12 ms·

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But w

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck. do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

yolesaber 15y ago
What can be done is encouraging more engineers and scientists to run for offices in the United States Government.
- dantheman 15y ago
  What can be done is to educate people and engage in a discussion on what the proper role of the state should be. For many, the government should have little to no involvement in technological and economic matters and focus merely on the preservation of individual liberties - if this view continues to gain momentum issues such as these will become nonissues.
- rhizome 15y ago
  The US electoral process is prejudiced against any candidate with skills other than "people skills." Anybody who campaigns on a platform even implying the advantage of intelligence will be cast as an elitist. Boom, campaign-headshot.
  - gujk 15y ago
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Sure, there are exceptions, and that guy is pretty low-level. My point is on the level of Mitt Romney's Mormonism: certain traits do not appear to be compatible with higher office (these days). Look at John Kerry's 2004 campaign for some examples of what I'm talking about.
- dpatru 15y ago
  China's leaders are engineers. It just helps them be more repressive. Rather than engineers, we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government. The problem we have isn't that people in government aren't bright. They are. It's that they want government to solve too many problems. When you have power, it's tempting to try to solve problems through imposition (by passing laws, e.g., network neutrality) rather than allow people to work out their differences peacefully (through the marketplace).
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    >we need leaders it is hardly possible to describe the root cause of the problem in less words than that.
    - ballard 15y ago
      we need root. :)
  - maercsrats 15y ago
    I like child labor laws. I like food safety laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle). I like my bank being separate from investment institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act). I also like education programs, fire departments, police, roads, etc. I pay a lot in taxes and want to keep all of these things (and really have stricter regulations in the banking system). Our market isn't free enough, that's true, but having a totally free market tends to crush the lower class. A completely free market, after all, is like a force of nature and nature doesn't give a shit about people. I do give a shit about people and am happy to pay taxes to help those people. Our system isn't perfect and there are a lot of problems with it, but I don't want it to go away completely.
  - bobwaycott 15y ago
    I'm not sure if this was genuine, joking, or accidentally the result of a lack of study in political science and social relations, but let's be clear on this point: People do not work out their differences through the marketplace. The market is a social relation in which people are put to the task of serving the interest of capital—and capital alone. What Americans call a democratic government is a minority ruling class serving the interests and goals of capital and the market, regardless what it costs the majority. The ruling class doesn't want government to solve too many problems—they want it to solve the problems of capital, allowing brief pauses only where the majority threatens capital's current relations as to necessitate throwing the majority a bone of reform to quiet things back down. All that to say let's be careful thinking, much less suggesting, people work out differences in the marketplace. It's the wrong forum. Submitting our needs to the market is nothing more than offering those needs up for exploitation in the interest of financial returns. The market will not solve this problem unless, and only if, it is found to threaten the interests of capital, diminishes surplus value, and then the government will back off. People need to stop believing that a government who exists to protect capital is going to defend the people against the loss of unprofitable or dangerous freedoms. Want to get the government to make a change? Convince them this harms the market (well, that's the most cynical suggestion given the current state of things). Better yet? Subvert and support eliminating the power of the market itself to control government. You're right "we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government." You're wrong suggesting this has anything at all to do with the marketplace. The market created the enormous edifice of governmental machinery we have today to protect itself. Government isn't the source of the problem. It's the servant, the tool, and the scapegoat.
angersock 15y ago
As long as we're busy chatting about pet languages, comparing work/life balances, and generally masturbating about startup culture, we (as a collective) aren't going to do a damned thing. It's time to acknowledge that this behavior of our governments is beginning to violate a reasonable social contract, and if not that, certainly at least realize that our livelihoods are coming under attack. It may well be time to start getting radical in our evaluation of our culture's place in modern politics--they are clearly not serving our interests (much less those of their own citizens!), and yet equally clearly are dependent on us for a great deal of their soft power. Folks with more weight and pull in this area: start paying attention.