"Where it would be the most effective: Google.com."
I agree that would be the most effective location. The single most effective location possible in fact. However, even Google is subject to its share holders, and how would those share holders react? They would FLIP OUT, especially granny who can't find her crossword. Larry and Sergy would be out of a job in a heart beat if they did that.
The fact is that international law already addresses the issues you are flaunting. International law says, the law that is applipical is the law which holds jurisdiction over the individual in question, especially when that person is inside a countries borders, is first local laws, then the law of their home country. Child porn is sick, but if it is legal in a country, and IF they put it online, it is still illegal for an American to view, and that individual is still subject to the full penalty of American Law. Beyond that, its up to the politicians to put whatever pressure they can on a country to change the local law.
The fact that you are A: not a registered member, and B: Speaking the steriotypical industry bullshit line, tells me that C: You are obviously BIAS and thus have something to gain by your vague, and lackluster attempts to distract from the real discussion. As such I label you a Paid Industry Employee. Please see yourself out the door.
Incorrect. If this law existed in the late 90's Google would not exist today, nor would Amazon or ebay. The commercialization of the internet did not truly begin until late 1994 early 1995 with the dismantling of NSFNET restrictions.
You call BS on almost every large tech company currently in existence being a small individuals operation in the beginning. Sorry but your flatly WRONG. Google was just a couple guys in a garage, you think the first time they linked to a bit of copyrighted material they would have been shut down, that is what SOPA is designed to do.
What amazes me is not the article, or the comments on the article. What amazes me is how many of the comments are from anonymous cowards, either to lazy, or to stupid, to create a profile. But I suppose it doesn't work if they create a profile, because then we could simply click block and drown out the blather.......
I vote we let this bill pass. Not because I support it, or because I think its a good idea. I vote we let the bill pass for 2 primary reasons.
Reason 1: The minute this bill begins to effect the broader public, those individuals will stand up and start complaining, LOUDLY. That will prime a country, which is already on the verge of a revolution with the Occupy movement to even more unstable heights.
Reason 2: Because even if reason 1 doesn't work. We can almost certainly have this bill stricken down by the Supreme court, as the bill OBVIOUSLY infringes on our first amendment rights, rights which the politicians CANNOT LEGISLATE AWAY.
Failing those two reasosn showing some degree of success, I will frankly grab my shit and move out. I'm tired of all the corruption and ignorance from the so called politicians on capital hill. They have no idea what they are doing when the propose legislation like this, and the fact that they won't even speak to industry experts on even the technical feasability of what they propose, is flatly astonishing!
I agree with Mike. I use Google products every day. Google+ has become my major social network platform, but that is more due to my disgust with FB, and the fact that G+ has no advertising for me to deal with.
I use other Google products every day though. I have a gmail account, I use the chat client, I have an android phone, I use Google docs (sometimes), I use Google maps and GPS on my phone to guide me every day when I am at work. I use iGoogle to filter the majority of my news, hell that's how I get updates for techdirt.
But there are ALOT of issues with these services that bother me. Data is not truely mobile in the Google sphere. My phone contacts are not integrated into my G+ account, I can't use my google docs without a stable internet connection (which isn't usually an issue, but when it I don't have that connection its a BIG issue) which has prevented me from using it full time. I use Chrome, but its not really synced with my Google data. I don't have my G+ notification on my iGoogle page, and I can't customize the menu bar on the top and get rid of the few services I don't use or have no need for.
The lack of API's and ability to truly customize the services available to me is very frustrating at times and while I am a huge supporter of Google as a company I have to admit that they have left the average Joe wanting more than they are giving in many respects.
Having said that I can also understand that many of these products and services were developed as personal projects, and because of that they lack the finish, and general inter-connectivity that would make the products in and of themselves powerhouses.
I do wonder, if part of the reason why those tools and API's are not available is because of the fear of Antitrust litigation. The potential for security threats, and privacy issues that many of those same use friendly API's would create.
I seem to remember someone creating a FF Plugin that would let me use my Gmail acct as a free storage locker. I would say upload all my music to that but why would I bother when Google Music is up and running now, which is a music storage locker and nothing short of one.
"Here we have the Justice Department not helping to save lives, but helping to kill people off by making it that much more difficult to get approved drugs from Canada at more reasonable prices."
I was listening to NPR as I am prone to do while I drive around for work. One day they were discussing how the tobacco companies were being forced to couch their arguments to the public. At one point the primary argument being used to sooth ruffled feathers was that while smoking causes no end of harmful effects to the smokers. The resultant health problems and the eventual death of the individual from smoking was....frankly....good for the economy. So here I saw the sentence I quoted above and noticed the gov't is doing the same thing with proscription drugs.
I am going to refuse to bring up party politics in this post. All I have to say is that you are entirely correct Jeni. This is about the people and the freedoms that we hold dear, freedoms that are supposed to be GUARANTEED and PROTECTED by the Constitution that we are supposed to live by.
This is about the people of the nation standing up to OUR GOVERNMENT and saying, "NO, you cannot take my rights and freedoms away. As the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, BY the people, FOR the people, and OF the people, you will tell ANYONE who wants to infringe on those RIGHTS and FREEDOMS to TAKE A HIKE.
I have to admit that this seems pretty silly to me. If someone does not take the time to properly secure their wifi connection to provide needed security over their wireless networks, how can anyone be blamed for intercepting the traffic. This is the same as transmitting in clear text across any standard network connection. Would you send your credit card in clear text across the internet? I know I wouldn't, who knows who or what will intercept the traffic. Thus I fail to see how anyone can consider it illegal or for that matter even wiretapping (Especially given there is no wire, j/k).
On a more serious note however, I think it very important to establish a precedent on this matter for the future. Having spent some time doing penetration testing of my own wireless networks and those of my friends (purely for fun and with their knowledge) I can say for certain that it doesn't matter what encryption you use, it can be broken, with ease, and rather quickly.
For example, the AES256 bit block cypher used by WPA2 encryption with a 64bit key (this is mandated for banks nation wide) is heroically hard for any top of the line computer to crack at this point (the time necessary is calculated in years, even if that time is dropping drastically with GPGPU computing). However if you spend twice what you would on a top of the line system, and buy cheap parts, you can build yourself a small computing cluster. With 64 processors clocked at 1ghz (or less)and minimal RAM in the unit the ability to crack that password drops to hours. If you have a significant compute cluster with hundreds of cores or more running on fast CPU's you can take the time down to minutes (as in about 10 minutes).
(don't forget to think about all the bot-nets out there, the kind of clusters I'm talking about are more centralized and in general more stable and reliable, however the bot-nets can be utilized in the same fashion with a little work)
Now given what I have said it is important to think in terms of what equipment the government would have available if they chose to do wiretapping of this nature. They would have a rather good compute cluster that they can hook into from the field (no reason to carry the equipment with you after-all) and break into any wireless network in minutes.
So my two cents.
This is not a case of illegal wiretapping.
However depending on the verdict and the phrasing of the judge during the ruling, this could create a dangerous precedent issues with what the gov't can legally get away with in the future.
I was going to reply to what you have said here. But then I thought twice about it. Zealots don't listen to basic logic, so why bother trying. You have proven yourself to be yet another human that simply needs to be removed from the gene pool.