Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Firefox Mozilla The Internet

DHS Wants Mozilla To Disable Mafiaafire Plugin, Mozilla Resists 360

Posted by timothy
from the just-a-polite-note-from-the-well-armed-neighbors dept.
Davis Freeberg writes "The Department of Homeland Security is hard at work again, protecting the industry from websites that the big studios don't want you to see. This time they're targeting the Mafiaafire plugin by asking Mozilla to disable the addon at the root level. Instead of blindly complying with the government's request, Mozilla has decided to ask some tough questions instead. Unsurprisingly, when faced with legitimate concerns about the legality of their domain seizure program, the DHS has decided to clam up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS Wants Mozilla To Disable Mafiaafire Plugin, Mozilla Resists

Comments Filter:
  • by The Dawn Of Time (2115350) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:34PM (#36042182)

    It's good to see that Mozilla is holding strong to their core values. DHS needs more people willing to question what they do. Blind compliance to government demands is anti-American and it saddens me to see so many people simply fall in line.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:37PM (#36042224)

      I still don't understand why the Department of Homeland Security has to be involved with websites. Shouldn't that be reserved for the cyberpolice? That's where I report all the people who'd done goof'd.

      • by X0563511 (793323) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:47PM (#36042318) Homepage Journal

        Yea, I'm not sure on what child pornography or even (the horror!) media/software pirates have to do with National Security either...

      • I kind of figured that web sites were shielded by the first amendment. Since when did a person need a web site to download, FTP has been around longer than WWW.
      • The Immigration and Customs enforcement guys were folded into the DHS during the second Bush years.
    • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:45PM (#36042302) Journal

      Absolutely. I was particularly glad to see, in the full list of questions asked [scribd.com], that they question the seizure program itself, not just the dubious claims about the plug-in. The list is as follows (the source linked above is apparently a copy of the official email):

      April 19, 2011 email from Mozilla to US Department of Homeland Security Special Agent
      To help us evaluate the Department of Homeland Security's request to take-down/remove the MAFIAAfire.com add-on from Mozilla's websites, can you please provide the following additional information:
      1. Have any courts determined that MAFIAAfire.com is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)
      2. Have any courts determined that the seized domains related to MAFIAAfire.com are unlawful, illegal or liable for infringement in any way? (please provide relevant rulings)
      3. Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.
      4. Has DHS, or any copyright owners involved in this matter, taken any legal action against MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domains, including DMCA requests?
      5. What protections are in place for MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domain owners if eventually a court decides they were not unlawful?
      6. Can you please provide copies of any briefs that accompanied the affidavit considered by the court that issued the relevant seizure orders?
      7. Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down MAFIAAfire.com is based?
      8. Please identify exactly what the infringements by the owners of the domains consisted of, with reference to the substantive standards of Section 106 and to any case law establishing that the actions of the seized domain owners consti tuted civil or criminal copyright infringement.
      9. Did any copyright owners furnish affidavits in connection with the domain seizures? Had any copyright owners served DMCA takedown notices on the seized
      domains or MAFIAAfire.com? (if so please provide us with a copy)
      10. Has the Government furnished the domain owners with formal notice of the seizures, triggering the time period for a response by the owners? If so, when, and have there been any responses yet by owners?
      11. Has the Government communicated its concerns directly with MAFIAAfire.com? If so, what response, if any, did MAFIAAfire.com make?

    • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:54PM (#36042362)

      >>>Blind compliance to government demands is anti-American and it saddens me to see so many people simply fall in line.

      I had a former classmate call me an "idiot" because I refused to let my car be searched by the Homeland SA. He's right that it would be easier to comply, but the law is the law. I obey the law and I expect government employees to obey the law too.

      No search without court-issued warrant,
      and affirmed by oath before the judge.

      Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit, like if a mass murderer just escaped from prison, but not while I'm trying to enjoy a nice summer drive and no emergency exists. They've ALL sworn to obey that law. So let them obey it, instead of ignoring it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Do you really think that DHS cares about the law? They're jack booted thugs, they couldn't be more neo-Nazi if Hugo Boss were designing their uniforms. If they thought that you had something that they really wanted they'd disappear your ass and throw you in Guantanamo Bay with the rest of the "enemy combatants." The only reason you got away with refusing a search is that they probably didn't think you were worth the effort, and by the sounds of it, you aren't. Not because you "know your rights," which DHS h

      • by rjh (40933) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:27PM (#36042626)

        First, calling them the "Homeland SA" is kind of like referring to "Bushitler." It's both historically ignorant and profoundly offensive to a lot of people. The Sturmabteilung [wikipedia.org] had a career of evil the likes of which I hope to never again see. If you sincerely believe the DHS merits comparison to the SA, then your only choice is to take up arms against your government.

        Second, unless the DHS agents said "screw you and the Fourth Amendment, we're going to search you anyway!", then it sounds as if they obeyed the law just fine. They're allowed to ask you for permission to search your vehicle, and you have the right to say no. Where's the illegality?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:08PM (#36043534)

          Where's the illegality?

          Implied threat of government legal action if they don't comply. Blackmail in other words. Unless they've actually informed the person their will be no direct consequences if they don't comply. 99% of the population would have little to no idea about whether any particular government official can legally do what they do.

          • Where's the illegality?

            Implied threat of government legal action if they don't comply. Blackmail in other words. Unless they've actually informed the person their will be no direct consequences if they don't comply. 99% of the population would have little to no idea about whether any particular government official can legally do what they do.

            And therein lies the problem. People get the government they deserve. In the middle east (and many other places before), the people decided they deserved more. Some of them died for it and probably many more after. In the end, it's about what kind of abuse the people are willing to tolerate and what they're willing to risk for change.

        • How about Department of Fatherland Security instead?
        • by sjames (1099)

          I wouldn't be surprised (but I wasn't there so I can only guess) that it was the typical police method of make the request sound like a command and imply as hard as you can that the person is legally bound to comply without actually saying so (since they're not). It's not actually illegal but it's not quite ethical either. I have a right to expect my government to behave ethically.

    • by spun (1352) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {yranoituloverevol}> on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:03PM (#36042436) Journal

      Many, if not most humans seem to be authoritarians, who are comforted by the idea of some all powerful authority overseeing things, be it God, the Government, Karma, or the Company. When it looks as though they are not actually authoritarians, it is usually just because they don't like that particular authority. Show them one they like and they will fall all over themselves kissing its ass.

      • by mentil (1748130)

        If you desire a world that's perfectly just, then an omniscient, omnipotent ruler is required. Politicians sell the idea of a world that's perfectly just, and people who feel afraid or have been wronged desire this outcome -- authoritarianism.
        I don't think politicians promote this because they consciously want more power (they may, but this usually isn't why they promote easy justice). I think it's because it's an easy way to score points with voters and mollify the public if anything that makes them feel a

        • Not entirely.

          It is also possible to have a system whereby justice occurs in the end as a result of the pre-set rules of the Universe and a large enough amount of repetitions (re-incarnations and the like).

          It is also possible that such conditions do not require an omni-potent creator, merely one with great foresight or even just a random chance at the outset of things.

      • by Puff_Of_Hot_Air (995689) on Friday May 06, 2011 @01:06AM (#36044576)
        I think you would find Kohlberg's stages of moral development [wikipedia.org] an interesting read. In essence, most people are at Stage 4, which essentially is "belief in authority". Unfortunately, there are as many Stage 2 "I'm just in it for myself" arseholes as there are Stage 5 and Stage 6 "Only the just laws should be obeyed" enlightened thinkers. We need more people to level up.
      • by KeithIrwin (243301) on Friday May 06, 2011 @03:23AM (#36045050)

        Not quite as many as you think. If you'd like some more specific scientific insight into this, I would highly recommend that you read this [umanitoba.ca] free e-book by a psychology professor who has spent the last several decades studying these sort of issues. It's a really easy read and I guarantee that you'll learn some new things about authoritarian followers that you didn't know.

