Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Oh, and I did go so far as to look for pictures to photoshop/GIMP relating to an earlier comment, last night, but found this (just before the batteries died on that laptop), thus making any need to parody the situation obsolete...

[ChairmanPoo]

They took down FBI.gov

Assuming it hasn't already been posted (how many more pages?) this is almost relevant.

If only Randall had chosen the other TLA at the time of writing.

Yeah, TBH the attacks on govt sites, while thematically relevant, don't serve much purpose.

Attacks on companies *are*, however. During the wikileaks thing they dealt quite a bit of pain to quite a few of them. IIRC Paypal actually capitulated somewhat and gave WL access to the funds they had in their account

[jester]

I think the point of the attacks on gov sites is to show how little actual power governments have against their people and remind people in power that they are still vulnerable to people who get pissed enough.  Has to be a bit of a pig for the powers that be to know that there really isnt a damn thing they can do to stop the internet equivalent of punk kids passing out and vomiting on their lawns

[Dae]

Unrelated note, while we're talking about US politics, can someone explain the difference between lobbying in the US and corruption ?

Every company that makes money out of the Internet is vulnerable to DDOS. On the other hand, it was a cool symbol that some brought down the FBI website, but true hackers would have it easier to hack into it were the front door not DDOS'ed.
It would make a lot more sense to block the sites where Universal sells things. If there are Universal Music titles on iTunes, they should attack iTunes.

[MonkeyHead]

Arresting these people is a bit like arresting Sony bosses for someone playing a pirated DVD on a Sony player, or the bosses of Ford for people breaking the speed limit in one of thier cars. Yes, they should try and prevent people breaking the law using thier site, but is it really thier fault that people tried to violate the law in the first place?

Also, regarding the attacks:



Is this turning into USA vs. The Internet?

[Rose]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16655272

[olemars]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16655272

Mr Smith, a Texas Republican, said in a statement: "I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy.

"It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products."

Yeah, he's not bitter at all.

[MonkeyHead]

I would love to know which inventions and products he is referring to.

[ChairmanPoo]

Arresting these people is a bit like arresting Sony bosses for someone playing a pirated DVD on a Sony player, or the bosses of Ford for people breaking the speed limit in one of thier cars. Yes, they should try and prevent people breaking the law using thier site, but is it really thier fault that people tried to violate the law in the first place?

Also, regarding the attacks:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Is this turning into USA vs. The Internet?

They took down FBI.gov

Assuming it hasn't already been posted (how many more pages?) this is almost relevant.

If only Randall had chosen the other TLA at the time of writing.

[Neonivek]

Unrelated note, while we're talking about US politics, can someone explain the difference between lobbying in the US and corruption ?

It is sort of hard to even answer this because there is innocent and not so innocent lobbying.

[jester]

Unrelated note, while we're talking about US politics, can someone explain the difference between lobbying in the US and corruption ?

Seriously, Id love to hear about this from someone who knows a bit about US politics as well.  The trade of cash for favors seems to be right out in the open, what is the logic/justification behind the way these things (look to at least) work?

edit: ninjaed, maybe ill just start a new thread

[warhammer651]

Because lobbyists promise donations to election campaigns rather than straight up bribes.



Yes, that is seriously how they justify it.

[GlyphGryph]

Giving their campaign money to stay in power is allowed, even in exchange for explicit legislation
Giving them money to stuff in their freezer is not

[PTTG??]

Because it's a bribe that can only be spent on election campaigns. This is seen as very different from bribes that can be spent on whatever the recipient likes...

[xellas84]

You want the LEGAL definition, or the real world one?

Legal definition:  Campaign contributions are covered by first amendment rules, as a method of 'free speech', as those contributions are a form of nonviolent political activism and therefore protected speech.

Real world:  There isn't one, but nobody (in power) says anything cause it means they get millions and don't have to spend their PERSONAL money on campaigns, meaning more money in their pocket.