FBI Shuts Down Website 375
An AC sent in this Village Voice story - "In a highly unusual move last week, FBI agents called mike zieper, an independent artist who goes by the name Mike Z., and "requested" that he remove his site from the Internet. When he declined, the FBI worked in tandem with the U.S. Attorney's office to persuade his Web host and its server to pull Zieper's site--18 days after it went up--without having a subpoena or court order of any kind." The site was apparently crowdedtheater.com. What annoyed the FBI? Apparently the site had a video about rioting on New Year's Eve. Will the FBI shut down every site mentioning disruption on 2000-01-01?
Update: 11/24 08:11 by michael : One of our alert /. readers apparently saw and saved the video while the site was up, and has put up a mirror.
Uh oh (Score:1)
This is bad... (Score:1)
When does it stop? (Score:1)
USA is the worlds best country! (Score:2)
In USA everybody has freedom!
;-)
Best regards,
Steen Suder
Sounds like this thing needs mirroring (Score:2)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
... (Score:1)
There is an RCMP detachment just down the street from me though. Maybe they're listening in.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
IANAL (Score:1)
The funny (scary?) thing is, the US Army probably could have gotten a preliminary injunction against the site, if they sued for libel. I don't really see how this isn't libel, especially considering that a not-insignificant number of people seemed to believe it came from the army, and it was being presented as though it was...
Oh man (Score:2)
I'm extremely curious about how it got taken down though. I'm assuming a vhost? What happens if you run your own server (like I do)? Do guys in trenchcoats who talk to their watches show up at your door? (good luck at MY door
Can you say...Overstepping the boundary! (Score:1)
What about the NBC Movie? (Score:3)
I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who originally wrote the Supreme Court opinion about "clear and present danger" being a rationale for restricting speech, especially in wartime. I think that the "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater" is the classical example. But this is not *nearly* the same thing.
Re:When does it stop? (Score:5)
Similarly, the FBI (or anyone else) does not have to get any sort of legal document to tell an ISP to wipe out your web site. All they have to do is ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this. Then, subject to the agreement that you have with your ISP (which almost ALWAYS protect the ISP, and practically never gives you any say in anything at all), your pages get trashed. End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all.
So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.
Sniff Sniff! I smell a law suit! (Score:2)
Since his ISP shut him down, does that mean they couldn't be considered a common carrier and should be held responsible for all content their users are supplying? That could be a sticky legal situation to be in...
what about other countries? (Score:1)
Re:When does it stop? (Score:1)
Re:Oh man (Score:1)
I'm extremely curious about how it got taken down though. I'm assuming a vhost? What happens if you run your own server (like I do)? Do guys in trenchcoats who talk to their watches show up at your door? (good luck at MY door :P)
If you read the article [villagevoice.com], you'd know that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office contacted his host and intimidated them into taking it down.
In your case, they'd probably just intimidate whoever's upstream from you (seems to be Comstar), and get them to deactivate your connection.
Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?! (Score:1)
Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?! (Score:1)
Whoa there. Choose a side, huh? Is it the "fascist" (read: conservative) law enforcement officers at the FBI? Or is it the (more liberal) "Bill Klingon?"
Why are we letting the FBI trampling on our rights? Don't FBI understand the PRINCIPLES of which the United States Of America is built upon?
Just a guess here, but I think it's because we (as a people) really don't understand what the "Principles" of the US are... I mean, some people value personal safety, others value free speech. I think both are provided for in the Constitution, but the debate's on the degree to which they're emphasized.
Why are we, the PEOPLE, allowed such things keep on happening?!
Um, because there is no monolithic "PEOPLE" anymore, especially when it comes to an issue like this.
The "crowdedtheater" name of the website seems to be a reference to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example of speech which can and should be restricted; i.e., speech which can cause direct and immediate harm to other people. I think that we rightly restrict people from making *clearly* dangerous threats on the lives and health of others. But in a case like this, it's ridiculous that the FBI and local sheriff's department just went and demanded the removal of the website without any sort of external review/permission. We hire and pay officers to protect the public safety. But when their actions would impinge on other rights as citizens, you *must* have some sort of external review (like a judge who would issue a warrant, or some such) to grant some modicum of legitimacy to these kinds of dealings...
Um, Ok. (Score:1)
Watch out, the world is going to end...
Watch out!!! The FBI is going to censor
*** HEY ***
Check out the new case I made at the url above, in the computers section.
-S
Scott Ruttencutter
Does anyone have this archived? (Score:2)
It seems very odd to me that the FBI would take a step like this just to prevent further Y2K paranoia. Very suspicious indeed, but then their actions have brought even more attention to the matter.