  • Once you go hand-in-hand with the beast there's no going back.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:35PM (#36042196)

    This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

    Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

    • by locallyunscene (1000523) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:07PM (#36042468)
      I'd never heard of it before, but now I'm trying it out.

      Streisand Effect is go.
      • by pla (258480)
        I'd never heard of it before, but now I'm trying it out. Streisand Effect is go.

        Ditto, and more than that - I now have a convenient list of websites Uncle Sam doesn't want me to see. Care to guess where I'll spend my next week's worth of casual browsing?

        Thank you, DHS. Without this particularly poor choice of targets, I likely never would have stumbled across a single one of these sites you've decided to unlawfully attack. Keep 'em comin', though - Always good to knowing my enemy's enemies.
    • by TheEyes (1686556)

      This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

      Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

      Wish I could; where the heck is it? I don't see it on the Mozilla website. I could certainly just download it from MAFIAAFire.com or whatever, but shouldn't it be there too?

    • I don't go to 'seized' sites, and have never been to one. I have no reason to go, but the ICE's illegal actions, not to mention the MAFIAA's, make me fundamentally distrust my own government.

      Like many others, I just installed the plugin. And will promote it. Yay to teh intertubes.

                  -Charlie

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:49PM (#36042852)

        I have no reason to go [to seized sites]

        This is a strange way to look at it, since it presumes that you know something about what sites whose names may be seized. I can understand that, since the seizures are currently being characterized as being for anti-piracy purposes, so if you're not into piracy, it makes sense to believe this won't affect you.

        But as usual with runaway government, one of the main reasons people are so pissed about this has more to do with the lack of due process than the stated agenda itself. You don't know that only "bad" sites will be seized, because no one is overseeing the seizures and watching the watchers. You only have their word that they've only been interfering with piracy-related sites, therefore you only have their word that you have no reason to go to the kinds of sites which may be seized. This is purely an article of faith, and really has nothing to do with the kinds of sites that you visi-- oh, wait, I get it. You only go to pro-government-religion sites. Aha. Ok, never mind, I believe you now.

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:35PM (#36042202)
    Of all places, why would the DHS think that Mozilla would cooperate with their domain seizure program?
    • by assemblerex (1275164) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:38PM (#36042236)
      Because DHS exists in a fantasy land where everything in the world serves the interests of the United States and her wealthy ruling class. Disagree and we'll send a few hookers to blow you, then claim rape and extradite you to Guantanamo.
      • by X0563511 (793323) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:51PM (#36042342) Homepage Journal

        rant on: (I agree with you assemblerex, this is not voiced at you)

        Yea, because people with different morals than the population at large are such a risk to National Security that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. ... what the FUCK people!?

        OK, I get that you think Child Porn is wrong. I personally agree, but even so, what the fuck does that have to do with National Security? The same can be asked about media piracy! You might as well just say it: you're all equating MP3 downloads to terrorism or treason. Once more. What the FUCK!?

        • Becaue Pakistan hiding Bin Laden is less important than Joey age 17 getting fondled. Lights Out.

          Another piece elsewhere profiled a 3 year Seattle infiltration case for big dollars that really didn't do much.

          We seriously need to shake up Big Gov, but it's getting harder.

        • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @08:12PM (#36043062) Homepage

          Yea, because people with different morals than the population at large are such a risk to National Security that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. ...

          'Department of Homeland Security' was much easier to ram rod through Congress than "Department of Pretty Much Everything and the Kitchen Sink that isn't Covered by the Other Big Departments'. It has nothing to do with security (that should be obvious). Gotta have a catchy title these days or it just doesn't fly.

        • by wierd_w (1375923) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @08:42PM (#36043326)

          I personally consider the rather deep and blatant connection between big media and "National Security" to be a direct [defacto] admission that the US government feels it is in danger of severe insolvency if the intellectual property cartels are broken, and/or, leave the US.

          It is one of the forms of handwriting on the wall that I mention when I say that the US is mortally ill, and in serious danger of economic implosion.

          Heavy handed DHS actions like this on behalf of this industry without proper due process would seem to be an indication of just how serious the insolvency problem actually is. That is why it is a "national security" issue.

