA, but PIPA is also a concern), I have decided that it would be a very bad law.
I'll start with a summary of what I have heard and read on the internet. First, if a site has user-generated content, it is at extreme risk. Second, if a site facilitates reaching a restricted site, it too becomes restricted. Third, SOPA/PIPA does not provide an easy method to fight back against the accuser.
Now for my thoughts. Tor, a service designed to help people behind the Great Chinese Firewall would be blocked in the U.S. It is a software designed expressly to get around firewalls and make the users anonymous en masse; you can tell if someone is using it BUT you cannot filter where they go OR tell where they go. Tor, in and of itself, is a very useful tool for whistle-blowers, journalists, and other people who want to remain anonymous when posting online (due to legal concerns or personal concerns). I will say this much about SOPA's hope of preventing access to Tor; look at China (PRC), have they blocked Tor completely?
Nope.
Also, if the interpretation of this law becomes broad enough (or loose enough; look at the second amendment for example) then sites who have dealt with sites whose sole purpose is to get around firewall's/pirate content/etc. could find themselves at risk.
I'm going to take everyone's favorite (or least favorite) browser. Mozilla Firefox has a massive addon ecosystem with user generated content. So someone who did not like Mozilla or was competing with Mozilla could, conceivably, put copyrighted content in a user review of an addon, or upload an addon that enables others to get around DNS blocking/firewalls/etc., and then Mozilla Firefox is effectively out of business.
Sites that serve as places to upload reviews of products would also be hard hit, since instead of going through a legally arduous process to get a bad review removed, a company could just upload copyrighted content (anonymously) to the website and get it pulled down for that.
Here is something else to consider; I could write a book, self-publish it, and then use the forums of EA to completely (or partially) kill EA's online presence.
By the same token, some smart cracker/hacker (cracker is more accurate) somewhere will crack into the government's website and post copyrighted material there, which would make the government liable (the government probably won't care--they wrote the law, so they could modify to give exemptions to certain parties, but then some people are more equal in the view of the law then others. Just like 1984).
Has anyone out there given any thought to the potential for crackers to take down legitimate sites that had no intention of violating copyright law, but did violate copyright because it got cracked/hacked?
I have no problem with IP laws; it is only how it is enacted, and I think that SOPA/PIPA along with the DMCA go a little to far. I want to own what I purchase, and be able to resell it later.
SOPA and PIPA are just disasters waiting to happen; if you cannot enforce the law, especially one like this, then you have no business passing the law in the first place.
For those in congress:
Oh, and about Tor? Some people already have it. It is open source, anyone can get the source, anyone can build it, anyone can improve upon it. Again, look at how effective it is in places that have essentially the same type of blocking.
Also, don't trust the lobbyists; they have been known to lie to further their interests.
For everyone else:
Join us, get Tor today for tomorrow.
http://www.torproject.org
Also, I see .onion domains popping up all over the place. Those are sites only accessible via Tor, and no one can track them back to the originator easily.
BTW, I do not condone or engage in piracy, so please don't say that I'm against it because you think I engage in "piracy."
Also, for those wanting to quote me out of context, please do so after SOPA/PIPA pass. I'll use it on YOU. If you are going to quote me, get the context; if you don't, ask. I'm specifically thinking of the previous paragraph.
I'll start with a summary of what I have heard and read on the internet. First, if a site has user-generated content, it is at extreme risk. Second, if a site facilitates reaching a restricted site, it too becomes restricted. Third, SOPA/PIPA does not provide an easy method to fight back against the accuser.
Now for my thoughts. Tor, a service designed to help people behind the Great Chinese Firewall would be blocked in the U.S. It is a software designed expressly to get around firewalls and make the users anonymous en masse; you can tell if someone is using it BUT you cannot filter where they go OR tell where they go. Tor, in and of itself, is a very useful tool for whistle-blowers, journalists, and other people who want to remain anonymous when posting online (due to legal concerns or personal concerns). I will say this much about SOPA's hope of preventing access to Tor; look at China (PRC), have they blocked Tor completely?
Nope.
Also, if the interpretation of this law becomes broad enough (or loose enough; look at the second amendment for example) then sites who have dealt with sites whose sole purpose is to get around firewall's/pirate content/etc. could find themselves at risk.
I'm going to take everyone's favorite (or least favorite) browser. Mozilla Firefox has a massive addon ecosystem with user generated content. So someone who did not like Mozilla or was competing with Mozilla could, conceivably, put copyrighted content in a user review of an addon, or upload an addon that enables others to get around DNS blocking/firewalls/etc., and then Mozilla Firefox is effectively out of business.
Sites that serve as places to upload reviews of products would also be hard hit, since instead of going through a legally arduous process to get a bad review removed, a company could just upload copyrighted content (anonymously) to the website and get it pulled down for that.
Here is something else to consider; I could write a book, self-publish it, and then use the forums of EA to completely (or partially) kill EA's online presence.
By the same token, some smart cracker/hacker (cracker is more accurate) somewhere will crack into the government's website and post copyrighted material there, which would make the government liable (the government probably won't care--they wrote the law, so they could modify to give exemptions to certain parties, but then some people are more equal in the view of the law then others. Just like 1984).
Has anyone out there given any thought to the potential for crackers to take down legitimate sites that had no intention of violating copyright law, but did violate copyright because it got cracked/hacked?
I have no problem with IP laws; it is only how it is enacted, and I think that SOPA/PIPA along with the DMCA go a little to far. I want to own what I purchase, and be able to resell it later.
SOPA and PIPA are just disasters waiting to happen; if you cannot enforce the law, especially one like this, then you have no business passing the law in the first place.
For those in congress:
Oh, and about Tor? Some people already have it. It is open source, anyone can get the source, anyone can build it, anyone can improve upon it. Again, look at how effective it is in places that have essentially the same type of blocking.
Also, don't trust the lobbyists; they have been known to lie to further their interests.
For everyone else:
Join us, get Tor today for tomorrow.
http://www.torproject.org
Also, I see .onion domains popping up all over the place. Those are sites only accessible via Tor, and no one can track them back to the originator easily.
BTW, I do not condone or engage in piracy, so please don't say that I'm against it because you think I engage in "piracy."
Also, for those wanting to quote me out of context, please do so after SOPA/PIPA pass. I'll use it on YOU. If you are going to quote me, get the context; if you don't, ask. I'm specifically thinking of the previous paragraph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)