I am always greatly disturbed when I hear of an ISP dropping content because of threats and lawsuits or in this case, the request of law enforcement. Are there ISP's out there that guarantee the placement of content until a court forces removal?
Re:Nothing more to say (Score:1)
Hosting... Well seeing as there is not an actual court order having to do with this, I would be able to host the site as well. If my ISP, grin, shuts me down I'll just sue them for breach of contract, ie my provider is a common carrier.
Lando
Re:Oh man (Score:1)
Parody? (Score:1)
Either way, I think this sets another bad precedent where the U.S. Attorney's Office and/or the FBI can pull any and all private content at will. If they hold this power, why haven't they exercized it earlier? Reason: because they DON'T have it.
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?! (Score:1)
_______________
FBI shuts down NBC (Score:2)
So when does NBC go off the air?
-sh
Inevitable (Score:3)
Now, I know the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the system we've got.
Motives (Score:2)
This is something I do know. You readers of Slashdot know, and I know, that life will go on, despite computer downtime. Computer downtime is a fact of life to us. But you do not understand the complete sheep-like fear of the unknown that non-computer-savvy people have.
Computers are the magic that glues their lives together. They don't know, nor do they want to know, how computers really work. And, in this ignorance, they see the movie industry hyping doom, countless 20/20 type interviews hyping doom, commercials hyping doom, so what else are they to believe? Computers are as much as magic to these people as quantum physics are to me. (Hey, C and java, no problem. Schrodinger? Whatever :) )
The combined panic of thousands of people could cause a breakdown, when no other conditions for breakdown exist. Want proof? Look no further than the riots in L.A. after the Rodney King trial. Bank runs could destroy our current fractional banking system. So the real question here is, is the FBI trying to protect their interests, or everyone's? Are they removing the equivelent of a man screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre?
post it! That means you /. (Score:1)
so call me cynical, but... (Score:3)
This does not excuse the FBI's behavior, but points to a lack of intelligent leadership in the Bureau as well as lack of common sense by the artist.
It also is a sad reflection on any media outlet that would have covered this "artist" before his rights were violated -- his domain name says it all.
If everyone had ignored him, he probably would have gone his way toward ignominy that is every American's God-given right -- the US Gov't took that away from him, and US taxpayers will likely end up paying him a hefty settlement.
Hmmph!
Sad, but legal (Score:1)
Law enforcement has the legal right, AFAIK, to search an apartment that you are renting without a warrant, provided the land lord lets them in. It is the landlord's property, not yours.
This isn't much different, because he's essentially renting the space for his website from the provider. It's their property, and they have the legal right to remove you and your material from it. Law enforcement cannot ORDER them to take it down without due process, but they can request it.
Where it *might* go into being illegal would be the tactics the FBI and US Attourney geneal used on the ISP, but I wouldn't know all the subtelties of that.
Again, IANAL and AFAIK.
Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.
Oh My God, they killed Google! You Bastards! (Score:3)
You do, however, get a page on watchtower.org, the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Lousy spooks! They've gotten to the search engines!
_____
It's actually *not* that unusual... (Score:3)
This is what very likely recently happened to Decadentcity.com and a related site, grokthis.com/decadent. I can't be 100% on this, but all evidence points to its verity. This isn't meant to be off-topic, it's meant to express something which probably has become a commonplace tactic by law enforcement. See, decadentcity.com and the related site were dedicated to message boards discussing "escorts"--like, the Heidi Fleiss type. It started out local to D.C. back in '96 and soon every major city had a message board and ads and reviews and "ripoff warnings" sections. Maybe a year ago a cryptic message about "new ownership" appeared on the site and then disappeared--and yet everything remained the same. The "new ownership" never revealed itself to the board--not so much as a single message or change to the site. The old owner had always dropped in, but he suddenly disappeared. The site was left untouched. The ads section--principal source of revenue--expired, and for about a year no advertisements were added or deleted even though the women themselves expressed interest on the boards. The boards chattered away, most of the escorts in the D.C. area (and, I'm told, in others) who'd been there for years left the board and several left the business without warning. Rumours circulated about the FBI buying the board as part of an investigation into the "organized crime" involved in escorting and message parlors nationally. Perhaps coincidentally, and perhaps not, the sites have been shut down ever since the very day a week or two ago when the national investigation the FBI had made into the spa/massage/escort business was revealed on the news nationally. I doubt it's coincidence, and I'm furious that either our federal tax dollars went to buy a legal message board (it's legal to *discuss* escorts/"gray market spas", first amendment and all) in order to use it to investigate a local crime like prostitution, or that the owner was possibly coerced into handing a discussion area to the government. What's the FBI doing investigating escorting/spas, anyway? Their excuse given to the media was that they were focusing on "a nationwide network of slavery and indentured servitude in Asian spas"--and yet, in three years on the Decadent City board, I never came across even the mere mention of such a thing. In all likelihood, the operation was mostly about getting a media victory and about using a major national discussion forum about escorts as a clearinghouse to help local law enforcement fight a moral battle about something most people think should be legalized--street prostitution is something most people abhor, but quiet out-of-the-way escorting is seen by 67% (Gallup? poll) of Americans as something which should be legal.
