The New Law That Killed Craigslist’s Personals Could End the Web as We’ve Known
thedailybeast.com
thedailybeast.com
really, early on nobody thought this could ever be taken seriously. guess engineers suck at politics. (still have to see what the lawyers that were involved are saying now).
In significant part, they're being paid by many of us (using revenue generated from us) who are opposed to what they are doing but held hostage -- or quasi-extorted -- by oligopoly.
People's individual efforts -- just to keep up with the news and endless initiatives, much less continue to actively respond to them in effective fashions -- tire out.
Want it to end? Then you need to put the people behind these things -- commercial and political -- out of business.
But they fight us on that, too. No municipal broadband for you! Years of wrangling with Google Fiber (who arguably could go bad at any time, themselves) over pole access. Etc.
Musk's nascent satellite network is in the news, currently. Who's going to control that, and what agendas will they bring with them?
You had the NY Times and Washington Post both supporting the Cloud Act as a good idea, by pushing pro opinion pieces.
> The CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943) has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States.
0) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflect...
1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fo...
https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-am...
What else do you want? This law violates my 4th Amendment, and as far as that goes, it's highly likely that it gets struck down given the chance, our latest SC appointment makes that even more likely.
Maybe it would have been more clear if I had quoted the "foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States" part.
Sorry, I'm from Australia and sometimes find tracking US internal nomenclature confusing. Which party is "the war party"? Both major parties seem to have been happy to support ongoing military action over the last few decades so maybe I'm missing something.
Once again, I'm legitimately asking for clarification in order to put your comment in context. No judgement!
TPP/ISIS/Iran/NK these are all TLA perma-state order-out-of-chaos creations and tools. We haven't even got to the good stuff yet. A third to half of the US has no idea we just went through a soft anti-coo all the way from 2001.
Ted Cruz gets an honorable mention, Devin Nunez, Chavez, Gowdy, Grassley along with a bunch of house members, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash (sometimes... he's still learning the ropes). Worst of the worst are the crew surrounding my home state's senators of Arizona. Which is weird, people here know what's up. The 18th amendment is not a good thing. I'm leaving out a bunch if the good dems because I don't track them as closely, but that's the basics. Feinstien gets major flack (imho rightly) from the right, but she is an honest outlier too. DC is (really) a cult, but not everyone is in it.
Sorry for linking to Newt, but he explains this correctly: https://youtu.be/kkzuvte3758
If you get people a bit out of their guard they are honest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4DuMcrVpE (I was looking for just the CM full clip, but this will do, YT is quite the memory hole, didnt check that chan, but it's _extremely_ common to poison the well by mixing something like that with flat earth or whatever turns people off. CM knows he's been played, he knows about #7 and will bring it up, he wants out.)
They have an old religion, and love to put it out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5gklIKcDg
Like any gangs, these gangs need to throw their signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ (it's not monolithic, but that one is very interesting)
I'm not doing myself any favors posting this. It's so easy to set off the "CT" bells and people just tune out. Watch the vid link in my profile and read up on the disinformation page in the mediawiki link if you think it's interesting.
There's nothing in the US Constitution that limits it to US citizens. It has been argued that it protects everyone.
Spy agencies have already done this for decades with impunity and provided the data to law enforcement agencies, so this is probably just trying to provide them with legal cover.
I could post a wall of similar links: http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-al-franken-calls-for-vigo...
Correct, that's exactly what I said. NN is gov enforced regs. This thread is about bad _gov_ regulation. Companies cant make or enforce law. Gov can. Gov is therefore much more powerful, as we see here. You can leave FB, you cant leave your gov (well... easily).
Surveys have shown some people think they have access to Facebook but not the internet. You and I know they’re wrong, but makes no difference to their experience: if they lose their Facebook account for a rules violation, they suffer for it. From their POV, Facebook rules are civil laws.
Remember that normal people record clips of their favourite shows to YouTube with descriptions like “no copyright intended”. Normal people don’t know how the law works in their own country, never mind internationally like the websites themselves. They might not know what a civil law is, but I expect they would describe categories that roughly match criminal and civil laws, and put EULAs, bank account overdraft fees, etc. into the later.