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  You're very right but I believe there's an even deeper problem here. There will always be people trying to manipulate the system to serve their needs but I think we can start winning some of these cases by educating the public. A lot of the people deciding on these issues have no clue how the things they're ruling on works. This judge most likely doesn't know that he just opened the floodgates for abuse. This judge was a guy most likely like my mother who uses google as her browser address bar. First navigate to goof,e type the web address in search then click the first result. He seems to have been thinking about the issue in terms of the physical world. If someone was using the Chanel name and logo to sell fake goods then an order along these lines in the physical world makes some sense. A lot of people who don't quote get the web think of these issues with physical analogies in mind. The problem is that these physical world analogies just don't apply. They only sound good to the uninformed. So yeah, we need to be protesting but more importantly we need to be educating. There are far more people who make bad judgements based on ignorance of the web than there are that make bad judgements because they need to please their pay masters.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    I had a professor last year who used our school's homepage's Yahoo search bar to search for Google, then searched Google for Youtube. And he has two doctorate degrees.
- 15y ago
maratd 15y ago
I have an idea. Ignore them. Let them enforce their own edicts, rulings, and laws. If enough people disobey, it becomes impossible to enforce. That's why civil disobedience works. Now, if Google grew a pair and told the judge to get lost ... well ... I'll be mighty impressed and they would earn my respect.
- lukesandberg 15y ago
  I don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. At least they publish information about this kind of activity http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/US/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/...
  - maratd 15y ago
    > I don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order. And if a court order had been obtained, I would use common sense to determine if the request should be granted. Anything less IS cowardly. If you don't stand up to abuse, the abuse will simply continue.
    - adgar 15y ago
      > I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order. ... isn't the article in question about a court order?
    - gwright 15y ago
      While I realize that there are defensible reasons to actively reject some government directives the benefits of a lawful society should not be underestimated. Bad laws should be fixed via legislative action. Sometimes this means complying with the bad law in the interim. Selective enforcement and/or selective non-compliance may be justifiable as a tactical response but if taken too far then we no longer have the rule of law.
JonnieCache 15y ago
We need to invent the following things so we can be forever truly free: 1) A secure, peer to peer DNS system with no registrars and a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 2) An encrypted version of TCP that we can drop in without anyone noticing. 3) A way of distributing keys for our encrypted transport layer without certificate authorities and again with a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 4) A secure, peer to peer, federated social network with all the features that we and the rest of the world want and need. Then we will at least have some breathing space while we work on that whole planetwide wifi mesh thing.
- charliesome 15y ago
  We've already got Namecoin and Diaspora, but neither appear to be catching on.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    Namecoin is pretty great, but as with all these things, there's the problem of the network effect. Diaspora has all sorts of problems. With the SSL certificate thing, there's Convergence, which basically solves the whole lot at a stroke. See http://convergence.io/ http://convergence.io/ and the guy's Blackhat talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA
    - phodo 15y ago
      "problem of network effect" if you accept the premises that: a) the diaspora's of the world are the solution (or at least a step in the right direction) b) the problem is that of a network effect (translation: the cold start problem) ... then one solution is for a well known, highly trafficked brand, that has nothing to lose, to implement "a". ... a.k.a.... what if someone like yahoo which still has vast reach, but is not a player in social, took something like diaspora and promoted heavily. That would solve the cold start problem.
- jakeonthemove 15y ago
  But then you'd still be subject to existing laws - it's not like they're going away. With the same amount of effort, you could get the governments to stop making stupid decisions/laws or at least consult someone before they do. But then again, they have tech consultants who never get a say because ruling in favor of those with money is better for the lawmakers' careers or pockets. I do believe that most people are pretty comfortable with the current situation... when it'll start affecting more individuals, then the "anti-" movements will ramp up - it's always been that way...
marshallp 15y ago
the tech/science community is the most able body of people in the country. I'm sure if there coordinated effort was made, it could put technologists in every office in the country.
- tokenadult 15y ago
  the most able body of people in the country Most able at what? Most people who are in elected office, or who have been in elected office, have a certain repertoire of skills in getting along with other people and in keeping track of mutual obligations that helps make the political process work. Some scientists or engineers who become politicians http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter http://mcnerney.house.gov/ http://mcnerney.house.gov/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Ehlers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Ehlers http://holt.house.gov/ http://holt.house.gov/ http://olver.house.gov/ http://olver.house.gov/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Foster_(Illinois_politician) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Foster_(Illinois_politicia... http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/111th-congress-degrees-by-type/ http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/111th-congress-degrees-by-typ... have had some degree of those skills, and some people with other academic degrees have gained understanding of how science relates to public policy. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html But scientists and engineers are still fallible human beings, http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 and the political process will still come under influence of concentrated interest groups http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html regardless of which people fill the offices.