In reality, websites are probably censored or removed by the American government all the time. We need to start to hold the FBI and others accountable, and the mainstream media has to stop seeing the Feds as a purely benevolent force and realize that it's bad when they deep-fry Davidians or shut down a site for having video of a riot or try to accuse some hacker kid of being responsible for hundreds of millions of $$$ in damages for copying but not destroying corporate data purely for fun and challenge.
First Amendment (Score:5)
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I think this states fairly clearly that the FBI stepped waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds. But will they be held accountable? Or will the only Western country not to sign the Geneva Convention ignore human rights, once again?
Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?! (Score:1)
mirror (Score:1)
Do they really want to shutdown all of us?
Re:Sounds like this thing needs mirroring (Score:1)
I haven't actually seen the site. I may never do so. But from the sounds of it, its just some guy with a conspiracy theory about the grunts stirring up shit, presumably to give the appearance of ligitimacy to some kind of martial law. Big fuckin' whoop.
The conspiracy minded would think the FBI has something to hide with this sort of thing, of course. Personally, I don't attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained as incompetance.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Re:Sniff Sniff! I smell a law suit! (Score:1)
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
So what do you do when all mediums are controlled by large corporations [msnbc.com]?
You see, people always think that government [fbi.gov] is the sole threat to free speech on the Internet, and it is a threat, but it's not the only one [aol.com]. Industry could, conceivably and very possibly, create a barrier-to-entry so high (the reason the internet is so free [infoshop.org] and inspiring [blockstackers.com] is that the barrier to entry is so low) that the few [forbes.com] who can afford to run a website are the ones who control the majority opinion.
You've already seen that happen with television [ge.com], radio [disney.com], and newspapers [yahoo.com]. They're all controlled by conglomerates who create economic barriers to competition. And since it's usually an oligopoly, and not a monopoly, and since it's not technically holding people back (by force of law) from free press, people claim that this is still a free country.
I say, stop bothering to get up and arms when the government claims it can censor or control the internet. They can't, they don't know how. But industry does, because they've been censoring and controlling mediums for years. It's nothing new to them. It's not oppression [china.com], they say, it's economics [rand.org]. But whatever they call it, the end result is the same.
So how do we combat [radio4all.org] this? We need to do all we can to keep the cost of the Internet down. At times like this, Free Beer [earthlink.net] can equal Free Speech. Linux, and the cooperative in San Francisco which sells T1 lines at cost is a fantastic example, and I wish I could see more situations like this crop up. It would also be nice to see the computer industry unionise [iww.org] but that's a whole different post.
In the end, if you don't want to see the Internet get gobbled up into the stomachs of the bloated plutocrats [seattlewto.org], it is up to you to make sure it doesn't happen. Keep the internet cheap and open to anybody, and you'll insure that the internet will be cheap and open for your own needs.
Michael Chisari
Oh My God, they killed Google! You Bastards!-not h (Score:1)
So f**ing what! (Score:1)
ISP's don't want the hassles of saying no to annoying peoples saying their FBI...
Internet censorship is based on your financial backing.... let's see the reverse happen then maybe that will change.
One thing's for sure I'm not giving up my bandwith just because some fool wants attention...
Oooopsss now if you look at my argument illogically I'm now part of the problem...
TDR
"You have to be bitter to deal with the general public.."
Lawyers? Ignorance? (Score:1)
BTW, why the man just didn't go and make 1001 mirrors on every free hosting provider in the world, when he heard from FBI and knew it was coming? Or even on one such provider, say, in Russia? I'd see FBI persuading russians to pull out pages from their server... It seems technical ignorance from the both sides is exposed. Hell, I think I could even make site that will mirror itself on Geocities/Xoom/whatever free provider automatically! BTW, now that's an idea for a virus...