Surveys are often garbage. I would be happy to look at them, but I make good money betting against polls.
Feedback teaches, remove the feedback and... next thing you know you are arguing against free speech.
This isn’t just a problem for Joe & Jane Average, it’s a problem for The Elites, too: I asked a lawyer if anyone knew all of UK law, he just laughed. From the way they act, I don’t even have reason to believe lawmakers understand the laws they pass (for example, the Australian government accidentally made half of itself ineligible for office without noticing).
The average person might be able to understand a decent subset of the laws if they are explained to them, but firstly they are not explained, and secondly there are too many for any human to understand all of them. Most people do not read EULAs, based on how long they spend on that screen — they should be simple and clear enough that people chose to do so.
That may not stay true forever. For what it's worth, I know more expats than people who truly left Facebook.
Heck, that isn't very different from the concept of insurance.
TOR is much more likely to be regulated than bittorrent, given the whole point of the latter is to remove control from governments.
And, if you become aware of sex trafficking on your website and you don't do anything about it, you are absolutely complicit. This is hardly rocket science, and it doesn't seem to overreach the way everyone is screaming that it does.
Edit: see also willful blindness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness#Precedent_...
A famous example of such a defense being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, in which the defendants argued that the file-swapping technology was designed in such a way that they had no way of monitoring the content of swapped files. They suggested that their inability to monitor the activities of users meant that they could not be contributing to copyright infringement by the users. The court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant's part and would not constitute a defense to a claim of contributory infringement.
It would seem ridiculous for courts to start charging e-mail providers, for example, as facilitating sex trafficking though, even if they must suspect their services are used for such activity. I wonder how it will play out.
I suggest you read previous threads on this from a couple of days ago. They had detailed discussion on the changes in the wording, from being "participant in sex trafficking", where you somehow benefit by actively encouraging the activity, to "facilitate sex trafficking", which is not fully defined.
Basically, the concern is that if Craigslist knew that their site was used to deal with trafficked persons, even only in theory, they are facilitating. Any open forum will thus require enormous resources to actively police, or you can't have an open forum.
However, the wording of this law suggests that less extreme measures, such as an automatic filtering system and user-report functionality, would leave craigslist liable. Note that the personal section was (probably) not majority prostitution. It was a place where prostitution would happen. It seems to me the situation were different if the personal section was 50% prostitution or more. Question is, does section 230 still protect those who operate a site where 50% of user-generated content is illegal? Because if not, I don't see how this law is necessary.
As long as you're willing to risk paying requisite attorney fees. Craigslist apparently wasn't.
A genuine ad's "hidden" URL gets rerouted to a FOSTA message. Change the ad number, and you get a 404 instead.
The power of computers to make transactions and interactions more efficient is great. But I'm not sure that efficiency needs to come at the limit of our technological capacity instead of at the limit of human attention.
The solution is clearly to produce more things closer to the demand source. But I don’t see many examples of that.
As a crude suggestion, maybe carbon adjusted energy costs would incentive local production with shipped-in raw materials.
If society wants to decrease its incidence of violence then it needs to learn to both let people “be” and reinforce positive social situations. Violence begets violence. Victims of verbal attacks may get overcome with the attacks and strike out against them physically. Violence can escalate to the point of, literally, the annihilation of all life on earth.
Or, people can try and find ways to let each other be and work together. Provide all people with a basic human respect and dignity. Not everyone deserves a mansion, but they all should be able to seek “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
For the record, I’m all for 3D printing. I want everyone to be able to print a gun but not feel the need to ever use it to kill another. We can do that if we move past the divisive, bipolar rhetoric and address our actual problems.
So restrict free speech? With what? Violence? It's OK to offend people. That's life. If someone wants to get violent because of words, they are the real problem.
I value the speech that I disagree with the most. Sure, there are limits, you cant threaten someone because you don't like what they said, but that's about it.
Even the standard "fire in a theater" example is BS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
On the technical point, either you decide what can be printed with DRM or you don't. It's as binary as it gets. It's the war on general purpose computing distilled. Either way, the "hackers" (now criminals if DRM wins) will still be able to print whatever they want.
