Y2K Movie Followup: The Slashdot Effect Gone Wrong 299
Addition: 11/30 by michael : I thought I'd chime in here, since I started the fracas.
Blaming the ISP is sometimes appropriate, and sometimes not. Huge national ISPs have legal staffs to evaluate whether something should or should not be pulled. In general, they display an astonishing lack of backbone in defending customer sites, because even minor hassle from law enforcement just isn't worth it to them, and they don't have much excuse when they knuckle under. Small ISPs are a much different matter. No legal staff, facing the loss of your entire business if you guess wrong. Let's say he stood up for this guy and refused to pull the site, and the FBI seized the ISP's computers. Would all you flamers have stood up for him, sent him money to fight the good fight, talked to his other customers and begged them to stay on even though their sites were down? Yeah, sure you would. He made the best business decision available to him. The difference between this guy and one of the national ISPs is that they wouldn't have put the site back up again at all.
And if Wired has it right and you people are writing to the ISP's other clients, that's just sad. Save your anger for someone who's actually done something wrong. You want to get pissed off, give the FBI a call and ask them how their "investigation" is going.
Re:Are you listening to yourself? (Score:1)
if the fbi told cmdrtaco to stop, i bet he would post something on slashdot, pass it on to all of the other sites that most slashdotterd would read, then shut down. the resulting wave of attacks on the fbi would influence them to let him put the site back up.
i was part of a small isp(doing mac tech support) and we could barely afford the connection (t-1) and phone bills. i was paid by the users who houses i went to. fortunitly, the tech support job was my first job at 16, so i didn't need it to survice.
if your primary source of income is threatened, then you will most likely stop. i don't know if slashdot is cmdrtaco's primary source of income, but if the fbi told him to stop or they'll do something bad to him, then i'm pretty sure he'll stop (if just long enough to get the slashdot community pissed off)
Re:Best business decision? (Score:1)
>>The government can take your property, and you have to prove that it wasn't purchased with drug profits to get it back.
As I understand it they still can't make the initial seizure without a court order. (ok, ok, ok, or catch you with enough drugs)
LK
More moderation category suggestions (Score:2)
Re:I disagree (Score:1)
the points I made that need to be done to start up a business are for starting a business that will prosper. That will not file for bankruptcy down the road.
Yes any Joe Schmoe can start up a business. But will it be successful? Well.. apparently not. I know most people cannot afford to have a lawyer on hand. But if you're starting up a business... this is as important as buying your license. And if you can't afford the $200 to initially find one, well then I'm not sure you should be starting a business to begin with. Yes this is the land of the free... and Yes, it's wonderful that anyone who wants to be an entrepreneur can be one, but there are a few things you need to know. And indeed... an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'd rather pay up to $500 to find a lawyer before I even buy my domain than to run into trouble down the road and not have anything to turn to. Because if this was me... the second the FBI called... I would have been on the phone with my lawyer who knows me, and knows my business. People get scared very easily by the FBI. Now I'm not american, but in Canada, we have a constitution. This constitution doesnt protect me from my neighbor. It protects me from my government. My human rights legislation on the other hand protects me from my neighbor. Law enforcement screws up. They are not perfect. But people can't be ignorant to the law. You need to know what you're not allowed to do, and even better, what other people are not allowed to do to you.
I understand your market fill statement. I guess that leads to a question of what kind of business you want to run. Theres a market share for lots of stuff, but I know I wouldn't want to spend my professional life looking over my shoulder.
There aren't very many sucessful professional athletes that don't know the rules of the game. Business is no different.
Re:same old story... (Score:1)
Spam is one person sending bulk email to many - usually the same message, and always unsolicited. From the sounds of it, this was a case of many people sending a few messages to a few people. While it may have been a flood of mail, it by no means is the same thing as spam.
On the one hand, I imagine most of the messages were inflamatory at the very least. At best, they may have been simply informing the ISP's customers that their provider didn't respect their rights to free speech. While the ISP may have been legally within its rights, it's still a mark against them.
If the guy who run the ISP is pissed because his customers know the truth, well, that's too bad. His customers have a right to choose an ISP that will defend them.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Well, it DID work (Score:1)
If you want a better example, there's plenty. How about South Africa and apartheid - or some states of the US, if you're prepared to go back a little further. Still gets the point across, but nowhere near as loaded for most as mentioning the NSDAP.
Incidentally, is this the shortest thread where Godwin's been invoked?
Greg
this is just awful..... (Score:1)
and... (Score:1)
customers know that when it comes to the
question of his posessions or their rights,
which decision he makes.
I see nothing wrong with that. If he felt that
pressure from the FBI warrented taking it down
then ALL of his customers have every right to
know that this is how he does buisness, so that
they may decide whether they wish to continue
a buisness relationship with a person who does
not truely believe in free speach.
In no case do I see him as a victem. The customer
who had their page taken down (I assume it was a
customer and not his own) is the REAL victem.
The FBI is the agressor. He is the man in the
middle who just sat back and did as he was told.
I see no harm and no foul.
Re:Whole situation deserves some serious thought.. (Score:1)
Wieger was simply taking precautions in order to prevent the ruining of his life.