  - marshallp 15y ago
    Of course, if a technologist tries to get elected on his own, he won't win because he isn't a natural politician. What I'm saying, with all the talent that exists in this the sceience/engineering/programming community, if they organized, built software systems and mathematical models etc, I believe they could get "their man/woman" in every office in the country.
ajross 15y ago
You appeal to a higher court. Courts make mistakes. The system is designed to handle that. Let it work. Relax, basically. This won't stand. That's not to say you're going to agree with everything the higher courts do (c.f. the Citizens United ruling, yada yada). But you can be sure that smart people will look at the problem. Silliness like this won't stand.
- jcr 15y ago
  I totally agree with you on letting the courts work, but you're missing an important point; who will pay to fight it through the higher courts? We already know the court proceedings were "one-sided" so it's safe to assume no one showed up to defend themselves. For the sake of argument, let's assume the seized domains were actually selling copied goods. Whether one considers copied goods to be good or bad is irrelevant; the most we can say is there are laws forbidding the sale of copied goods. Given such laws, the "defendants" are best off hiding rather than coming forward to defend themselves in court and potentially facing further losses. With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts? Additionally, why should they bear the costs of compliance with the court orders? It's not that the courts can't work, instead, it's whether or not making the courts work is worth the expense.
  - marshray 15y ago
    With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts? 1. Because they pull down boatloads of money doing business on the internet and it's the right thing to do for them to help defend it. 2. Because they depend on the stable operation of the Internet for their business, in particular: A. the stability of names and URLs, and B. a censorship-free legal envrionment where they don't have to process regular expressions or O(M*N) algorithms serving every page.
    - jcr 15y ago
      I pretty much agree with you on both counts, but as a for-profit entity, it's a matter of financial math rather than "doing the right thing." If it costs "X" to fight it through the courts, and costs "Y" to implement and maintain the censorship/court-orders, then "Y" has to be greater than "X" (plus long term consequences) for the math to work. If "Y" is substantial, the legal fight can be re-framed as an unfair burden, so there is now no need to fight the initial issue through the courts or endure cost "X".
rorrr 15y ago
Vote them out.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  You would need to vote out the system of government that is implemented in the US. But the US political bureaucracy is itself reinforced by its deep rooted opposition to all other forms of government. Most US political leaders would rather see the US government collapse completely than fall to socialsim.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
zeteo 15y ago
What is the base for your unsupported assertion that the judge is a "dinosaur who know[s] nothing of technology policy"? If you had read the ruling, you'd have seen there's a lot of technical detail in it. Plus, the article is probably also incorrect, see my comment below.
- joe_the_user 15y ago
  There's nothing about a person's willingness to take a meat-clever to the tech industry that inherently indicates he doesn't understand the tech industry. All he's saying is "my marshals can beat your technological imperative". That might be true, especially in the short run. And talking about these types as ignorant is reassuring. But we shouldn't be reassured. There is no a-prior reason to expect we'll win here.
- jeroen 15y ago
  Your comment below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3292687 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3292687 It looks like you're wrong, though. See my response there.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    I don't think it's wrong, or at least not for the reason you've mentioned.
cwe 15y ago
Start over on Mars
- Tossrock 15y ago
  Kim Stanley Robinson fan?
throwaway81 15y ago
What we need is competition. There needs to be a viable alternative to the US government. Small policy changes or people changes or party changes will not be sufficient. Big changes will not happen without outside competition. Someday, some country is going to recognize that supporting free culture can be a huge competitive advantage. I would like to live in that country. I'd take a pay cut to move there. I think many would found businesses there. This will pressure the US (and others) to adopt changes. However, if I am honest with myself, I don't think reactionary changes - the only improvements that will be made - will satisfy. I think we're all waiting for someone to step up and provide a viable alternative - a place more friendly to the 21st century. I'd love to help, but I'm not certain where to start. Many software companies might thrive in less copyright and patent friendly territories. Perhaps, at some point, one will step up and launch a government competitor. But that's probably not going to happen. Seems more likely that some countries will recognize this opportunity and there will be a slow immigration of us Internet folks to this new promised land. Anyone else have a vision for how this will end?
- VladRussian 15y ago
