Pages: 1

 

2008-05-14 23:39:14
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251
So, I just installed a Digg top story widgets for Windows Vista, and found this.  It talks about Mormons (and, later, Scientologists) attempting to have information down from Wikileaks by claiming breach of copyright.  Following a couple of links I found this and this, talking about a Swiss bank taking some people to court.  After laughing heartily (*almost* as good as the internet is a series of tubes), I started thinking about it more seriously.  Specifically:

1)  Can this sort of thing be policed?

2)  Should it be policed?

3)  Exactly how much are these people paying their lawyers to screw them over further?

Ok, so maybe number three isn't serious.  As to the first two, I can't really see anyway to police this sort of stuff without seizing centralised control of the internet (almost impossible).  As to whether it should be policed.............I'm of two minds.  On the one hand, there's a real public benefit to this sort of thing.  On the other hand, it's also easy to misuse (the "Number Redacted" fight springs to mind).  Thoughts?
2008-05-15 00:19:18
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY
Laws can and are enforced on the internet.  They are enforced by whatever country the servers are located in.  In the case of Wikileaks, I believe it's Sweden.
2008-05-15 00:31:01
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

SenorToenails wrote:

Laws can and are enforced on the internet.  They are enforced by whatever country the servers are located in.  In the case of Wikileaks, I believe it's Sweden.
But once the information's there, what's to stop others from posting it elsewhere?

Pirate Bay's back up, isn't it?  How long ago did that get "taken down"?  How long was it down for?
2008-05-15 00:36:43
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY

ZombieVampire! wrote:

But once the information's there, what's to stop others from posting it elsewhere?
Nothing, really.  People can sue you, but it really depends on what information you are talking about.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Pirate Bay's back up, isn't it?  How long ago did that get "taken down"?  How long was it down for?
I don't use The Pirate Bay, so I don't really know.  But their servers are based Scandinavia somewhere, so they abide by the laws of that land, much to the dismay of US based industries.

I don't take those "information wants to be free" people seriously, since they really only believe that until it's their personal information that gets 'liberated'.
2008-05-15 01:08:38
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7191
Wikileaks rocks. they have lots of servers and lots of domains.
2008-05-15 01:15:46
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

SenorToenails wrote:

Nothing, really.  People can sue you, but it really depends on what information you are talking about.
Which was exactly what I pointed out originally.

SenorToenails wrote:

I don't use The Pirate Bay, so I don't really know.  But their servers are based Scandinavia somewhere, so they abide by the laws of that land, much to the dismay of US based industries.
And when they were taken down, they simply shifted to another country.  Again, I'm pretty sure I said that earlier.

Further, there are cases where people have been extradited to face carges in a country they've never been to (or one, at least).

SenorToenails wrote:

I don't take those "information wants to be free" people seriously, since they really only believe that until it's their personal information that gets 'liberated'.
Wow, wild generalisations FTW!
2008-05-15 01:21:25
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Wow, wild generalisations FTW!
Whoa, you took my points way out of context.
2008-05-15 01:48:46
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251
How so?
2008-05-15 02:11:54
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY

ZombieVampire! wrote:

How so?
Wild generalizations about what?  I did not accuse you of anything.  That comment, and your general hostile tone in that post made me think you took me way out of context.

It is difficult to enforce copyrights on the internet, so these companies do the only thing they really can -- litigate.  That covers your first question.  And to the other, which was the point of the 'information wants to be free' reference, is that yes, data should be protected to reasonable extents.
2008-05-15 02:21:23
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

SenorToenails wrote:

It is difficult to enforce copyrights on the internet, so these companies do the only thing they really can -- litigate.  That covers your first question.
No, that says currently it's not possible to police, but people try anyway.  What I was getting at is could a concerted effort result in a policeable internet.

SenorToenails wrote:

And to the other, which was the point of the 'information wants to be free' reference, is that yes, data should be protected to reasonable extents.
But the question ultimately becomes what is reasonable.  The fact is everyone agrees that everything should be done to a reasonable extent: the point of contention is what they consider reasonable.
2008-05-15 02:32:08
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, that says currently it's not possible to police, but people try anyway.  What I was getting at is could a concerted effort result in a policeable internet.
I thought you meant 'currently' and not 'somehow possible'.  Maybe I misunderstood?  Sorry.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

But the question ultimately becomes what is reasonable.  The fact is everyone agrees that everything should be done to a reasonable extent: the point of contention is what they consider reasonable.
Indeed.  Thus the messed up world we live in.
2008-05-15 03:59:03
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

SenorToenails wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, that says currently it's not possible to police, but people try anyway.  What I was getting at is could a concerted effort result in a policeable internet.
I thought you meant 'currently' and not 'somehow possible'.  Maybe I misunderstood?  Sorry.
No, my OP wasn't clear.  But..........your thoughts?

SenorToenails wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

But the question ultimately becomes what is reasonable.  The fact is everyone agrees that everything should be done to a reasonable extent: the point of contention is what they consider reasonable.
Indeed.  Thus the messed up world we live in.
Again, what do you consider reasonable?
2008-05-15 03:59:56
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7265|Cologne, Germany

ZombieVampire! wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

It is difficult to enforce copyrights on the internet, so these companies do the only thing they really can -- litigate.  That covers your first question.
No, that says currently it's not possible to police, but people try anyway.  What I was getting at is could a concerted effort result in a policeable internet.

SenorToenails wrote:

And to the other, which was the point of the 'information wants to be free' reference, is that yes, data should be protected to reasonable extents.
But the question ultimately becomes what is reasonable.  The fact is everyone agrees that everything should be done to a reasonable extent: the point of contention is what they consider reasonable.
well, I certainly think that any area in which humans operate should be policeable, mainly because we know from other areas that humans are generally assholes, and require policing. Why this should not be true for the internet, escapes me.

It is a place where documents are published, and things are said, just like in the so-called "real life" ( a constructed difference to me ) and thus I find it only fair that people would have to face the consequences of their actions on the net just as they would in "RL".

There is no real difference between the two anyway, at least not to me.

Sure, it may be more difficult to police, but the principle should be upheld.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard