US goverment trying to censor our internet?

[Hatch 53]

My link How are they going to do this?

[Return of the Gaucho 2,214]

I am giving a presentation on this to a law school class next week. COICA is still just a proposed bill, but the implications are clear. The good news is, even if this law were enacted, there would be substantial judicial resistance to it. The second black list requires no judicial oversight before placing a domain name on it, and it requires the sites on the list to initiate an administrative and a judicial action to gain their removal. Additionally, there are free speech implications to it as well, as a site that offers both illegal and legal content can be blacklisted. In theory, youtube.com could be placed on either list. This issue will see substantial legal analysis in the coming months.

The class I am taking is taught by a sitting 9th Circuit federal judge, so I will update this thread next week after I hear her thoughts on the issue.

The other issue that should be noted it the notion of net neutrality and tiered internet speeds. It is less overt, but still a constructive denial of free speech on the internet, and the DC federal court basically punted the issue to Congress on April 6th of this year. For reference see Comcast v. FCC

[Hatch 53]

Hopefully it never passes.

[Cable Guy 125]

They also want to do this as well:

The Obama administration is developing plans that would require all Internet-based communication services -- such as encrypted BlackBerry e-mail, Facebook, and Skype -- to be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders, according to a report published Monday.

National security officials and federal law enforcement argue their ability to eavesdrop on terror suspects is increasingly "going dark," The New York Times reported, as more communication takes place via Internet services, rather than by traditional telephone.

The bill, which the White House plans to deliver to Congress next year, would require communication service providers be technically capable of intercepting and decrypting messages, raising serious privacy concerns, the Times said.

[Herr Beast 1,822]

I can not believe I once supported Obama. Wonder what all the other millions of people think of him now that donated over the internet to his campaign. He was supposed to guarentee the freedom of the "internet generation" and now we find out he is alot worse than Bush.

The guy is so dead to me.

[Hatch 53]

We tried to tell you that Obama will be a bad choice but people always brought up racism.

[BTL FED 1,017]

What other country does this you may ask?

China...and yes they are a Communist regime.

[Hatch 53]

Can't forget Iran, never knew they even had internet to begin with.

[crane 31]

This sounds like communism to me..I'm so proud to say that I've never supported Obama or any of his crazy antics.

[Hatch 53]

This sounds like communism to me..I'm so proud to say that I've never supported Obama or any of his crazy antics.

It does and I'm with you on never supporting Obama. (One Big @$$ Mistake America)

[falconsd56 24,954]

They also want to do this as well:

The Obama administration is developing plans that would require all Internet-based communication services -- such as encrypted BlackBerry e-mail, Facebook, and Skype -- to be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders, according to a report published Monday.

National security officials and federal law enforcement argue their ability to eavesdrop on terror suspects is increasingly "going dark," The New York Times reported, as more communication takes place via Internet services, rather than by traditional telephone.

The bill, which the White House plans to deliver to Congress next year, would require communication service providers be technically capable of intercepting and decrypting messages, raising serious privacy concerns, the Times said.

I was reading an article about that..... my concern is wither or not the communication can be interception with out proper movement through the courts.. IE if they have a warrant.

I have seen people try to compare this to Bush's wire taps, and I always say it depends on again if they can just do it with out a warrant.. If so that is a big big issue......if the agency wanting the info still have to go through the judicial channels then its not as big of problem to me.... because they have been wire tapping for decades. they have had surveillance for decades. People were not pissed Bush was wire tapping....they were pissed he did with out a warrant.

[duncja 1,086]

They also want to do this as well:

The Obama administration is developing plans that would require all Internet-based communication services -- such as encrypted BlackBerry e-mail, Facebook, and Skype -- to be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders, according to a report published Monday.

National security officials and federal law enforcement argue their ability to eavesdrop on terror suspects is increasingly "going dark," The New York Times reported, as more communication takes place via Internet services, rather than by traditional telephone.

The bill, which the White House plans to deliver to Congress next year, would require communication service providers be technically capable of intercepting and decrypting messages, raising serious privacy concerns, the Times said.

I think it's absurd that the companies providing communication services should have to make their services/products able to be wiretapped. If the FBI or whomever gets a warrant, than by all means, wiretap the individual you're after; but it's not on Facebook, or RIM to provide the means for the government to do it. Feel free to wiretap, IF you can figure out how to do it. Forcing these companies to provide the way for them is just crazy.

[Spoooooooon4MVP 35]

thank god i'll be able to communicate via blackberry and the gubment not knowing.

[BTL FED 1,017]

thank god i'll be able to communicate via blackberry and the gubment not knowing.

However some forms of communication, like Blackberry manufacturer Research in Motion's instant messaging service, are different. And that's what the government is now targeting. It also wants to change the wording of law to make it clear that Obama has full unfettered access to any sort of communication any American has with anyone.

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-brief/51731-obama-wants-unfettered-access-to-your-internet-activity

They working on that little problem.

[Hatch 53]

Hopefully none of this ever passes but you know how the government is, they want to slowly take our freedom away like.

[Spoooooooon4MVP 35]

However some forms of communication, like Blackberry manufacturer Research in Motion's instant messaging service, are different. And that's what the government is now targeting. It also wants to change the wording of law to make it clear that Obama has full unfettered access to any sort of communication any American has with anyone.

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-brief/51731-obama-wants-unfettered-access-to-your-internet-activity

They working on that little problem.

HES ******* EVIL MAN

[falconsd56 24,954]

Hopefully none of this ever passes but you know how the government is, they want to slowly take our freedom away like.

so question.

If they go through the legal channels and they get the proper warrant how are your freedoms being taken away?

If they are just doing it because they can and there is no judicial oversight I can see the point but if they follow the proper channels is that really taking any freedom away?

I ask because pretty much since any sort of technology has been around and in use, **** even before that there has been surveillance on suspects.

Video,telephone,tailing, areal surveillance, you name it has been going on for literally decades, so if this stuff still had to go through popper channels is it really any different then any other way people have been "spied" on?

[Hatch 53]

so question.

If they go through the legal channels and they get the proper warrant how are your freedoms being taken away?

If they are just doing it because they can and there is no judicial oversight I can see the point but if they follow the proper channels is that really taking any freedom away?

I ask because pretty much since any sort of technology has been around and in use, **** even before that there has been surveillance on suspects.

Video,telephone,tailing, areal surveillance, you name it has been going on for literally decades, so if this stuff still had to go through popper channels is it really any different then any other way people have been "spied" on?

If you have a reason to be spied on by the government, you must of done something pretty bad. However the government wouldn't surprise me if they already tap everybodies phones and listens in all the time.. they would call it something like "Operation terrorist talk".

[Spoooooooon4MVP 35]

trying? they already have. .

[Hatch 53]

trying? they already have. .

Wouldn't surprise me, I wonder if they continue to listen in when teens have their phone sex time.

Edited September 30, 2010 by korinator

[Hatch 53]

Update, from EFF's website: the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed the scheduled markup of the Internet censorship bill — a fantastic outcome, given that the entertainment industry and their allies in Congress had hoped this bill would be quickly approved before the Senators went home for the October recess. Massive thanks to all who used the EFF Action Center to write to your Senators to oppose this bill.