  somebody smart said that it isn't that new ideas win, it is a new generation accepting the new ideas replaces the old generation. Couple generations later (i'll be in my 70-80ies :) when current teenagers will be the judges, DAs, ... the issue of IP just willn't be an issue anymore.
- botker 15y ago
  http://seasteading.org/ http://seasteading.org/
- rmc 15y ago
  There needs to be a viable alternative to the US government You mean other countries? Yes there is a world outside the USA. I'm not certain where to start Move to a country which you like?
ballard 15y ago
"Technology policy outreach." There, I think that uses enough bullshit for them to understand.
anigbrowl 15y ago
But what. the fuck. do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway? The same thing as all the folks who know nothing of legal procedure but have decided to go ahead and condemn it anyway? Sorry to be blunt, but I'm with zeteo in thinking that both Ars and the blogger they cite have misinterpreted this ruling, and in being disappointed at the lack of contextual information on how the law works in this area. This is no more an attack on the internet than impounding a criminal's car is an attack on the motor industry.
- MetallicCloud 15y ago
  I disagree. To extend your analogy, it's like taking a sample of 300 cars, finding that 3 of them need impounding and then locking them all up, leaving the onus on the owner to go through the hassle of getting their car out if they weren't infringing.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    And where are you getting this 1% number from? Why are you assuming a 99% false positive rate? It's not hard to identify bogus retailers in this case because luxury brands usually have direct contractual relations with retail partners rather than selling though wholesale channels. So if you see cheap stuff.com selling 'Chanel' merchandise and they're not on the list of authorized distributors, then by definition they're selling knockoffs.
    - bobwaycott 15y ago
      Faulty logic. I'm not on the list of authorized distributors. I can sell a shit ton of Chanel merchandise. There is no definition of anything at all here that means I am selling knockoffs.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        I'm not on the list of authorized distributors. I can sell a shit ton of Chanel merchandise. How? According to Chanel's corporate website, they only sell through their own boutiques and authorized retail partners. This is known as a selective distribution agreement, and here is a 2008 report on internet sales models (prepared for Chanel) which articulates the differences from normal wholesale-retail models: http://www.crai.com/ecp/assets/Selective_distribution_Caffarra_Kuehn.pdf http://www.crai.com/ecp/assets/Selective_distribution_Caffar... My whole point is that no, you can't just go into business as a Chanel retailer, and you'll find the same is true for Hermes, LV, and a variety of other luxury brands. A great many high-value manufacturers make use of selective or exclusive distribution agreements to maintain price discrimination and market positioning for their brand across a global market.
gospelwut 15y ago
As somebody who works as an expert (I hate that word by the way, so I apologize) in the legal field, I can say this sentiment is pretty accurate. People think the that evil cabal of lawyers et al conspire against the little man to crush, oppress, and otherwise harm them through litigious means. This is not the case per se. There are lawyers filled with the utmost dickery, but that is not all of them. The fact of the matter is aformentioned dickerous individuals can take advantage of a system largely ill equipped to handle technology cases. Whether it be a jury that barely knows the difference between a hard drive to a floppy drive or a doddering, self-indulgent, and masturbatory judge--it's over their heads. I do my "due diligence" to not contort facts and try to explain things as best as I can. But, despite my best efforts I always know that there will be some basic technical misunderstandings in the judges' opinion/ruling. People keep trying to shoe-horn computer concepts into ancient, arcane notions they have about law and life in general. When nobody in the court room except the experts know what is going on technically--and admittedly are influenced by those that hire them (despite professional conduct), this essentially means whoever has the best narrative wins. Though, that fact might not be exclusive to computer-based cases. People expect magic. Either you're talking them down about how these artifacts of X could mean Y but just because Z file i sin /home/bob doesn't necessarily mean it was Bob sitting at the terminal. Or, you get the other extreme, where you're defending yourself from an ignorant, nearly exceptional cavalcade of "How you can really know for sure?" type questions. And, of course, any expert if hired to do so can easily be that dick-for-hire. I've had cases where I suspected the judge prolonged the costly trial simply to indulgent their whimsy. Oh, how fancy! You can pull up their deleted files and internet records? ENTERTAIN ME MORE!
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  I've had cases where I suspected the judge prolonged the costly trial simply to indulgent their whimsy. Oh, how fancy! You can pull up their deleted files and internet records? ENTERTAIN ME MORE! Tee-hee.
pasbesoin 15y ago
We make clear and take advantage of their position that there is no "right to access" nor "property" as traditionally defined, on the net. We do this by "disconnecting" them. No technical support. Their ISP's free to discontinue service to / their business relationship with them. Cut them off. Practically, this probably won't happen -- and there would always be sell-outs raising the question of additional actions/escalation against them. But, fundamentally, this is how I see it. Their own arguments admit our ability to exclude them. And we should -- "route around the damage", and all that. Mind you, in the above, I'm not advocating anything patently illegal. I'm not talking about "hacking (cracking)" their systems, nor DoS-ing them, etc. Just, don't do business with them, and don't support them. Shun them.

