DHS Wants Mozilla To Disable Mafiaafire Plugin, Mozilla Resists 360
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."
A reasonable stance (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, I'm not sure on what child pornography or even (the horror!) media/software pirates have to do with National Security either...
Re:Crazy glue (Score:4, Informative)
A search for addons called MAFIAAFIRE is yielding no results.
Re:Crazy glue (Score:5, Informative)
A link to the extension from the article:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/ [mozilla.org]
Project has forked (Score:5, Informative)
There's now a fork called FireICE [mozilla.org] so DHS now has an additional extension to suppress.
Re:Project has forked (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mafiaafire appears to be unlisted, as browsing through the list of extensions reveals no such program [mozilla.org]. Did Mozilla cave in to DHS demands despite their initial refusal, or was the software never listed in the first place?
Unlawful domain seizures. Takedown demands. DHS has too much power and too little oversight.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:4, Funny)
The DHS has never done just one thing-- maybe that's why they don't do it well.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Interesting)
National security? It's never been about security. It's always been about money. Those x-rays at airports don't make us any safer, but they sure made a bundle for the companies that make them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you follow the money, I think you will find it is also in the direction of stopping people transporting large amounts of cash and valuables in and out of the country. Nothing to do with terrorism at all.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Interesting)
Homeland Security is just practicing their shutdown technology so that they can control the flow of information, in case the "Arab Spring" spreads to the United States.
Re: (Score:3)
Homeland Security is just practicing their shutdown technology so that they can control the flow of information, in case the "Arab Spring" spreads to the United States.
Yes, you poor oppressed Americans are in dire need of a revolution to oust the evil Obama dictator who has been clinging onto power despite being discredited both nationally and internationally, and relying on the widespread torture and murder of his own people. You are crying out to the free world "help us, please God just help us" and so far we just sem to be turning a blind eye. Surely now is the time we should be sending military support to those brave few opposing the tyrant.
Or you could, you know, v
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with Obama (and I'm a conservative). The US government will continue to strip away civil liberties regardless of who is in power. The US government is bigger than the office of the President.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to violate all laws.
Likewise: Copyright has no right to violate my first amendment rights. Have you read the Constitution? search for the phrase "congress shall make no law", then read up and get back to me...
Additionally: Three words, PEER TO PEER. This is really how the entire Internet works: at the packet level, we're all peers & there is no "client" or "server" (that's application level thinking); Ergo, taking down servers can also mean taking down clients, and until it does, and you have a workable solution to the Streisand Effect, bans will do nothing but piss people off and cause more of whatever behavior triggered the ban in the first place. (We're all servers).
In short: damage from censorship will always be routed around until instant-bans of all information holding parties is possible and in practice. However, once that happens, there are much bigger problems to deal with, eg: FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
I can encode any information as a rather large decimal (base 10) number, numbers can't be patented or copyrighted. In fact, I've even written a program that encodes and decodes in such a way (arbitrary bit-length & radix integer math) -- It's terribly inefficient in decimal mode; in Hexadecimal (base 16) it's blazingly fast, but it doubles the output size... You can avoid the size bloat by encoding & decoding your NUMBERS in base 2 --- Oh, wait binary numbers are what's claimed as infringing copyright. (How is this not a 1st amendment issue?)
The great thing about math is that adding some large number, then subtracting it later yields the exact same origin number, and numbers can be represented in any base but still remain equivalent. XOR, multiplication, division & subtraction are all also reverse-able. My big-math package doesn't blink twice when you tell it to add the fractional component of PI to say, a Be-Dulls.MP3 file, minding the input's significant digits when limiting output... Subtraction of the same yields the original information...
Should I be prohibited from distributing PI's remainder + some arbitrary value? Isn't that a substantial transformation, and doesn't the resulting output rely much more heavily on my addition and transformation than the original? If I'm prohibited from distributing such a number in totality, can I be prevented from distributing individual bits or digits one at a time a few times per day via twitter? Surely a small fraction of decimal digits transformed to be unusable for the original data's purpose is not a copyright infringement, it's fair use, and would be a violation of my 1st amendment right to restrict me in such a way -- All digits can be represented as some be-dulls.mp3 byte + or - some other digit...