Re:?!? (Score:2)
I've Got A Link To A Site With The Video (Score:2)
This is a common misconception... (Score:1)
But this has nothing to do with an ISP and the present case. It's a matter of the First Amendment, and the FBI got into the business of censoring that which is perfectly legal--and so the FBI should be punished through civil suit. When they lose enough of their budget they'll stop violating our rights.
with proper notice (Score:1)
Now it could be contented that 'Z' was causing damage to the ISP by having this content. Well, was there any contract provision that said, "You may not post controversial content?", or "Your site can be removed without notice?". There could have been.
Regardless, the primary concern here is that the videos may or may not have been doing any damage (I consider any small in this case), and it is hard to justify removing content just because it may be partially controversial.
Is this for real or just another publicity stunt? (Score:1)
If you read the article (you did that before posting a reply on
Now this might be a true story. In that case we simply have a case of overambitious officers and a cowardly ISP.
If Mike Z had just got himself another ISP and maybe sued for damages, then his site would be up and running. But then again, who would know about him then?
Re:Oh man (Score:1)
Re:Sad, but legal (Score:1)
Re:When does it stop? (Score:1)
Re:Uhhhh, something sounds fishy here. (Score:3)
"For Z., blurring the line between truth and fiction is what makes his work unique".
I think we might all be becoming part of his work; the video clip (the truth of which the site apparently left in doubt), followed by a story (in a well known media source) of federal agents behaving in a manner that sounds more like what was apparently portrayed in the video than real life, followed by our real reaction to it.
If this was his intent, for the fictional video with a faint suggestion of truth to produce several layers of apparent reality arount itself, I admire his creation
Or, I could be half alseep, and my normal paranoia overrun by fatigue, with an inexplicable flashback to an art history class I attended several years ago.
Re:so call me cynical, but... (Score:1)
I'm Dubious... (Score:5)
If this is true, it is a career-ending move for the agents and officers involved. Period. Which is why I think it's a hoax intended to garner publicity for the artist's work. Your local yokel in B.F.E. might be this stupid; the FBI are not.
If this is a hoax, then I hereby nominate that the artist actually lose his 'net access for 90 days. In my view, we cannot afford to have people crying 'Wolf!' over issues like this, especially when the underlying motive is self-promotion. We need to discourage this kind of thing... If it's a hoax...
Schwab
So sure? (Score:1)
I'm thinking there may have been more to it. I'm not saying it's justified, but...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
That's just sad (Score:1)
The point being........ (Score:2)
It seemed odd but I did a search for "crowdedtheater" and got no results, but when I searched "crowdedtheater" and "mike" I got results containing just the results "mike". I was under the impression that Google only returned results containing all search terms.
Kind of odd.........probably not some kind of conspiracy.
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
Where was the FBI when NBC showed that lame ass Y2K movie the other night? Many more people were likely to see it than some guys website. Of course going after NBC would've been a national story and a big hassle. On the upside maybe it would've distracted Jesse Jackson from whatever he thinks he's doing in Illinois, but I digress.
The hands are in view... (Score:5)
In Sweden there is a constitutional legislation about protecting the freedom to publish and distribute your views. And yet a recent (quite controversial) jugement decided that the internet is not a valid print media, and as such not protected by the free speech act.
This is happening all around the globe. And why? Because it's very easy to publish something on the net. No special resources are needed, you don't even need a computer as you can walk down to your local library and borrow one. All you need is a little bit of knowledge and something to say. And that's dangerous to any government.
I could just as easily be describing how to destroy the US (or any other) government, telling people that one race or religion is superior to another or that abortion is murder and should be punished by death. All of these are statements that are easy to find on the web. All of these are available in print, if you know where to look. So why would anyone care if these (or any other) opinion are also available on the net?
First of, the net is accessible to anyone and there is no (practical) way to check on who accesses what. Therefore there is no way to catalogue 'dangerous elements', however security agencies choose to define the term. It's very easy to check who's going to a meeting or ordering a book, it's much harder to check who's looking at a webpage and even harder to check who's there because of conviction and who just surfed on in.
Secondly, news on the net spread like fire on the steppe. Just think about the case of Mahir, the turkish man who's (stolen) page became the focus of millions of viewers overnight (why? don't ask me, I find it all rather strange). The same could be possible of the White America Movements webpage, or any other extremist groups. And that would lead to media panic. Just think of the headlines 'Nazi party attracts millions of followers', 'Fourth Reich founded in Illonois'. Heck the possibities for bad titles, bad reporting and free exposure for any obscure extremists are humongous.