yolesaber 15y ago

What can be done is encouraging more engineers and scientists to run for offices in the United States Government.

dantheman 15y ago
What can be done is to educate people and engage in a discussion on what the proper role of the state should be. For many, the government should have little to no involvement in technological and economic matters and focus merely on the preservation of individual liberties - if this view continues to gain momentum issues such as these will become nonissues.
rhizome 15y ago
The US electoral process is prejudiced against any candidate with skills other than "people skills." Anybody who campaigns on a platform even implying the advantage of intelligence will be cast as an elitist. Boom, campaign-headshot.
- gujk 15y ago
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Sure, there are exceptions, and that guy is pretty low-level. My point is on the level of Mitt Romney's Mormonism: certain traits do not appear to be compatible with higher office (these days). Look at John Kerry's 2004 campaign for some examples of what I'm talking about.
dpatru 15y ago
China's leaders are engineers. It just helps them be more repressive. Rather than engineers, we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government. The problem we have isn't that people in government aren't bright. They are. It's that they want government to solve too many problems. When you have power, it's tempting to try to solve problems through imposition (by passing laws, e.g., network neutrality) rather than allow people to work out their differences peacefully (through the marketplace).
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >we need leaders it is hardly possible to describe the root cause of the problem in less words than that.
  - ballard 15y ago
    we need root. :)
- maercsrats 15y ago
  I like child labor laws. I like food safety laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle). I like my bank being separate from investment institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act). I also like education programs, fire departments, police, roads, etc. I pay a lot in taxes and want to keep all of these things (and really have stricter regulations in the banking system). Our market isn't free enough, that's true, but having a totally free market tends to crush the lower class. A completely free market, after all, is like a force of nature and nature doesn't give a shit about people. I do give a shit about people and am happy to pay taxes to help those people. Our system isn't perfect and there are a lot of problems with it, but I don't want it to go away completely.
- bobwaycott 15y ago
  I'm not sure if this was genuine, joking, or accidentally the result of a lack of study in political science and social relations, but let's be clear on this point: People do not work out their differences through the marketplace. The market is a social relation in which people are put to the task of serving the interest of capital—and capital alone. What Americans call a democratic government is a minority ruling class serving the interests and goals of capital and the market, regardless what it costs the majority. The ruling class doesn't want government to solve too many problems—they want it to solve the problems of capital, allowing brief pauses only where the majority threatens capital's current relations as to necessitate throwing the majority a bone of reform to quiet things back down. All that to say let's be careful thinking, much less suggesting, people work out differences in the marketplace. It's the wrong forum. Submitting our needs to the market is nothing more than offering those needs up for exploitation in the interest of financial returns. The market will not solve this problem unless, and only if, it is found to threaten the interests of capital, diminishes surplus value, and then the government will back off. People need to stop believing that a government who exists to protect capital is going to defend the people against the loss of unprofitable or dangerous freedoms. Want to get the government to make a change? Convince them this harms the market (well, that's the most cynical suggestion given the current state of things). Better yet? Subvert and support eliminating the power of the market itself to control government. You're right "we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government." You're wrong suggesting this has anything at all to do with the marketplace. The market created the enormous edifice of governmental machinery we have today to protect itself. Government isn't the source of the problem. It's the servant, the tool, and the scapegoat.

angersock 15y ago

As long as we're busy chatting about pet languages, comparing work/life balances, and generally masturbating about startup culture, we (as a collective) aren't going to do a damned thing. It's time to acknowledge that this behavior of our governments is beginning to violate a reasonable social contract, and if not that, certainly at least realize that our livelihoods are coming under attack. It may well be time to start getting radical in our evaluation of our culture's place in modern politics--they are clearly not serving our interests (much less those of their own citizens!), and yet equally clearly are dependent on us for a great deal of their soft power. Folks with more weight and pull in this area: start paying attention.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
You're very right but I believe there's an even deeper problem here. There will always be people trying to manipulate the system to serve their needs but I think we can start winning some of these cases by educating the public. A lot of the people deciding on these issues have no clue how the things they're ruling on works. This judge most likely doesn't know that he just opened the floodgates for abuse. This judge was a guy most likely like my mother who uses google as her browser address bar. First navigate to goof,e type the web address in search then click the first result. He seems to have been thinking about the issue in terms of the physical world. If someone was using the Chanel name and logo to sell fake goods then an order along these lines in the physical world makes some sense. A lot of people who don't quote get the web think of these issues with physical analogies in mind. The problem is that these physical world analogies just don't apply. They only sound good to the uninformed. So yeah, we need to be protesting but more importantly we need to be educating. There are far more people who make bad judgements based on ignorance of the web than there are that make bad judgements because they need to please their pay masters.
- freehunter 15y ago
  I had a professor last year who used our school's homepage's Yahoo search bar to search for Google, then searched Google for Youtube. And he has two doctorate degrees.
15y ago