Surely breaking the info up and transmitting it + (PI-3) renders it a separate work, no-longer coverable by copyright... You can't copyright a single word, ergo a single bit is even less subject to copyright (if not, I claim Zero! -- no monopoly here!).
How large of a piece of data is a copyrightable? 4 bits? Surely not, 1024 bytes? 1500 bytes? Surely not, in terms of a song this is just a fraction of a second of music, clearly a fair-use.
So, If I'm allowed to distribute 1500 bytes at a time, and transformed by an arbitrary integer math operation, what's to say I can't also claim fair use on each 1500 byte SSL XORed Internet packet?
AT WHAT POINT DOES MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH END?
To say that copyrights do not limit freedom of speech is moronic at best -- That's exactly what copyrights do; Perhaps they were never intended to do so -- In that case, let's reform or obliterate the offensive laws. Pehaps you don't see what's going on in the summary? The government is trying to get people to restrict the freedom of speech rights of others voluntarily, because they have no legal authority to do so
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:4, Informative)
I can encode any information as a rather large decimal (base 10) number, numbers can't be patented or copyrighted. In fact, I've even written a program that encodes and decodes in such a way (arbitrary bit-length & radix integer math) -- It's terribly inefficient in decimal mode; in Hexadecimal (base 16) it's blazingly fast, but it doubles the output size... You can avoid the size bloat by encoding & decoding your NUMBERS in base 2 --- Oh, wait binary numbers are what's claimed as infringing copyright. (How is this not a 1st amendment issue?)
If I understand copyright law correctly (yeah, fat chance), numbers can be copyrighted if sufficient creativity* has been necessary to produce it. If you need, say, a book in order to produce the number, all of the creativity used in producing that book is needed to produce your number, so yes, it can be covered by copyright. I think http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 [sooke.bc.ca] covers the points of your post pretty decently.
*Probably not the right word, but I don't know the English equivalent of the Danish "værkshøjde".
Re: (Score:3)
Not forgetting "Freedom of the Press". Should publishing web pages not be the modern day equivalent to the 'press' in the days when the 1st amendment was written. In those days the 'press' did not consist of multi-national media conglomerate (as it largely does today), but lots of small local Mon 'n' Pop outfits with printing presses.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Insightful)
12. Under which section(s) of the law is your request authorized, and what are the names and contact information of the DHS agents who are requesting that this action be taken?
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>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)
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
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Funny)
>>>disappear your ass and throw you in Guantanamo Bay
Now that's crazy. No way could the Homeland SA get away with throwing a natural-born citizen into some random prison without trial.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Interesting)
I've argued on the wrong side of this, too, but the fact is that if DHS doesn't care about the law, then you should not make things easier for them by complying, and further opening yourself up to the risk of greater infractions. And if they do care about the law, then it shouldn't hurt you to refuse the search.
Plus, if you've got nothing to hide, then getting searched is just a waste of everyone's time.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but we've already established that in the OP's anecdote the DHS agents did respect the Fourth Amendment. They had neither a warrant nor his consent, so he wasn't searched. Where's the 'screw you and the Fourth Amendment' you're talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
If there are that many cases, and your entire argument rests upon that being true, you really should provide links to evidence; otherwise people are just going to dismiss you as a nut.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you believe in Cause & Effect? If so, then you believe in karma
Sorry. Karma is about mystical/supernatural cause and effect. While some people may think that their good deeds are causing their good luck, the closest it gets to that in reality is that treating some one nicely might encourage that person to treat you nicely. Otherwise, cause and effect is a measurable physical process.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not really either.
Which either makes me a handsome rebel or a completely irrelevant misanthrope.
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure it's the latter!
Re: (Score:3)
this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome
There's a Chrome plugin too; maybe the lesson is to not use IE or Safari.
Re:A reasonable stance (Score:4, Interesting)
NO. He meant you should *support* Mozilla because they fight government tyranny. Google would have just complied with this request w/o a fight.