          I do not know whether to take comfort in this insight, or to cower in fear at the notion that the economic fortunes of millions of americans might well hinge on the success or failure of a fundementally defective business model, due to the cumulative impact of many short-sighted politicians and corporate empires and their policies.

          Frighteningly enough, it would clearly explain the recent behavior my nation has had on the world stage concerning the adoption and enforcement of draconian worldwide DMCA-Like laws, and heavy handed activities using ICANN.

          That said, as terrible as the consequences would be, I actually DO hope that the DHS is UNSUCCESSFUL, and that the cartels are broken through public dissent, as per tools like the subject of this article, and outspoken civil defiance as seen in the population of Canada. (God I love the citizens of Canada. They are doing the world an unbeleivable favor by being so resolute.)

          The kind of future that would come out of a strongly enforced worldwide DMCA is not the kind of future I want to live in. I would rather see my nation fall, and have the damage contained, than see the very fundemental attribute that makes humans special (Creative intellect, and the freedom to create and share ideas) regulated for monetary purposes of a tiny few, at the expense of the whole world's freedom for EVERYONE else.

          Well done Mozilla! Ask those hard questions! Put feet to fire! I applaud your efforts!

      • by joe_frisch (1366229) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:06PM (#36042462)

        Hey - I'm, a member of the US "wealthy ruling class" and DHS doesn't serve my interests! I think Mozilla acted completely appropriately.

        I think our freedom from unlawful seizure, and our freedom of speech is more important than tracking down people swapping stolen entertainment content,or distributing child porn. (assuming that DHS's actions even helped with either of those - something I'm not sure I believe).

    • by dcollins (135727)

      Granted that (a) 99 places in 100 will comply immediately, and (b) it costs next to nothing to send a request like this out, the cost/benefit analysis is (sadly) in favor of sending the request prior to anyone even spending time making a judgment about the character of the specific institution. That's a Tier 2 job.

  • Knock yourselves out (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:35PM (#36042206)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:36PM (#36042214)

    Streisand effect. Before today, I never heard of the Mafiaafire plugin... but I'm going to look into it right now.
    probably download it, even if I don't use it whatever it may be.

  • that somebody started questioning the heavy handed tactics of big media companies
  • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:37PM (#36042228)

    I'm glad to see that DHS has lots of free time on their hands, now that OBL is dead.

    But if they aren't going to spend time on homeland security, we should disband the monster.

    Probably should anyway...

  • So Glad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cozzbp (1845636) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:41PM (#36042268)
    That US ICE even considers "pirate" and "child porn" websites to be in the same category.
  • by Nefarious Wheel (628136) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:44PM (#36042296) Journal
    Good call. Whatever you want to call the system of government, one thing it *isn't* supposed to be is an autocracy. Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.
    • Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sjbe (173966) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:53PM (#36042352)

      Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

      [crickets]

      Thought so...

      • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lennier (44736) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:49PM (#36042858) Homepage

        Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

        They already have, and loudly. Everyone who votes for one of the two mainstream parties thinks this, or they'd be voicing their displeasure by voting for a third party. That's why third parties exist. The fact that third parties don't get elected means that the majority of US voters don't, in fact, feel enough of a disconnect with the Democrats or Republicans to actually vote them out.

        It's pleasant to think that your views about the unrepresentativeness of mainstream US elected government are widespread and the majority - but the facts don't seem to actually bear this out.

        The majority actually do think their government is working for them - when their party is in power - and are quite happy to turn a blind eye to any abuses of the rights of the other 49% of Americans. The other party is of course committing the most horrible atrocities since Hitler, and creating the biggest constitutional crises since Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon, and the other 49% of voters are all evil, stupid, deluded sheep who adhere to a morally corrupt and self-contradictory political philosophy - but their party and supporters are entirely composed of hard-working, honest, shining crusaders for political reform who arrived at all their political positions from first principles derived from the Law of Identity.

        The minority party supporters laugh at this, because they know that it's really only their party who are honest shining crusaders and 99% of the voters who are deluded and philosophically bankrupt.

        • Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)

          by zippthorne (748122) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:32PM (#36043698) Journal

          I think if you actually took a poll, you'd find that most people aren't voting for one of the two parties. They're voting against the other one. The first-past-the-gate election system has created a nice big hole for tyranny, through perfectly rational decisions by game theory.

          Unfortunately, the usurpers won't ever put in place a system where they likely won't be able to maintain power, so we're going to be stuck with first-past-the-gate until things get bad enough that armed revolution stops sounding crazy. And probably after that, too, because most people are used to it and don't even know of another way to do things...

        • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MoonBuggy (611105) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:32PM (#36043700) Journal

          ‘Odd,’ said Arthur, ‘I thought you said it was a democracy?’

          ‘I did,’ said Ford, ‘It is.’

          ‘So,’ said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, ‘why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?’

          ‘It honestly doesn’t occur to them,’ said Ford. ‘They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.’

          ‘You mean they actually vote for the lizards?’

          ‘Oh yes,’ said Ford with a shrug, ‘of course.’

          ‘But,’ said Arthur, going for the big one again, ‘why?’

          ‘Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,’ said Ford, ‘the wrong lizard might get in.’

          Basically, I think you're overestimating the number of people who actually genuinely support either party. 'Voting for' isn't the same as 'supporting', or even 'agreeing with'.

      • Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ildon (413912) on Friday May 06, 2011 @01:08AM (#36044586)

        They build my bridges, fix my roads, fund companies who provide power and water, make sure that water is clean and drinkable, police the streets, protect the people. Government does some good things. It's mostly local and state government, but it's still government.

  • Consider Donating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Relic of the Future (118669) <`dales' `at' `digitalfreaks.org'> on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:46PM (#36042308)
    Even though this doesn't look like it's going to trial, you might want to consider saying "thank you" by donating [mozilla.org].
    • by Fluffeh (1273756)

      Good job sir,

      You just gave me a wonderful excuse to end up with a Mozilla plush toy! :)

      *glee*

  • I hate Government (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @06:46PM (#36042314)

    This story is one of the main reasons why. Instead of doing the job the government was created to do (protect individual rights from thieves, murderers, etc), the politicians/bureaucrats are the ones doing the infringing on those rights.

    "If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

    • Re:I hate Government (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ToasterMonkey (467067) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @07:48PM (#36042840) Homepage

      This story is one of the main reasons why. Instead of doing the job the government was created to do (protect individual rights from thieves, murderers, etc), the politicians/bureaucrats are the ones doing the infringing on those rights.

      I love America because Mozilla can do what they did, and are right by it.

      I also enjoy exercising my free speech and calling you a fucking idiot.

      "If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

      "only to protect our rights" in no way minimizes the role of government.

      What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      • by Dhalka226 (559740) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @11:07PM (#36044092)

        Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

        The right to due process, granted explicitly by the US Constitution, as well as the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty -- a tenant of the US judicial system pretty much since the beginning.

        These seizures aren't part of any investigation, so it's not akin to a search warrant. They're seized because the government and a judge unilaterally decided their operators are guilty. The're not even bothering to try to prosecute the owners, a pretty clear indication that they don't feel they have a case capable of garnering convictions. These operators were given no notice of the investigation or the court hearings, no chance to defend themselves against the charges and, given that at least 80,000 of these seizures are on suspect grounds, it's pretty clear that it was done with no reliable evidence to begin with. When provided evidence that their seizure was in the wrong (a la dajaz1.com), ICE makes no move to so much as investigate it, much less return the property that they have stolen.

        Moreover, it allows the US government to seize the property of non-US citizens who may not be violating any laws in their own jurisdiction, even with the attempts to ram silly treaties through their teeth. In several cases, the sites were already declared to be legal by their local court systems. But because the .com and .net registries happen to be here, the US feigns jurisdiction over these people and their actions, essentially declaring itself the sole world arbiter of legality.