There is also something to be said about (looking back) astonishing naivete of tech people who bought the whole "don't be evil" motto and who sincererly believed that since founders are tech school graduates, they are guaranteed to be ethical unlike those evil business majors.
Would it be possible to restate this in explicit humanese, please?
Pillars (I should have said columns) is slang for the management from back when JFK took on the CIA. The president's first visit after his election was to the CIA, he made that reference, obviously people unaware of these things thought he was talking about the columns in the room;)
Do you think people will stop using the web or stop clicking on ads or what?
I got annoyed enough that I made https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate and as you know, there are plenty of similar things. It's only a matter of time.
I hope you take don't this the wrong way. I'm being as honest as I can. Google has done amazing things. Android won the mobile market for linux. Google video lit an entire subculture, and youtube for all it's recent problems is an amazing platform. Their software contributions and open source scientific progress are wonderful things. But, I fear it's too late. They took the social engineering too far, and the owners are too invested in it to fix it.
If that's not a strong moat (in the morningstar financial sense) I don't know what is!
Google is a perfect example, you are very right, most people only "kinda" know it's goog machine that decided what they found.
BTW, nobody clicks the ads. That's bots. SHHHH.
If Google ran the DMV there'd be no one working at the building, no support email, no customer service, and you'd have to get answers to questions from other pedestrians on unofficial forums.
If Google ran the DMV we'd get our drivers licenses instantly delivered in digital form to our Android phones. We wouldn't have to stand in line or "take a number" and waste a day in a filthy office building packed to the brim with disgruntled bureaucrats.
Careful what you wish, might actually happen.
That’s the real strength of the internet, you cut of F a head and two more grow back. If more stringent laws are passed, that just creates more drive for alternatives. It’s going to be ugly, but I remember when the internet was ugly, but worked. It won’t make people filthy rich overnight, but that’s not the net either. People still want to hook up, buy guns and weed, and just talk without Big Brother breathing down their neck. It will start small, and grow fast; after all we have a few decades worth of roadmap.
People who’ve moaned about people needing to look past a handful of sites are possibly going to get their wish. The total inability for governments to field sustainable technical solutions to shutting down commas has not changed.
So fight.
The problem is that unless these alternatives are made brain-dead easy to use securely, they won't be used by the majority, or they'll be misused.
It's the same problem as with PGP, which is too complicated and too much of a pain for most people to use -- even for relatively computer savvy people to bother with.
Without many people using them, they won't be very effective or appealing alternatives.
But yes, the potential for privacy-compromising security failures is indeed troubling.
ARPANET Definition. ARPANET was a pioneering wide area network (WAN) that was created by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) in 1969. ... In order to provide reliable communication in the face of equipment failure, ARPANET was designed so that no one point or link was more critical than any other.
We have only partially implemented this at a systems level but have centralized at the information level. The internet can bring information to free people and allow people to live in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' but it is being twisted to limit those things due to edge cases and extremes. The battle continues...
It's dead simple to build your own intranets on fully open-source stacks.
And if laws like this take down stuff that enough people care about, there will be alternatives. Given that Google, Facebook, Reddit and so on are vulnerable, they may be unable to provide them. But that just disrupts stuff to the next level.
I have not seen any reported pwnage that didn't involve obvious OPSEC failures. You just need to compartmentalize, and avoid creating associations.
Advertisers are looking to de-annoymise you, three letter agencies are trying to de-annoymise you and all it takes is one minor slip upper being too unique (i.e. your combination of web browser, addons, screen size, IP address, etc).
It is almost impossible for a regular user to be anonymous, to have good opsec, for extended periods of time.
Regarding uniqueness, using personas that must remain unlinked on the same physical machine is very risky. Given the risk of guest-to-host breakout. And because hardware signatures may be visible remotely. If WebGL is enabled in VMs, Internet sites can link VMs on a given host (graphics card) that use the same virtual graphics driver. In particular, ones meatspace identity should never share a physical machine with any personas that's at all risky. They should also be compartmentalized on separate LANs.
So Debian and the Ubuntu family have the same signature. But Windows, OS X, Centos/Fedora, Arch/Manjaro and PC-BSD have different signatures. So one can use VMs with different WebGL signatures on the same hardware. But only for personas where linkage would be survivable.