[2012-Feb-02] Internet Rights

[ChaoticBrain]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2508#comic

Some people may roll their eyes at how this comic beats you over the head with its message, but I maintain that some anvils need to be dropped.

[mondrop1]

The comic is certainly heavy-handed and serious today.

While he might be preaching to the choir, it'll be good if this actually gets someone (who amazingly still doesn't know of this) to start thinking. What America needs is a compulsory course on logical fallacies and critical thinking before they're allowed to vote for anything, another course (containing only facts by an independent panel of experts and academics with no political interpretations) on any bill/social issue and its legal/social ramifications before they choose to support it. The two-party system is overly simplified and plagued with political bickering+filibustering, and people look at the names instead of using their brains when choosing whom to support. They shouldn't be doing that anyway. They should be grading how much they agree with each candidate's view (whose name is hidden) on each issue. The one that most people agree with, regardless of their affiliation or background, should win, and the people's views regarding the issues, heaven forbid, should be taken seriously by policy makers, instead of which corporation/faction/alliance can lobby the most. Sure it will take a lot of work and fewer people will be able to vote for anything. But the ones that vote will care and be able to think for themselves (I imagine most of congress won't even pass the courses). Democracy / republicanism / whatever only works then.

I know bribery exists everywhere, but in America corporations just do it brazenly and call it free speech (that court decision changed America forever, and it's foolish to expect greedy politicians to get rid of such a source of income). There was even that guy from RIAA/MPAA making an open threat aimed the politicians he pays for if SOPA doesn't pass. Politicians during the SOPA hearings actually said things like "I'm not a nerd" and that they didn't even use the internet. It's like they don't even try to be subtle anymore. Land of corporations where every citizen is wiretapped at home and molested at the airports, eh ? I think they actually use the term 'Corporate America' endearingly on Fox News. There are too many reasons why Fox News (which actually won a case saying it was legal for them to knowingly spread lies) should go out of business, yet it hasn't. Apathy, ignorance and corruption are the reasons why the political system has become so rigid, ossified and ineffectual. It is just sad to find every debate on TV so devoid of thought and reasoning. I've been to a few of the intellectual gatherings and deeply impressed. Yet I know for a fact a public debate isn't about facts but populist demagogy and manipulation of the media, and these people's wonderful insights are just going to wither within the world of academia. They disagree often, but they actually attempt to use reasoning. I once looked at North Korea and lamented that nobody would be able to change that regime. Now I do see something wrong with the US; many also do and are becoming increasingly vocal about it. Yet I can't fathom a way for the US to change no matter who replaces the politicians. It's a perfect sphere of influence and corruption that ALSO gives the people the illusion of freedom, something North Korea fails to achieve. Even I am going to be devoured by the Grue of apathy soon, I think.

[Dindong]

There is no such thing as crony-capitalism, only capitalism. This is the inevitable result of capitalism, whether it can be changed isn't known, but if capital is still freer than most human beings, then this is the situation we will find ourselves in again and again.

[hopeless]

It is hopeless! The whole world has signed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

[Dindong]

You have to report everyone you know, everyone needs to report everyone, because the only way these things work is if the entertainment industry picks on like 2% of people who do this, that's a number where they get enough rewards but without it being unworkably large. So everyone needs to report each other. If you don't torrent, you should start doing so, torrent stuff you already bought and such, get that DVD you bought in 720p or something.

Tell on everyone.

[Torg]

It is hopeless! The whole world has signed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

From what I've heard, the EU still hasn't totally completely signed it yet, and if they don't then it nullifies the agreement everywhere. That seems a little too convenient but it's what I've been told.

If it does pass, though, I like the idea of torrenting stuff I own.

[Eisbreaker]

The problem with torrenting is that even if you own the file you're downloading, you're still seeding it at the same time for other people, who may not own it, so you're technically distributing the file. Lot's of people forget that.

[Dindong]

You have so little faith in others, I assume everyone I seed to has bought it for themselves and is using it for back-up.

[Spaceguy5]

but I maintain that some anvils need to be dropped.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, AAAAGGGHHHH *Becomes trapped*

(Seriously though, it's ridiculous. The worst part is that it's not just SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, but they keep pushing more and more bills and trade agreements D<)

[R.W.]

