4 ms·

So you're saying that you think it would be perfectly reasonable if the FDA or agriculture department happened to be tasked with enforcing music piracy preventi

So you're saying that you think it would be perfectly reasonable if the FDA or agriculture department happened to be tasked with enforcing music piracy prevention ? Joking aside, I guess this is part of the problem with naming departments cutesy Orwellian names like "Homeland Security".

tptacek 16y ago
I think it's not an indication that the government thinks the RIAA's problems are homeland security concerns, and would prefer not to be baited into discussing anything else I think about it.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Fair enough, though I look forward to the day when there is just one governmental department and it's called the "Vanquishers of Evil" for the sake of clarity.
  - alexqgb 16y ago
    Evildoers, if you want to be precise.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Who, ... on this deep thread, ... that you started, ... ever claimed this?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    ... Nobody!
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      So you started this conversation with yourself because... ???
      - Robin_Message 16y ago
        He provided a useful piece of background on the thread. I was about to post a comment about "oh look, they overreached with the too-wide anti-terror laws and are using them on music pirate, quelle surprise," so it is useful to know that, except in name and org chart, this has nothing to do with homeland security (and any of the laws associated with the war on terror.)
  - amadiver 16y ago
    While no one ever claimed it, tptacek was correct in assuming people were thinking it. Or, at least, a person was thinking it. I'm really glad to see a possible explanation for why Homeland Security would be cracking down on music blogs. While I don't agree with the DoHSs actions, I now have a foothold in understanding the situation. It may or may not be correct, but as a fairly logical interpretation of the scenario, it'll suffice. I'm disappointed to see your fairly dramatic response (though I like the elipses and poetic linebreaks :) ) and 'yummyfajitas's pat response earn collectively more upvotes for delivering far less information (no offense).
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      To me, jurisdictional questions around the particular authority claimed by ICE to censor the web are interesting only in relation to the larger political decision to censor the web. Tptacek focuses on only the first question and righteously refuses to look at the latter question. He "prefer not to be baited into discussing" the substantial question here. What I consider an important and disturbing development: the US government effectively taking up the authority to censor websites sans any conviction of web master for anything (sure they "file a lawsuit" but they do NOT have to actually convict or even serve the webmaster in question. It's the effective negation of free speech whatever the ostensible argument). I thus think the various responses are appropriate. I've disagreed with Yummy on plenty of other issues but he decodes the misdirection in the GP well here.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        You found me out. It's all part of my evil plot to make HN'ers care about intellectual property. Curse you!
        joe_the_user 16y ago
        I suppose this is teaching people about intellectual property... ...how some intellectual property, that owned by large corporations, is so important that other intellectual property should be confiscated by fiat to protect it!

tptacek 16y ago

I think it's not an indication that the government thinks the RIAA's problems are homeland security concerns, and would prefer not to be baited into discussing anything else I think about it.

grandalf 16y ago
Fair enough, though I look forward to the day when there is just one governmental department and it's called the "Vanquishers of Evil" for the sake of clarity.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  Evildoers, if you want to be precise.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Who, ... on this deep thread, ... that you started, ... ever claimed this?
- tptacek 16y ago
  ... Nobody!
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    So you started this conversation with yourself because... ???
    - Robin_Message 16y ago
      He provided a useful piece of background on the thread. I was about to post a comment about "oh look, they overreached with the too-wide anti-terror laws and are using them on music pirate, quelle surprise," so it is useful to know that, except in name and org chart, this has nothing to do with homeland security (and any of the laws associated with the war on terror.)
- amadiver 16y ago
  While no one ever claimed it, tptacek was correct in assuming people were thinking it. Or, at least, a person was thinking it. I'm really glad to see a possible explanation for why Homeland Security would be cracking down on music blogs. While I don't agree with the DoHSs actions, I now have a foothold in understanding the situation. It may or may not be correct, but as a fairly logical interpretation of the scenario, it'll suffice. I'm disappointed to see your fairly dramatic response (though I like the elipses and poetic linebreaks :) ) and 'yummyfajitas's pat response earn collectively more upvotes for delivering far less information (no offense).
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    To me, jurisdictional questions around the particular authority claimed by ICE to censor the web are interesting only in relation to the larger political decision to censor the web. Tptacek focuses on only the first question and righteously refuses to look at the latter question. He "prefer not to be baited into discussing" the substantial question here. What I consider an important and disturbing development: the US government effectively taking up the authority to censor websites sans any conviction of web master for anything (sure they "file a lawsuit" but they do NOT have to actually convict or even serve the webmaster in question. It's the effective negation of free speech whatever the ostensible argument). I thus think the various responses are appropriate. I've disagreed with Yummy on plenty of other issues but he decodes the misdirection in the GP well here.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      You found me out. It's all part of my evil plot to make HN'ers care about intellectual property. Curse you!
      - joe_the_user 16y ago
        I suppose this is teaching people about intellectual property... ...how some intellectual property, that owned by large corporations, is so important that other intellectual property should be confiscated by fiat to protect it!