Third, the Internet is not (yet) protected by any cohesive freedom of media act. Therefore anything published on the net does not benefit from the same rights as a 'normal' publication. For example, in Sweden it's illegal to force vendors to stop selling a certain book, but it's quite legal to force an ISP to stop hosting a certain page. I immagine it's the same in most of the western world.
So there you have four points (yeah, I did number only three, mea culpa) about why censoring the web is so attractive. It's easy to publish on it, it's hard to check the spread of publications, it's easy to spread the widely, which makes undesirable (from an government policy standpoint) websites classed as 'dangerous' and it's easy to do something about it, which makes govenment agencies more likely to intervene. And I'd like to point out that they did not pull Mike Z.s' page until it started to attract attention (security trough obscurity and all that *grin*). Until Mike Z. became famous (however little fame he got) he was just another coock (sic?) ranting away on the net.
For the wrap up then; first to repeat Garins comment:
Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies.
Very true, just as you can't depend on finding a printing house that is willing to publish your essay on why 'Mein Kampf' is the greatest literary work of all times, you can't expect that ISPs will be throwing themselves at your feet to host your 'International Terrorism for Dummies' website. And if an ISP does host it, don't expect them to fight for it. That's your job. If you feel that your views are worth fighting for, you're the one that has to do all the fighting.
Secondly, assuming that you share my brand of political pessimism, governments will do pretty much anything to force their version of 'goodness' on the world. But anyone with a conviction will do that, even if it's a politico whos conviction is that pushing a certain matter will gain him more votes.
If still in doubt, see how the German government managed to ban 'Mein Kampf' in the western world (I'll give you a hint: they claimed that they had the copyright to it and then refused to allow anyone to publish or distribute it, they even managed to get it banned from libraries, except for research reasons) or how the Swedish government managed to claim that the Swedish people wanted to ban nuclear power (by calling a referendum where the choices to vote on were 'ban now', 'ban by year 2000' and 'ban by year 2015'. The 2015 won with a large majority).
So, without further ado, have a nice and very optimistic life
Re:Sad, but legal (Score:1)
How many years ago did the NRA call Federal Authorities "Jack-booted thugs" only to catch
hell over it? Seems no one pays attention until
they trample something close to home....
Of course it'd saved us all eye strain if the FBI had bust in at NBC and pulled that FUD Y2K movie they played last Sunday!
Re:What about the NBC Movie? (Score:2)
My guess, little guy, easy to shutdown, NBC, major news coverage, major tap dancing, major 'splaining to do.
Bottom line is the FBI isn't really concerned with public "safety". Far more people saw the NBC movie than will ever see this guy's website. Most likely someone at the FBI was surfing, saw the site and decided to try and make a name for themselves internally so when performance reviews come around he/she's looking good.
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
The magazine::authorISP::mike z analogy of the previous poster is faulty. Mike Z. is arguably the equivalent of the magazine/publisher, not the freelance magazine writer. He is publishing his own materials on his own site. By analogy, the ISP is closer to lumber mill that supplies the paper the print magazine is published on or the shipping company that delivers the printed magazines.
And of course, in the U.S., the people have certain rights to freely express themselves in public spaces, in the mass media (e.g. the web), etc. without being subject to government agency intimidation tactics.
"Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies" is pretty poor advice. How do you define control of the medium? Is it enough to co-locate a server? Get my own T3? Start my own ISP? Buy my own island, create a new independent country, bury cable under the sea floor, start my own ISP, then start my own web site?
A new nation-state for every legal (but controversial) web site, hurrah!
It's very arrogant to pass the judgment "End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all." when that's precisely what's in question here. The discussion is hardly at an end.
Spooks just don't appreciate irony, do they? (Score:2)
Even if this site was a "clear and present danger," which I doubt, the Feds needed to go through more official circles than just harassing the ISP.
Been a while since I took J110, but here are the court cases that I believe established the "fire in a crowded theater" precident: Debs Vs. United States [tourolaw.edu] and Schenck Vs. United States [tourolaw.edu]. The government won both of these cases, but that was during WWI and it's a heck of a lot harder to prove clear and present danger during peacetime. There's no doubt that this was a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Let a thousand mirrors bloom .... (Score:2)
Each time they shut down 1 bend, don't break, let them do it, but raise a stink on the net 5 more will spring in their place
PS: trolling the public is an honorable profession - Orson Wells would be proud :-)
Re:Motives (Score:2)
Similarly, the extent of the Y2K problem is hotly under debate, and will be until, say, sometime after Jan. 1st, 2000... Therefore, one person's interpretation of events is very much still free speech. And if we don't believe him... well, we don't have to. The problem is, many people are harboring doubts, and this man is not alone...
