US threatening to censor internet

[johndh]

The internet is already censored by ISPs and hosting companies. People who post illegal content get their websites taken down and a knock on the door from the FBI or Interpol. The ones that don't get caught are presumably using private networks and various encryptions that make them basically untraceable (or they would have been nabbed already), so censoring the regular internet isn't going to touch them anyway... so who is internet censorship actually going to stop? Certainly it won't stop the criminals.

Wait for hackers to figure out a way to bypass it and then bypass it heartily.

Yeah, pretty much.

[Zerovirus]

Same argument with gun control. Gun control generally only affects those who submit to it, and that certainly doesn't include the criminals who go out and murder people with said guns. I'm pretty sure a chinese proverb goes 'Locks only keep out gentlemen, not thieves', or something along those lines.

[johndh]

I remember a (somewhat apocryphal) story about someone leaving a note on their car door that read something like "Door unlocked. No valuables inside. Please don't break my windows." It may or may not be true, but I think it serves as a good illustration here. Sometimes sealing up one hole will just make people tear open a bigger one. While most internet users generally behave themselves, once they switch to an anonymized network, they've got much less to fear and can really go nuts.

[Zerovirus]

There's a chinese parable for that too. This rich guy buried his inheritance under a wall and for security wrote on the wall "I did not bury three thousand silver coins here, don't dig here." A day later, he came by and saw that someone had written besides it "Neighbor Li did not dig up and take the three thousand coins that you did not bury here." Sure enough, the money was gone.

[boru]

johndh - In the 90s I saw signs like that on cars all over New York. So, not apocryphal.

[Jetrel]

As far as I know, the primary purpose of this sort of censorship system would be to blacklist sites known to share copyrighted material.

Specifically, to do so in a much, much more agile way than the current weeks-or-months slog of rattling legal sabres and bullying the ISPs into taking it down. It would be a centralized list the ISPs would be required to constantly update, and which would get added to whenever there's a complaint. This agility of the system is intended to fight how pirates currently just move to a different site once theirs is finally taken down.

[SkeleRanger]

As far as I know, the primary purpose of this sort of censorship system would be to blacklist sites known to share copyrighted material.

Specifically, to do so in a much, much more agile way than the current weeks-or-months slog of rattling legal sabres and bullying the ISPs into taking it down. It would be a centralized list the ISPs would be required to constantly update, and which would get added to whenever there's a complaint. This agility of the system is intended to fight how pirates currently just move to a different site once theirs is finally taken down.

That sounds okay in theory. The problem is that I highly doubt that's the only thing it would be used for. Arguably, the most effective form of government would is a dictator who 1. Knows what he was doing and 2. Genuinely wants to serve the people instead of himself. The issue with this is the moment you get a bad dictator... Well, yeah...

The only person I would personally trust not to abuse such power would be me. As everyone else feels the same way, we get nowhere.

[pauxlo]

Arguably, the most effective form of government would is a dictator who 1. Knows what he was doing and 2. Genuinely wants to serve the people instead of himself.

I'm not sure wether 1. or 2. is the more difficult point.
And still, "wants to serve the people" can have lots of different meanings - people have different ideas about what would be good for other people.

The issue with this is the moment you get a bad dictator... Well, yeah...

The only person I would personally trust not to abuse such power would be me. As everyone else feels the same way, we get nowhere.

I'm sure there are some people out there who can be trusted more than me.

[Pentarctagon]

this thread seems to have gone offtopic rather quickly lol.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I find it interesting that some of the same people are upset about this, promote government restriction of freedom in other areas. Statists (people who believe that the State should rule over the individual) are Statists, no matter what the area. Notice that this is sponsored by Democrats and the most liberal Republicans. No conservatives were involved in this disaster.

Of course, this comes just a week after the law regulating the volume of televisions, and then there's the law regulating streetsigns.

Anyhow, I think there's an excellent chance a counter-movement will arise to oppose and stop this. The Senate Republicans may make an attempt to do so, if it gets that far.

[doofus-01]

and the most liberal Republicans.

Liberals like Coburn, right.
I can't say I really know what went through the heads of the senators who signed onto this (I was surprised to see Durbin on there) but to paint this as an ideological stance... c'mon. This surely has more to do with money and pressure from businesses like Viacom.

[Zachron]

I have signed the petition, and shared it with my facebook friends.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Liberals like Coburn, right.

Coburn's the only one I'm not sure about. It's possible he's just wrongheaded about this one thing, but I don't know either way. Either way, he doesn't disprove my assertion.

And yes, it's idealogical--based on the idea that government control over our lives is a good thing. Statism is the term I like.

[ancestral]

By the way, this didn't make it to the floor during this legislative session. Might not be the last time we see this, but yeah, it's not going to be discussed again at least for a while from now.

[Pentarctagon]

Coburn's the only one I'm not sure about. It's possible he's just wrongheaded about this one thing, but I don't know either way. Either way, he doesn't disprove my assertion.

And yes, it's idealogical--based on the idea that government control over our lives is a good thing. Statism is the term I like.

I have to agree with doofus on this. I just can't see democrats and republicans cooperating (omg!) on something as close to political suicide as this purely from an ideological standpoint. If it is in fact based on ideology, then why did republicans so uniformly reject obama's healthcare plan because of 'government interference' and 'bigger government', yet some are willing to start censoring parts of the internet like the start of a Big Brother novel?