US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#181

Post by steve-howard » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 7:21 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #110

lkrubner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't government simply ban the whole thing? Consider ham radio: my dad used to be really into it, and it doesn't cost much to get into it. But the government can scare away a lot of people from it, simply with the distant threat of some kind of punishment. So most people do it the legal way, at which point it becomes a big hassle - tests and certificates. And as soon as tests and certificates are needed, most…

The catch here is what you're talking about is the ultimate power of a government. The system described wouldn't stop a government from censoring the internet for its own people. No technology can stop that. It would however prevent a government from becoming the government, which the Americans seem to try endlessly to do. Once the technology was "in the wild" the US could simply "ban the whole thing"... and join Nor…

Or, more accurately, which the minimally-accountable American government seems to try endlessly to do.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#182

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 7:28 AM UTC

MetallicCloud wrote: post #175

anigbrowl wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what. the fuck. do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway? The same thing as all the folks who know nothing of legal procedure but have decided to go ahead and condemn it anyway? Sorry to be blunt, but I'm with zeteo in thinking that both Ars and the blogger they cite have misinterpreted this ruling, and in being disappointed at the lack of conte…

I disagree. To extend your analogy, it's like taking a sample of 300 cars, finding that 3 of them need impounding and then locking them all up, leaving the onus on the owner to go through the hassle of getting their car out if they weren't infringing.

And where are you getting this 1% number from? Why are you assuming a 99% false positive rate? It's not hard to identify bogus retailers in this case because luxury brands usually have direct contractual relations with retail partners rather than selling though wholesale channels. So if you see cheap stuff.com selling 'Chanel' merchandise and they're not on the list of authorized distributors, then by definition they're selling knockoffs.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#183

Post by phodo » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 7:46 AM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #60

charliesome wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've already got Namecoin and Diaspora, but neither appear to be catching on.

Namecoin is pretty great, but as with all these things, there's the problem of the network effect. Diaspora has all sorts of problems. With the SSL certificate thing, there's Convergence, which basically solves the whole lot at a stroke. See http://convergence.io/ and the guy's Blackhat talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

"problem of network effect" if you accept the premises that: a) the diaspora's of the world are the solution (or at least a step in the right direction) b) the problem is that of a network effect (translation: the cold start problem)

... then one solution is for a well known, highly trafficked brand, that has nothing to lose, to implement "a".

... a.k.a.... what if someone like yahoo which still has vast reach, but is not a player in social, took something like diaspora and promoted heavily. That would solve the cold start problem.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#184

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 8:03 AM UTC

dpatru wrote: post #101

yolesaber wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can be done is encouraging more engineers and scientists to run for offices in the United States Government.

China's leaders are engineers. It just helps them be more repressive. Rather than engineers, we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government. The problem we have isn't that people in government aren't bright. They are. It's that they want government to solve too many problems. When you have power, it's tempting to try to solve problems through imposition (by passing laws, e.g., n…

I'm not sure if this was genuine, joking, or accidentally the result of a lack of study in political science and social relations, but let's be clear on this point:

People do not work out their differences through the marketplace.

The market is a social relation in which people are put to the task of serving the interest of capital—and capital alone.

What Americans call a democratic government is a minority ruling class serving the interests and goals of capital and the market, regardless what it costs the majority. The ruling class doesn't want government to solve too many problems—they want it to solve the problems of capital, allowing brief pauses only where the majority threatens capital's current relations as to necessitate throwing the majority a bone of reform to quiet things back down.

All that to say let's be careful thinking, much less suggesting, people work out differences in the marketplace. It's the wrong forum. Submitting our needs to the market is nothing more than offering those needs up for exploitation in the interest of financial returns.

The market will not solve this problem unless, and only if, it is found to threaten the interests of capital, diminishes surplus value, and then the government will back off. People need to stop believing that a government who exists to protect capital is going to defend the people against the loss of unprofitable or dangerous freedoms.

Want to get the government to make a change? Convince them this harms the market (well, that's the most cynical suggestion given the current state of things). Better yet? Subvert and support eliminating the power of the market itself to control government.

You're right "we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government." You're wrong suggesting this has anything at all to do with the marketplace. The market created the enormous edifice of governmental machinery we have today to protect itself. Government isn't the source of the problem. It's the servant, the tool, and the scapegoat.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#185

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 8:10 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #182

MetallicCloud wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. To extend your analogy, it's like taking a sample of 300 cars, finding that 3 of them need impounding and then locking them all up, leaving the onus on the owner to go through the hassle of getting their car out if they weren't infringing.