And is everyone shouting doom? If so, shouldn't the FBI go after *them*? No, this doesn't make much sense, something is definitely missing. Are we just out of real news, here, guys?
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
All our rights are limited, as there NEEDS to be a balance between individual rights and societal rights, as well as between two individuals' rights
for example, society as a whole must respect your right to speak, but need not condone your saying it at 500 decibles, or right in front of my house...
a journalist can print whatever he likes, but not the proceedings of an ongoing court case (if the judge seals it)
(here the accused's due process trumps the 1st amendment)
the whole issue is whether there exists a "compelling interest"
the government has a compelling interest in listening in on criminal phonecalls; hence why, with court permission, they can tap phones...
the government can ignore FOIAs if they request "classified data" because the court (and most normal folk) recognize that the government has a compelling interest in keeping military data out of newspapers
the tenth amendment is enforced, but the fed gets around it in legal ways (for ends that at least I think are valid, ie the FDA, the EPA, etc) by either invoking interstate commerce regulation or by getting state gov'ts to pass laws by dangling money in front of them.
This is legal, and allows the fed to do things we need done that 18th century merchants did not forsee...
the government is not supposed to live inside the spirit of any document; if it did, we would not need a constitution (the British method would be ideal if we trusted the spirit of anything, as then you get flexibility and ideals)
our premise for out government is no-trust power balancing... the popular phrase is seperation of powers...
now in this case nothing illegal has occurred... he was not charged with anything, the FBI _asked_ the ISP to take down the site, the ISP prob had a clause in the contract that allowed them to do so at anytime, provided they handed back that month's money or whatever... and that is what happened.
It is legal to be controvertial/against mainstream... But it is plain stupid to expect it to be as easy as conforming. You have no right to the gov't not asking companies to cooperate. The gov't represents the majority of Americans, who generally fear terrorists more than weak encryption, and would say to the disenfrachised website owner "just because you can publish that, why _should_ you"
now I personally dont have a prob with that website, the way it was described, but I do take issue to ACs who slept through civics, but think they know enough to comment on the rather complex reasons that our legal system is the way it is...
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde
ISPs need a back bone. (Score:2)
later
Re:I've Got A Link To A Site With The Video (Score:2)
Hmm... the video is in a RealMedia format.
--
Re:ISPs need a back bone. (Score:2)
This one ponders why ISPs have no back bone [slashdot.org]
This one asks whether or not ISPs are liable for content [slashdot.org]
Heres a British ruling on the previous ( which I can't say I agree to ) [slashdot.org]
Re:What about the NBC Movie? (Score:3)
Mirror: (Score:3)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:The point being........ (Score:2)
I was under the impression that Google only returned results containing all search terms. Kind of odd.........probably not some kind of conspiracy.
Google effectively make an automatic AND between the terms but I suppose that if there is no term responding to the AND query he make an OR, so you end up with some responses even if you don't have a page having all these words together.
Re:Sounds like this thing needs mirroring (Score:2)
Mind you, I think the students were out of line, but so was the RCMP.
I'd still like to see 8 dozen copies of this site go up (anyone remember the stupid Barbie site that was brought down a couple years ago?) if its not a hoax.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage [linuxsupportline.com]>
Re:When does it stop? (Score:3)
That has what is known as a chilling affect. Speach that would be protected can be silenced by the government even if the law is on the citizen's side. Even if it isn't close, the government can intimidate, clearly an abuse of the citizen's rights.
Re:What about the NBC Movie? (Score:2)
My question: if the feds did this without a warrant or subpoena or whatever legal piece of paper is appropriate for this sentence, then they just 'asked' the provider to take the page down. Given that they had no legal backing whatsoever, does this constitute abuse of power? If it does, is this illegal?
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
Similarly, the FBI (or anyone else) does not have to get any sort of legal document to tell an ISP to wipe out your web site. All they have to do is ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this. Then, subject to the agreement that you have with your ISP (which almost ALWAYS protect the ISP, and practically never gives you any say in anything at all), your pages get trashed. End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all.
So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.
Ahhh! Excellent, that means I can put that big 'No Blacks Allowed' Sign back outside of my resteraunt! If they want to eat freely they should do so in a medium they control, right?
This guy was paying for his website, no one was being forced to look at it, support it, or even acknowledge it. but he DID pay money for the service he was recieving which should count for something even in this country. Would you be equally as complacent if the FBI had asked your ISP to pull your site? What if they decided to go one step further and yank your 'net access? Maybe decide you were a rabbel rousing dissident who needed to be jailed? After all, if what this man has to say is SO dangerous that the FBI doesn't want it said then he must be 'Evil' right?