maratd 15y ago

I have an idea. Ignore them. Let them enforce their own edicts, rulings, and laws. If enough people disobey, it becomes impossible to enforce. That's why civil disobedience works. Now, if Google grew a pair and told the judge to get lost ... well ... I'll be mighty impressed and they would earn my respect.

lukesandberg 15y ago
I don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. At least they publish information about this kind of activity http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/US/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/...
- maratd 15y ago
  > I don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order. And if a court order had been obtained, I would use common sense to determine if the request should be granted. Anything less IS cowardly. If you don't stand up to abuse, the abuse will simply continue.
  - adgar 15y ago
    > I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order. ... isn't the article in question about a court order?
  - gwright 15y ago
    While I realize that there are defensible reasons to actively reject some government directives the benefits of a lawful society should not be underestimated. Bad laws should be fixed via legislative action. Sometimes this means complying with the bad law in the interim. Selective enforcement and/or selective non-compliance may be justifiable as a tactical response but if taken too far then we no longer have the rule of law.

JonnieCache 15y ago

We need to invent the following things so we can be forever truly free: 1) A secure, peer to peer DNS system with no registrars and a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 2) An encrypted version of TCP that we can drop in without anyone noticing. 3) A way of distributing keys for our encrypted transport layer without certificate authorities and again with a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 4) A secure, peer to peer, federated social network with all the features that we and the rest of the world want and need. Then we will at least have some breathing space while we work on that whole planetwide wifi mesh thing.

charliesome 15y ago
We've already got Namecoin and Diaspora, but neither appear to be catching on.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  Namecoin is pretty great, but as with all these things, there's the problem of the network effect. Diaspora has all sorts of problems. With the SSL certificate thing, there's Convergence, which basically solves the whole lot at a stroke. See http://convergence.io/ http://convergence.io/ and the guy's Blackhat talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA
  - phodo 15y ago
    "problem of network effect" if you accept the premises that: a) the diaspora's of the world are the solution (or at least a step in the right direction) b) the problem is that of a network effect (translation: the cold start problem) ... then one solution is for a well known, highly trafficked brand, that has nothing to lose, to implement "a". ... a.k.a.... what if someone like yahoo which still has vast reach, but is not a player in social, took something like diaspora and promoted heavily. That would solve the cold start problem.
jakeonthemove 15y ago
But then you'd still be subject to existing laws - it's not like they're going away. With the same amount of effort, you could get the governments to stop making stupid decisions/laws or at least consult someone before they do. But then again, they have tech consultants who never get a say because ruling in favor of those with money is better for the lawmakers' careers or pockets. I do believe that most people are pretty comfortable with the current situation... when it'll start affecting more individuals, then the "anti-" movements will ramp up - it's always been that way...

marshallp 15y ago

the tech/science community is the most able body of people in the country. I'm sure if there coordinated effort was made, it could put technologists in every office in the country.

tokenadult 15y ago
the most able body of people in the country Most able at what? Most people who are in elected office, or who have been in elected office, have a certain repertoire of skills in getting along with other people and in keeping track of mutual obligations that helps make the political process work. Some scientists or engineers who become politicians http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter http://mcnerney.house.gov/ http://mcnerney.house.gov/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Ehlers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Ehlers http://holt.house.gov/ http://holt.house.gov/ http://olver.house.gov/ http://olver.house.gov/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Foster_(Illinois_politician) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Foster_(Illinois_politicia... http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/111th-congress-degrees-by-type/ http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/111th-congress-degrees-by-typ... have had some degree of those skills, and some people with other academic degrees have gained understanding of how science relates to public policy. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html But scientists and engineers are still fallible human beings, http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 and the political process will still come under influence of concentrated interest groups http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html regardless of which people fill the offices.
- marshallp 15y ago
  Of course, if a technologist tries to get elected on his own, he won't win because he isn't a natural politician. What I'm saying, with all the talent that exists in this the sceience/engineering/programming community, if they organized, built software systems and mathematical models etc, I believe they could get "their man/woman" in every office in the country.