I'm concerned about what I've read about this addon: "MafiaaFire Redirector hasn't any build-in list of redirected sites. MafiaaFire Redirector download the "redirect list" from 4 websites:
http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list.php [mafiaafire.com]
http://ifucksexygirls.com/xml-update/xml-list2.php [ifucksexygirls.com]
http://ezee.se/xml-update/xml-list3.php [ezee.se]
http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list1.php [mafiaafire.com]"
If they do this it will destroy mozilla (Score:2)
This will drive a record number of people (Score:5, Funny)
This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...
Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!
Re:This will drive a record number of people (Score:5, Insightful)
Streisand Effect is go.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:This will drive a record number of people (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:This will drive a record number of people (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
DHS chose the wrong people (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DHS chose the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DHS chose the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
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!?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:DHS chose the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:DHS chose the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:DHS chose the wrong people (Score:4, Funny)
Re:DHS chose the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
How wealthy and how small is this "wealthy ruling class". You are talking more than people who made a killing on stock options during the internet boom? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a few ultra-wealthy ex-nerds post on slashdot, though possibly anonymously.
Re: (Score:3)
Ultra-wealthy nerds (likely not ex- at all) aren't generally part of the wealthy ruling class; they remain mere nouveau riche until they figure out how to use their money to buy a strong position in the relevant legislatures. This they alm
Re: (Score:3)
How wealthy and how small is this "wealthy ruling class".
50% of US dollars; 1% of US population.
Re:Ruling Class (Score:3)
Once you own a few senators, or a television network, maybe if you sit on the Federal Reserve Board, then I'd consider you "wealthy ruling class".
Re: (Score:3)
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)
for what its worth..
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/ [mozilla.org]
Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it out.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some trust issues with the redirect lists but other than that it is nice
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah if they can fix that up I will install it, now that I have heard about it... not that I even think I am likely to run into a banned domain.
Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou (Score:5, Funny)
That's exactly what they want (Score:3)
They put some DHS code into mafiaafire right before they did this, to subvert subversive people.
it's about time (Score:2)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's your warrant? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
99% of them are just there because they think that the 500$ they would save by shutting down all schools would make them rich. And the other 1% are there to convince the other 99% that that is in their best interest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. No, the objection every thinking person has to the "Tea Party" is that they aren't actually interested in anything specific. What they are interested in, under the guise of "limited government", is more of a corpratocracy (no regulation, no taxes for wealthy, etc). This isn't much of a surprise, considering that the "grass roots" organization is pretty much championed by very large corporations (Fox News)
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
Pernicious nonsense. The Tea Party is a group of patriotic Americans who seek to return this great country to the principles on which it was founded: liberty and equal rights for all, except slaves, Indians and women.
Re: (Score:3)
reduce the size & scope of the Federal Government
What does "reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government" have to do with making the government work for us? If anything, a small government is less able to work for us - it either does nothing, or is more easily captured by the rich and powerful.
Consider Donating (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:I hate Government (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:I hate Government (Score:5, Insightful)
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 done properly? You're funny. (Score:3)
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.
Re:I hate Government (Score:5, Funny)
The smaller the societies, the more violent and more convulsive their schisms.
"They told me a city at the bottom of the ocean populated entirely by paranoid sociopaths would fracture into civil war, so you know what I did? I set them on fire. With bees." -- Andrew Ryan.
Futile at best (Score:2)
If mafiaafire is removed, I'm sure that mafiaafire2 will soon be added to the plugin lists. Then thisisnotmafiafire, etc, etc, etc.
Copyright enfringement a national security issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
DHS changes its name to Streisand... (Score:3, Informative)
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?)
Rights are like Muscles... (Score:3)
Security concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Hanlon's Razor? (Score:3)
Re:Source (Score:5, Insightful)
fireICE [mozilla.org]is a rewrite that gets rid of the nag screen and addresses some of the privacy concerns the author had with the original MafiaaFire.
Re:Police state. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that Osama bin Fucktard is gone, it is time to take this police state back.
And you couldn't do that while Osama was alive because... ?