You seem to be implying that the person who owns the brick and mortar structure you are using has unlimited authority over who uses that structure. You're wrong. This man is being discrimnated against on the basis of his political beliefs if nothing else. This is shameful and your atitude towards it is equally shameful.
'When they came for the Jews I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. When they came for the Unions I did not speak up, because I was not in a union. When they came for me no one spoke up, because there was no one left.' Badly Paraphrased, but you get the point.
Kintanon
The Tyranny of Safety (Score:2)
Our firearms are gradually being taken from us, leaving only government with any real power. Now, our speech is being taken from us, gradually, just like the guns, and we won't be able to do anything about it, even if we wanted to.
Everything now is done in the name of "safety." Liberty means nothing to the average Joe. We now live in an oppressive quasi-matriarchy, where freedom means "the freedom to not do unsafe things."
I'm sure a lot of people will object to what I say, but I don't care. That's how I feel about it. I think we need to get back to trying to preserve our Liberty, instead of trying to deny our humanity.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
And I was posting about this only yesterday... (Score:2)
--
Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?! (Score:2)
What the HELL are you talking about? At the turn of the last century (1900 over to 1901) fire arms where in abundant supply all over the country, shooting was a gentlemans sport, and almost every man in the country owned a rifle. Of course, at the turn of the last MILLENIUM there weren't quite so many firearms ya know....
Kintanon
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
According to the founding fathers every able bodied man in this country is part of the militia.
A militia should be effectively armed in a manner which would allow them to contend with armed troops. I'd say having government issued M-16s would be perfectly acceptable. All other regulations would stay in place and be more enforced, and anyone being issued an m-16 would have to A. Have no criminal record, B. Be certifiably sane, C. be 25 years old.
Kintanon
Re:I'm Dubious... (Score:2)
Whois Records seem legit... (Score:2)
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/w
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
The ACLU Cyberliberties page [aclu.org] shows what the ACLU is doing about net censorship, encryption regulations, and digital wiretapping. The ACLU has been in the forefront of the fight against net censorship.
another MIRROR here. (Score:2)
http://bell-2216.cheg.uark.edu/ ~jmh3/stuff/timesq.ram [uark.edu]
john
john
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
My voter registration card says that the SSN is optional.
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
Receiving a call from the US attorney's office and FBI saying they had a problem with a web site you are hosting is going to send a chill down the spine of any ISP. Because the threat is subtle is no reason we should not proscribe this behavior from our law enforcement officials.
What the hell do they think they're doing anyway? If its against the law, enforce the law. If it's not against the law they have no business making "friendly" calls to ISPs with editorial comments.
Re:The Rape of the American Constituion (Score:2)
Re:I'm Dubious... (Score:2)
No doubt, however, that those in power will close ranks around the offenders, and for one simple reason: they are all such offenders.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
Read the bleepin' article.
'When Z. refused to pull his site, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office contacted Z.'s host, BECamation, the next day. And that was all it took. "I had no choice but to pull the site down completely or I would have lost my business," says Mark Wieger, BECamation's president, who feared that his own ISP would cut him off.'
The ISP didn't want to take it down, it FEARED the consequences of government action.
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
I find your statement to be HIGHLY offensive and demand that you be censored in the future and your posts to slashdot be automatically deleted.
Kintanon
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
There is a solution.. (Score:2)
Jeff
Re:Deosyne (Score:2)
As a semi-fascist, I truly believe that everyone should ask how their actions could affect the country and their countrymen. You seem to be only interested in what your rights are, and how you can interpret your rights to interfere with the rights of others. This person wanted to cause a scare. He wanted to walk into a crowded theater and yell "Fire". I have no doubt of that.
The FBI probably asked the site to take a gander at the site and determine whether or not this broke the agreement the site maintainer signed. I would be surprised if it didn't.
Now, having given 6 years of my life to defending the rights you enjoy, I think you need to consider what affect this person's perceived rights might have on others. If I ran around saying that everything you posted contained an HTML exploit, I would look as silly as this "artist" did. You would also be inconvenienced.
"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - JFK
We all need to live by those words. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, except in the minds of children and romantics.
Ah, excellent, then since there are more of us than there are of you, and we find you to be taking up resources that would be better spent in purchasing us large screen TVs and T1 lines, you won't mind turning over all of your posessions to us for the benefit of the many, eh?