ajross 15y ago

You appeal to a higher court. Courts make mistakes. The system is designed to handle that. Let it work. Relax, basically. This won't stand. That's not to say you're going to agree with everything the higher courts do (c.f. the Citizens United ruling, yada yada). But you can be sure that smart people will look at the problem. Silliness like this won't stand.

jcr 15y ago
I totally agree with you on letting the courts work, but you're missing an important point; who will pay to fight it through the higher courts? We already know the court proceedings were "one-sided" so it's safe to assume no one showed up to defend themselves. For the sake of argument, let's assume the seized domains were actually selling copied goods. Whether one considers copied goods to be good or bad is irrelevant; the most we can say is there are laws forbidding the sale of copied goods. Given such laws, the "defendants" are best off hiding rather than coming forward to defend themselves in court and potentially facing further losses. With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts? Additionally, why should they bear the costs of compliance with the court orders? It's not that the courts can't work, instead, it's whether or not making the courts work is worth the expense.
- marshray 15y ago
  With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts? 1. Because they pull down boatloads of money doing business on the internet and it's the right thing to do for them to help defend it. 2. Because they depend on the stable operation of the Internet for their business, in particular: A. the stability of names and URLs, and B. a censorship-free legal envrionment where they don't have to process regular expressions or O(M*N) algorithms serving every page.
  - jcr 15y ago
    I pretty much agree with you on both counts, but as a for-profit entity, it's a matter of financial math rather than "doing the right thing." If it costs "X" to fight it through the courts, and costs "Y" to implement and maintain the censorship/court-orders, then "Y" has to be greater than "X" (plus long term consequences) for the math to work. If "Y" is substantial, the legal fight can be re-framed as an unfair burden, so there is now no need to fight the initial issue through the courts or endure cost "X".

rorrr 15y ago

Vote them out.

wavephorm 15y ago
You would need to vote out the system of government that is implemented in the US. But the US political bureaucracy is itself reinforced by its deep rooted opposition to all other forms of government. Most US political leaders would rather see the US government collapse completely than fall to socialsim.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

zeteo 15y ago

What is the base for your unsupported assertion that the judge is a "dinosaur who know[s] nothing of technology policy"? If you had read the ruling, you'd have seen there's a lot of technical detail in it. Plus, the article is probably also incorrect, see my comment below.

joe_the_user 15y ago
There's nothing about a person's willingness to take a meat-clever to the tech industry that inherently indicates he doesn't understand the tech industry. All he's saying is "my marshals can beat your technological imperative". That might be true, especially in the short run. And talking about these types as ignorant is reassuring. But we shouldn't be reassured. There is no a-prior reason to expect we'll win here.
jeroen 15y ago
Your comment below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3292687 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3292687 It looks like you're wrong, though. See my response there.
- zeteo 15y ago
  I don't think it's wrong, or at least not for the reason you've mentioned.

cwe 15y ago

Start over on Mars

Tossrock 15y ago
Kim Stanley Robinson fan?

throwaway81 15y ago

What we need is competition. There needs to be a viable alternative to the US government. Small policy changes or people changes or party changes will not be sufficient. Big changes will not happen without outside competition. Someday, some country is going to recognize that supporting free culture can be a huge competitive advantage. I would like to live in that country. I'd take a pay cut to move there. I think many would found businesses there. This will pressure the US (and others) to adopt changes. However, if I am honest with myself, I don't think reactionary changes - the only improvements that will be made - will satisfy. I think we're all waiting for someone to step up and provide a viable alternative - a place more friendly to the 21st century. I'd love to help, but I'm not certain where to start. Many software companies might thrive in less copyright and patent friendly territories. Perhaps, at some point, one will step up and launch a government competitor. But that's probably not going to happen. Seems more likely that some countries will recognize this opportunity and there will be a slow immigration of us Internet folks to this new promised land. Anyone else have a vision for how this will end?

VladRussian 15y ago
somebody smart said that it isn't that new ideas win, it is a new generation accepting the new ideas replaces the old generation. Couple generations later (i'll be in my 70-80ies :) when current teenagers will be the judges, DAs, ... the issue of IP just willn't be an issue anymore.
botker 15y ago
http://seasteading.org/ http://seasteading.org/
rmc 15y ago
There needs to be a viable alternative to the US government You mean other countries? Yes there is a world outside the USA. I'm not certain where to start Move to a country which you like?

ballard 15y ago

"Technology policy outreach." There, I think that uses enough bullshit for them to understand.

anigbrowl 15y ago

But what. the fuck. do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway? The same thing as all the folks who know nothing of legal procedure but have decided to go ahead and condemn it anyway? Sorry to be blunt, but I'm with zeteo in thinking that both Ars and the blogger they cite have misinterpreted this ruling, and in being disappointed at the lack of contextual information on how the law works in this area. This is no more an attack on the internet than impounding a criminal's car is an attack on the motor industry.