        Or for another explanation:

        In contrast to ordinary copyright litigation, the domain name seizure process does not appear to give targeted websites an opportunity to defend themselves before sanctions are imposed. As you know, there is an active and contentious legal debate about when a website may be held liable for infringing activities by its users. I worry that domain name seizures could function as a means for end-running the normal legal process in order to target websites that may prevail in full court. The new enforcement approach used by Operation In Our Sites is alarmingly unprecedented in the breadth of its potential reach...

        For the Administration's efforts to be seen as legitimate, it should be able to defend its use of the forfeiture laws by prosecuting operators of domain names and provide a means to ensure due process. If the federal government is going to take property and risk stifling speech, it must be able to defend those actions not only behind closed doors but also in a court of law.

        -- US Senator Ron Wyden

      • What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

        Rights are not granted. Rights are inherent and sovereign. There are no laws which grant rights. There are only laws which recognize and protect rights. Privileges are granted. It is your right to own property, including an automobile (or a domain name). It is a privilege to drive your automobile on state-owned and state-maintained roads, which is why a license to operate is required. Thus, it is the right of the maintainers of the website MAFIAAFire to own the domain they have paid for. It is also

    • by slimjim8094 (941042) <slashdot3@@@justconnected...net> on Thursday May 05, 2011 @08:30PM (#36043246)

      The government was created to do a number of things that aren't really relevant nowadays. By the same token, there's a number of things we require of our governments that simply did not exist when they were created. Any thinking person agrees that the FCC, in some form, is a requirement to avoid absolute radio chaos. Similarly, anti-trust laws are pretty hard to argue against - particularly when you look at historical abuses that did, in fact, happen, and how regulation made a big difference.

      So I don't understand this anti-government mentality. I believe that a properly-run government can do things for its people in aggregate that are inefficient in smaller numbers - like health care. Again, it needs to be done properly - but Social Security was done properly, so projects of that scope are clearly possible.

      I don't trust incompetent governments. But why is that a given? It's *our* government, we can make it competent if we really want to.

      • Social Security was absolutely done improperly. The money wasn't saved in any fashion whatsoever for the future. The "trust fund" consists of money loaned to the US government, which already borrowed and spent it all.

        It is an unsupportable ponzi scheme and will collapse if left in its present form.

  • If mafiaafire is removed, I'm sure that mafiaafire2 will soon be added to the plugin lists. Then thisisnotmafiafire, etc, etc, etc.

  • by godless dave (844089) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @08:08PM (#36043032)
    Why is the Department of Homeland Security involved in copyright enforcement at all? It's not a national security issue. I can see parts of the Justice Department being involved, and certainly the FCC and the department of commerce. But Homeland Security? Aren't they supposed to defend the country from physical attacks by enemies? Forgive me if this has been asked and answered.
  • by DaneM (810927) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:30PM (#36043684)

    Way to go, Mozilla, for standing up to these tyrants! I might just write Mozilla an email, congratulating them for it.

    As for the take-down notice itself...having never heard of the add-on before, I've just installed it. Good job, DHS guys! (Who says they don't promote freedom?)

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:42PM (#36043726)
    Rights are like muscles, if you fail to exercise them, they become weak.
  • Security concerns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimmyswimmy (749153) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:56PM (#36044054)

    One of the commenters on the FF extension suggested that the extension introduces a serious vulnerability into your browser - by downloading the XML file containing the list of sites to be redirected, you are basically offering that website the ability to redirect "youtube.com" to "nastysexxxxxychix.com" or whatever. Certainly this would be unpleasant on a work computer, but it could also be used to send you to a malicious site. He also pointed out that every 15 times the extension is actually called you are sent to a "Help Us" page where they probably ask for donations.

    The same commenter forked the extension to another called FireIce which has a hardcoded list of sites. I think the ideal way would be with a user-configurable list which the user can easily update from a website as desired, rather than automatically downloading an XML file without user input.

    This other extension - which I haven't tried and cannot endorse - is at https://addons.mozilla.org/da/firefox/addon/fireice/ [mozilla.org]

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Friday May 06, 2011 @12:22AM (#36044416) Journal
    Probably just a junior flunky demanding the takedown without any backing from his superiors.

At work, the authority of a person is inversely proportional to the number of pens that person is carrying.

Working...