I suggest you rethink your beliefs in the sanctity of the majority as there are FAR more idiots in the world than intelligent folks. Maybe sometime the whim of the majority and 'what's best for society' isn't always what's RIGHT? After all, it would be GREAT for society if we took the 10 richest people on earth and divided their assets among the rest of the population....
Kintanon
Re:News report of pepper spray (Score:2)
That is not an exageration. If I saw one person torturing another, and I was armed, the torturer would cease immediately or would be shot. I think most of us would agree that this would be a justified use of force to defend another; the fact that the torturer was wearing a badge should not affect this.
Re:background on the story not a hoax (Score:2)
...phil
Re:When does it stop? (Score:2)
All they have to do is ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this.
The problem is, it doesn't sound like they asked very nicely. The ISP didn't say they agreed that the content shouldn't be supported, they said that they were fearful of loosing their business. It sounds like the FBI asked nicely the same way organized crime asks nicely for 'insurance premiums'.
So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.
So THAT's what I should do with the $5,000,000,000 that's laying around on my coffee table! If you're not a backbone provider, you're susceptable to the tactics reported here.
As a note, the FBI placed the ISP in a really serious position, and will no doubt be FAR away if it ever becomes an issue. ISPs usually depend on a common carrier status to protect them from lawsuits over customer content. If they cut just one site for reasons of content that isn't somehow illegal, they become a 'publisher'. Publishers CAN be sued over what they publish.
This could go two ways, the FBI could either desert the ISP like rats, and let the ISP suffer for helping them, or it could protect them, and be guilty of running a protection racket.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
why don't you compare the number of people killed by firearms (per capita, to make it fair) in the US versus Australia and the UK? Or is murder less important than "home invasion burglaries"?
A more fair comparison would be people killed by any means. If you can't get a gun, rat poison or a baseball bat (or cricket, your choice) will do just as well. For the discriminating mass murderer, there's always a molitov cocktail in a crowded building. For the really desperate, go to a concert, wait till the crowd is packed like cattle, and yell out, 'Look there's [insert name of star here]'.
Re:Unionism (OT) (Score:2)
Rachel Carson definitely made an *impact* with "Silent Spring"...
Philip Agee worked with the KGB in publicly, repeatedly betraying his former employers -- the CIA -- and believe it or not, no hit teams were sent after him; the KGB has had its share of defectors (who sometimes *did* have to avoid kidnapping/assassination) as well.
A pair of reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, broke the Watergate story and explored the malfeasance of the Nixonian CRP.
If you rant and rave, you'll probably be largely ignored corner like "Redmond Rose"; if you start by documenting actual _hard evidence_ and articulate a cogent argument, perhaps starting with Letters to the Editor and such, then you will be heard. It's easy to ignore the bizarre (those that still espouse the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, say), and the shrill (those that rely on entirely emotional arguments), but it's tough for most large targets to dodge facts.
That's why groups like the Sierra Club have better reputations than "Earth First!" -- discussion being considered better than sabotage -- and folks like Sam Nunn and Phil Gramm are more respected than Lyndon LaRouche or Vladimir Zhironovsky.
Re:IANAL (Score:2)
I don't recall any suit, however, and given how often the Gov't *is* libelled, they may not actually have the power to do more than call a press conference.
Re:Deosyne (Score:2)
As well, the rights of the few do sometimes in fact outweigh the needs of the many. I have the right to say quite a few things that wou and other people would rather not hear. you could indeed claim, if it were upsetting enough, that you need not to hear it. however, that cannot override my right to say it (pendant of course on a few conditions that have more to do with your nose than my fist), at least in the US of A.
it is a tricky thing to determine the "needs of the many". who do you trust to do it? the president? the dictator? are they more the "many" than you or I? on the other hand, it is also hard to determine what rights an individual should have -- but it is far safer, in my opinion.
Lea
Re:News report of pepper spray (Score:2)
If you were to break into my house, you would be met with force, but only with appropriate force. If you are a threat to me, my housemate, or my dogs, I may use lethal force. If you are damaging my property, I will use sufficient force to stop you - but no more. If you are chained to my front door, I may have to hold you down while they cut your chains (or I might just leave you there and use the back door until hunger weakens you enough to deal with), but there's no way I would be justified in using chemical torture, or beating you, or electric shock, or anything similar. Yes, I will use reasonable force to defend myself or others; but I will not torture, nor will I sanction the use of torture, but will oppose it by any means necessary.
OT: Guns, etc... (Score:2)
The bottom line IMHO is a matter of trust. People who support bans on firearms just don't trust those who do have them, and those who do have firearms don't trust those who don't to some extent.