And where are you getting this 1% number from? Why are you assuming a 99% false positive rate? It's not hard to identify bogus retailers in this case because luxury brands usually have direct contractual relations with retail partners rather than selling though wholesale channels. So if you see cheap stuff.com selling 'Chanel' merchandise and they're not on the list of authorized distributors, then by definition they…

Faulty logic.

I'm not on the list of authorized distributors.

I can sell a shit ton of Chanel merchandise.

There is no definition of anything at all here that means I am selling knockoffs.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#186

Post by Natsu » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 8:10 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #182

MetallicCloud wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. To extend your analogy, it's like taking a sample of 300 cars, finding that 3 of them need impounding and then locking them all up, leaving the onus on the owner to go through the hassle of getting their car out if they weren't infringing.

And where are you getting this 1% number from? Why are you assuming a 99% false positive rate? It's not hard to identify bogus retailers in this case because luxury brands usually have direct contractual relations with retail partners rather than selling though wholesale channels. So if you see cheap stuff.com selling 'Chanel' merchandise and they're not on the list of authorized distributors, then by definition they…

> And where are you getting this 1% number from?

I would assume it's from this part of the article:

"How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit."

It was closer to 1.3% if that makes you feel any better.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#187

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 8:14 AM UTC

1010100101 wrote: post #104

JonnieCache wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However statements like "all the features that we need or want" are troublesome. How can we possibly agree on those? That last one was the least important and the most flippantly stated (apart from the global mesh network.) >What if someone built the low-level, _boring_ "platform", and offered a _simple_, _old_, boring but workable conceptual vision, then let all the high-level ethusiasts address usability and featu…

Ah, that's good to know. Now, sadly, I must ask, is someone going to try to make this proprietary and embedded, contained within hermetically sealed hardware enclosures, complete with convoluted bootloader and behavioural studies rootkit, to try to make billions from it? To my knowledge the low-level part can happen right now using freely available code. Is it naive to think we could keep this simple and open? Even t…

  Now, sadly, I must ask, is someone going to try to
  make this proprietary and embedded, contained within
  hermetically sealed hardware enclosures, complete with 
  convoluted bootloader and behavioural studies rootkit,
  to try to make billions from it?

If the problem is submitted to the market, then yes. That's what the market and capital does. So sad.

It'd be great if the world's geeks would stop laboring for the fucking market, increasing the surplus value exacted from their labor, and winding up fucked by their own creations.

EDIT: formatting

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#188

Post by Natsu » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 8:15 AM UTC

Jabbles wrote: post #121

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #18

So if I decide to sell my wife's (imaginary) 3 tons of Chanel goods, and open a site called chanel-goods-for-cheap, odds are my site gets lifted and I become a part of this action no matter whether I am selling counterfeit goods or not, right? I agree with the attorney. Why get upset about SOPA? They can screw you over just the same way today without all the extra laws. This will eventually reach the point, if left u…

Please read the article and stop spreading false information. It doesn't help. Obviously the court's decision sets an awful precedent. But the third paragraph clearly states that Chanel checked that the sites were actually selling counterfeit goods. So your analogy doesn't work.

> But the third paragraph clearly states that Chanel checked that the sites were actually selling counterfeit goods.

For 3 of the 228 sites, yes. That's about 1.3% of them.

They're probably right about them selling knock-offs, but they didn't check most of them. They're also bending the joinder rules in a way similar to certain copyright plaintiffs who had their cases severed for misjoinder. That said, there seem to be quite a few judges willing to bend those rules, too.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#189

Post by BerislavLopac » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 8:24 AM UTC

dekz wrote: post #165

ComputerGuru wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only. Unfortunately, it's not like that. With how well the "internet" is established, this is one case of NOT build it and they will come. You can build it, but it'll never gain the authority to make everyone use it. You'll need to be a Google or Microsoft to pull this one off.

Just like bittorrent required Microsoft and Google to become popular? I think you're underestimating the value younger generations hold to free as in speech.

TBH I think it's more like free as in beer. Torrent hasn't become popular by passing censored information, it became popular by passing pirated entertainment. Movies, music and software, especially games. And pr0n, of course -- the best way for a service to become popular is to provide free and easy access to it.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#190

Post by ecdavis » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 8:36 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #77

naner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't invent around policy problems.

Yes you can, if you make the invention critical before they realize the consequences.

The Internet has become critical and "they" are beginning to realise the consequences, which is leading to increasingly invasive and ill-informed policy.