Huh, looks like no one wants to stand up for the government. I'll give it a shot.

This comic (while awesome as always) seems to make a lot of false comparisons in the interests of making a more punchy message. For instance, in the first one about shutting down websites/shops, a better analogy would be that the cops are shutting down the woman's store because she's selling stuff that she stole from the store next door. Of course, you could still make an argument that cops shouldn't be able to shut down a business on someone else's say-so (even if the accusation is a serious one), but that's a whole other issue (Specifically, check out SOPA's §103(c)(5) where it talks about "in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"; still need to go to courts, although you could always argue that the whole US legal system is beholden to corporations).

In the second one about the government opening your mail/email, that line at the end about "congratulations on your active sex life" presupposes that the government will look at your personal emails without good cause (apparently, they have nothing better to do). So when you ask why the first is reasonable and the second is unimaginable, it's because in the first the government (theoretically) doesn't read mail needlessly and in the second the government (theoretically) does read mail needlessly. You can make an argument (and probably a good one) that the first one is unreasonable because it allows for the possibility that the government would read mail needlessly, but that argument can be used against, say, having SWAT teams or gun control laws or even a standing military (they could be used to abuse the rights of innocents, but most of us trust the government not to).

In the third one about monitoring online activity versus searching your house, one way to differentiate the cases is the fact that when you go on the internet, you're interacting in a non-private atmosphere. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's more akin to being in public, and I think we'd be a lot less uncomfortable with the idea that police officers can watch us while we're out in public (still creepy, but not "ridiculous"). Not comfortable with the analogy between being online and being in public? Well, what if we consider it like you're yelling out your window to your friend across the street. You are still physically inside, but you're sending and receiving information through a public area (the street). If you're yelling to a friend across the street, would it be ridiculous if a cop listened in? Anyhow, my point is that the searching of a home is more akin to searching your personal files, as opposed to your downloads and online behavior.

Don't get me wrong, I love this comic. But I fear that without discussion from both sides, we risk ending up yelling from atop Mount Stupid (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475). On that note, feel free to tell me that I'm yelling from atop Mt. Stupid with regard to these issues, but please also help airlift me away.

Cheers,
R.W.

[Spaceguy5]

....but not all parts of the internet are public. There's such a thing as personal accounts, passwords, email, etcetc. And hell, the law prevents ordinary citizens from logging onto people's internet accounts without permission. Why should an ISP be allowed to collect my passwords and such?

[R.W.]

Well, one way I consider it is like websites are shops (I'm not a big techie, so if I get anything technically incorrect feel free to correct me). They're not exactly a public space like, say, a park. But they are pretty public, and if a cop wants to follow your around while you shop at Wal-Mart you might not be able to tell him to get off your land (because you don't own the Wal-Mart... unless I am grossly mistaken about who I'm talking to). I think that the internet is not analogous to your private residence, because while you specifically own (or lease) your residence and have accompanying privacy rights within it, you specifically do not own the internet. I think searching your house without a warrant would be a much more appropriate analogy if the government were able to search your hard drive without a warrant.

Also of note, with the ISP they might be able to already collect this information. I have heard that Google aggregates your searches, so if you Google "bulk order sulphuric acid", "how to use a hacksaw", and "secluded places to dump a body" an inquiring Google tech might be able to determine that all is not well in your life. In a way, it's kind of like if you were to ask a librarian where to find information on acid, hacksaws, and dumping grounds and he or she were to piece it all together and give you the stink-eye.

Now, the next question is whether the government should be able to have access to this. Should they be able to go into your local library and ask if you or anyone else has been borrowing books on bomb-making? Maybe, maybe not. But it's definitely not as ridiculous as them searching your house without a warrant, and that's the distinction I want to put out.

[R.W.]

Sorry about the double post, but right after I clicked submit I realized that I totally skirted your point about "personal accounts, passwords, email, etcetc". I apologize.