MetallicCloud 15y ago
I disagree. To extend your analogy, it's like taking a sample of 300 cars, finding that 3 of them need impounding and then locking them all up, leaving the onus on the owner to go through the hassle of getting their car out if they weren't infringing.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  And where are you getting this 1% number from? Why are you assuming a 99% false positive rate? It's not hard to identify bogus retailers in this case because luxury brands usually have direct contractual relations with retail partners rather than selling though wholesale channels. So if you see cheap stuff.com selling 'Chanel' merchandise and they're not on the list of authorized distributors, then by definition they're selling knockoffs.
  - bobwaycott 15y ago
    Faulty logic. I'm not on the list of authorized distributors. I can sell a shit ton of Chanel merchandise. There is no definition of anything at all here that means I am selling knockoffs.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      I'm not on the list of authorized distributors. I can sell a shit ton of Chanel merchandise. How? According to Chanel's corporate website, they only sell through their own boutiques and authorized retail partners. This is known as a selective distribution agreement, and here is a 2008 report on internet sales models (prepared for Chanel) which articulates the differences from normal wholesale-retail models: http://www.crai.com/ecp/assets/Selective_distribution_Caffarra_Kuehn.pdf http://www.crai.com/ecp/assets/Selective_distribution_Caffar... My whole point is that no, you can't just go into business as a Chanel retailer, and you'll find the same is true for Hermes, LV, and a variety of other luxury brands. A great many high-value manufacturers make use of selective or exclusive distribution agreements to maintain price discrimination and market positioning for their brand across a global market.

gospelwut 15y ago

As somebody who works as an expert (I hate that word by the way, so I apologize) in the legal field, I can say this sentiment is pretty accurate. People think the that evil cabal of lawyers et al conspire against the little man to crush, oppress, and otherwise harm them through litigious means. This is not the case per se. There are lawyers filled with the utmost dickery, but that is not all of them. The fact of the matter is aformentioned dickerous individuals can take advantage of a system largely ill equipped to handle technology cases. Whether it be a jury that barely knows the difference between a hard drive to a floppy drive or a doddering, self-indulgent, and masturbatory judge--it's over their heads. I do my "due diligence" to not contort facts and try to explain things as best as I can. But, despite my best efforts I always know that there will be some basic technical misunderstandings in the judges' opinion/ruling. People keep trying to shoe-horn computer concepts into ancient, arcane notions they have about law and life in general. When nobody in the court room except the experts know what is going on technically--and admittedly are influenced by those that hire them (despite professional conduct), this essentially means whoever has the best narrative wins. Though, that fact might not be exclusive to computer-based cases. People expect magic. Either you're talking them down about how these artifacts of X could mean Y but just because Z file i sin /home/bob doesn't necessarily mean it was Bob sitting at the terminal. Or, you get the other extreme, where you're defending yourself from an ignorant, nearly exceptional cavalcade of "How you can really know for sure?" type questions. And, of course, any expert if hired to do so can easily be that dick-for-hire. I've had cases where I suspected the judge prolonged the costly trial simply to indulgent their whimsy. Oh, how fancy! You can pull up their deleted files and internet records? ENTERTAIN ME MORE!

anigbrowl 15y ago
I've had cases where I suspected the judge prolonged the costly trial simply to indulgent their whimsy. Oh, how fancy! You can pull up their deleted files and internet records? ENTERTAIN ME MORE! Tee-hee.

pasbesoin 15y ago

We make clear and take advantage of their position that there is no "right to access" nor "property" as traditionally defined, on the net. We do this by "disconnecting" them. No technical support. Their ISP's free to discontinue service to / their business relationship with them. Cut them off. Practically, this probably won't happen -- and there would always be sell-outs raising the question of additional actions/escalation against them. But, fundamentally, this is how I see it. Their own arguments admit our ability to exclude them. And we should -- "route around the damage", and all that. Mind you, in the above, I'm not advocating anything patently illegal. I'm not talking about "hacking (cracking)" their systems, nor DoS-ing them, etc. Just, don't do business with them, and don't support them. Shun them.