91–100 of 161 posts
I have said this before I will have to say this again until we can get a good answer: What the fuck is the government waisting time doing this crap when they have a war on terror to fight? Concentrate on what is necessary for the war effort, dammit.
How about the government concentrate on reducing the massive debt or getting a decent healthcare system setup?
Waging war and pointless internet censorship aren't high on my list.
But perhaps I don't understand how DNSSEC works. It seems unlikely that its designers would ignore that concern.
Edit: Or were they only concerned cache poisoning? There's been much talk of using DNSSEC to authenticate websites and even people. If I'm understanding DNSSEC correctly, it seems terribly misguided, even worse than the idea of "government key escrow".
It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?
I think the rule should be that the people who vote against it get to collectively vote on a name. This would be a pretty cool game theory case study, actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great business model, come to think of it.
It's rather like people who buy a book just so they can burn it. If I'm the publisher, that's my cue to reprint as fast as possible.
The second time around, I'm sure they combed through it and pointed out the things that they would prefer the author left out. After that, the modified book probably got the green light.
I don't see why you would want to be an ass and just republish the book again without talking to the people.
It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?
How about a better question: Why is this allowed in the united states? This is an absofuckingloutely clear violation of the due process in our constitution. Yes save the fucking children, but do it properly. We see the abuses that arise from improper giving of power. I guess people are waiting until basically we live in communist russia where you got to bribe cops to not give you speeding ticket, impound your car, an…
If you want a more modern problem, look at drug forfeiture. They regularly take physical property and cash from people who are often not charged with crimes or even arrested, and even worse, distribute the cash and proceeds from sale of the items seized among the law enforcement agents themselves.
Personally, I had a vintage car seized because of a situation with a college roommate unrelated to me. I was not arrested or charged with a crime, they said my car was cool and maybe they could use it for drug investigations, and just took it! After 16 months of stalling, they gave it back, for a fee of $1000. My car sat in the sun in an impound lot all that time, and required $4,000 of work before it started again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting point. No Section 508 compliance. 5th amendment violation - taking property without due process Libel - falsely accusing a domain name owner of peddling kiddie porn Any others I am missing?
I just sent an email on this. To Whom it May Concern: The Department of Homeland Security has recently seized around 84,000 domains, replacing their content with a gif image (can be seen at: http://74.81.170.110/ with a backup at http://linuxhomebase.com/IPRC_Seized_2010_11.jpg ). This is part of "Operation: Protect Our Children" (more info at: http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1297804574965.shtm ) The entire sour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the rule should be that the people who vote against it get to collectively vote on a name. This would be a pretty cool game theory case study, actually.
Then you'd end up with every bill having a name like "The Job Killing Health Care Bill". It would just be biased from the other side. That might be good in this case, but when a bill you want to pass comes along, and gets renamed into the "FCC is taking over your internet and will burn sites like Hitler burned books", it may seem less attractive.
What you'd actually get is accuracy, like the "Necessary expenditures with a side of pork act" or the "Handout to lobbyists that will also probably protect consumers, but not necessarily enough to justify the higher costs" bill.
It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the government will never turn to a giant powergrab overnight. They've learn through history and the wisdom of the public relations industry: consolidate power gradually and using numerous pretexts. I'd guess the power consolidation has an end vision in mind: one doesn't spend the kind of effort they've spent without a goal.
one doesn't spend the kind of effort they've spent without a goal. Never credit to malice what can be explained by incompetence. I personally believe that pretty much all democratic governments are slipping towards fascism, not because any one or any group has that as a far vision, but because all have short term goals which create the emergent long term effect of a slow slide towards fascism. Ever bigger law enforce…