I don't know whether I'd consider those your private property either. In line with the websites are shops analogy, I might consider them more like gym or train station lockers, or perhaps hotel rooms. I mean, administrators of the site probably have access to the information. So when you say "the law prevents ordinary citizens from logging onto people's internet accounts" that may not be true. If WoW admins want to go into your WoW account and read all the mails (which you sent through their system), you may not have a cause of action against them.

[smiley_cow]

This comic (while awesome as always) seems to make a lot of false comparisons in the interests of making a more punchy message. For instance, in the first one about shutting down websites/shops, a better analogy would be that the cops are shutting down the woman's store because she's selling stuff that she stole from the store next door. Of course, you could still make an argument that cops shouldn't be able to shut down a business on someone else's say-so (even if the accusation is a serious one), but that's a whole other issue (Specifically, check out SOPA's §103(c)(5) where it talks about "in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"; still need to go to courts, although you could always argue that the whole US legal system is beholden to corporations).

The problem with your analogy is that if something like SOPA were to have passed it would have been social networking sites, particularly sites like reddit, Tumblr and youtube, which are not set up for pirating but some people use for file sharing and copyright violations anyways. These bills weren't directed just at websites that are actively pirating copyright material but at any website anyone might be able to use for piracy. So basically any website that allows people to communicate with each other would be vulnerable. You seem to think that the shop keeper would have to be committing a crime herself, but she can be running a perfectly legitimate store here and patrons in the store could just be talking about where to get illegal bootlegs.

In the second one about the government opening your mail/email, that line at the end about "congratulations on your active sex life" presupposes that the government will look at your personal emails without good cause (apparently, they have nothing better to do). So when you ask why the first is reasonable and the second is unimaginable, it's because in the first the government (theoretically) doesn't read mail needlessly and in the second the government (theoretically) does read mail needlessly. You can make an argument (and probably a good one) that the first one is unreasonable because it allows for the possibility that the government would read mail needlessly, but that argument can be used against, say, having SWAT teams or gun control laws or even a standing military (they could be used to abuse the rights of innocents, but most of us trust the government not to).

In the third one about monitoring online activity versus searching your house, one way to differentiate the cases is the fact that when you go on the internet, you're interacting in a non-private atmosphere. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's more akin to being in public, and I think we'd be a lot less uncomfortable with the idea that police officers can watch us while we're out in public (still creepy, but not "ridiculous"). Not comfortable with the analogy between being online and being in public? Well, what if we consider it like you're yelling out your window to your friend across the street. You are still physically inside, but you're sending and receiving information through a public area (the street). If you're yelling to a friend across the street, would it be ridiculous if a cop listened in? Anyhow, my point is that the searching of a home is more akin to searching your personal files, as opposed to your downloads and online behavior.

Don't get me wrong, I love this comic. But I fear that without discussion from both sides, we risk ending up yelling from atop Mount Stupid (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475). On that note, feel free to tell me that I'm yelling from atop Mt. Stupid with regard to these issues, but please also help airlift me away.

Cheers,
R.W.

This shows a lot of ignorance about why privacy laws are important in the first place. Never trust that your government when given power they could abuse will make the moral choice not to abuse it. Because eventually guaranteed someone in power will. Besides, if there is a need to read someone's email, say they're investigating a serious crime, law enforcement officers can already get a warrant. So it's an unnecessary law in the first place.

The fear behind losing privacy protection when it comes to email and Internet browsing habits isn't that some faceless government official might find out that you're meeting Amy for coffee on Thursday. It's that they might out a political opponent who happened to be gay in order to win an election. Or they might discover that 15 years ago some activist they want to discredit looked at a Communist website once, even if that has nothing to do with what their cause is. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the McCarthy hearings but imagine a witch hunt like that happening today where the government could access all of your previous browsing data and emails. Can you honestly say that in the hundreds of hours you've spent on the Internet, you've never looked at something to do with Communism?*

The mindset that if someone is doing nothing wrong, they should be fine with having their privacy invaded is a very dangerous mindset.

*And yes I realise that Communism isn't nearly the stain on your reputation it used to be, but that doesn't mean that there aren't similar things in today's world that would be. Or that there won't be new ones in the future.

[DonRetrasado]

I kinda wish my name was just two initials, that seems bad-ass.