---
Hmm. It sounded to me like he didn't make any precautions at all. Did he even consult a lawyer? Common sense would tell me that he clearly had the right to keep his content up.
If I were in his position, I'd have contacted a lawyer, my upstream provider (to make sure they'd back me up), etc. The FBI has power, but they're media conscious as anyone. I'd have contacted Wired, Slashdot, etc. for help. I wouldn't have just pulled the switch.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Terrorist Militia Group? (Score:1)
It's happened before.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Horseshit (Score:1)
It's not one customer, you fucking moron. It's one contract. This dickweed made a deal to host some content. He went back on the deal as soon as it was inconvenient for him, and he didn't even bother to find out first exactly how inconvenient it would be, or what his options were.
That's not "your freedom of speech ends on my server". It's "I'll sell you something but I want to keep total control over it". Even if the written agreement allowed him to drop the content, we all know damned well that he was representing that he'd try to give good service, not drop stuff for no reason at the first sign of trouble.
If he'd refused to host the stuff in the first place, that would have been a perfectly reasonable exercise of his freedom to control his server. Once he takes the stuff on, he's morally (and often legally) bound to make an effort to retain it.
Contract is the issue here. Freedom of speech is only peripherally related.
Re:Duh huh (Score:1)
"You should already have counsel"... Huh? Why? What the hell for?
What are you thinking of here, something like "Uh, Mr Lawyer, can you please pre-inform me of the proper response for every possible threatening phone call?"
Oh yes, the movie was SOOOOOOO provocative. C'mon, it was a poorly-done spoof. About as professional as the Blair Witch Project. I suppose you think that the FBI should be calling up Arnold Schwartzenegger about the scary Y2K shit in "The End of Days" movie. That movie has a lot better chance of getting the general uneducated public freaked out about Y2K.
"...whom I wouldn't have trusted to run a small office network". What they hell releveance does that have to do with anything? ISPs that cannot support their customers will go out of business rather quickly. Sounds more like you are a hidden-agenda person for a megalithic communications company of some type. Go suck a balloon.
Re:What if the transformation is volunary??? (Score:1)
- If she did NOT like being a statue, I would immediately restore her to her animate state, apologize thoroughly, and go look for females with more of a proclivity for being marble.
Oh, I see. You petrify them, feel them up, and then ask them if they like being marble. Of course, being PETRIFIED, it's pretty hard for them to respond, isn't it?What you said didn't bother me in the least. Thank you, I'll throw all the stones I like. Believe me, I'm not judging you on your trolling.
Re:Horseshit (Score:1)
Go suck a balloon!
The video was pretty lame. (Score:1)
Even so.. (Score:1)
The Slashdot "authors", on the other hand, aren't journalists. They're human, and they make assumptions and let their biases stray their take on a situation instead of being objective and letting the readers make their own decisions.
Re:Why is someone's rape fantasy moderated at 3!!! (Score:1)
Interesting situation (Score:1)
What worries me sometimes is when the reactions go beyond the
I never send out angry email as a result of a story on
I'm rambling here, but I realy do think that the impact the
I come here for the serious stories and discussions, and I come here for the humor and craziness that the Grits Boy and the petrify-girls guy add to the atmosphere. Even the phursst pohoasters can be funny. But I think it's gotten to the point that
I agree.. (Score:2)
For controversial topics, we need article *summaries*, not *editorials*. We're smart enough to make up our own minds without having to read "Big Brother" every other line.
Re:Best business decision? (Score:2)
And how many were committed because the majority remained wilent and willfully ignorant?
>>But how does spamming (how could anyone consider flames intelligent) solve the situation? Especially to the victim!
It is NOT SPAMMING to send e-mail to a company to express your unhappyness with one of their decisions.
Spam is UCE, these companies provide e-mail addresses for customers (or potential customers) to communicate with them. I don't see where the problem is.
>>It's this kind of 'hack the world' mentality that makes people look down at
It's this type of "we need to fit in" mentality that will forever keep geeks on the outside of things.
I don't see where you extract "hack the world" from my comment. Expression of dissatisfaction through e-mail and telephone calls is the 1990's version of the sit-in. It's a method of civil disobedience and it gets results. It is LEGAL, it is non-destructive and it is effective.
LK
Gawd *damn*. (Score:1)
Ooo, a Slashdot story! (Score:1)
1) Moderation has gone to hell. Be careful who you give it to, guys. I don't think anyone knows the moderation guidelines now. Short, short version: the first post probably isn't redundant, but it might be a troll, flamebait, offtopic, or massively overrated. And don't moderate anything as overrated if you have a better reason. If you just don't like it, try posting a *reply*. Still waiting for metamoderation to fix this one...
2) Quality of articles on slashdot has gone to hell. Get rid of those losers except Rob and maybe Hemos. Either moderate the stories, let someone screen them before they get posted, or moderate/edit the potential stories, or something.
3) What's with the messed up colors on some of the comments pages? I don't want some ugly green, or some red. I don't want a page to look *any* different than it always has unless I have an option to customize it. Where's the "make the comment page stay standard slashdot green, dammit!" button?
Slashdot used to be a cozy little website. Yes, now it's a lot more popular. Now we have guest authors who can write long, rambling articles, and new posters who can get cool, sensationalistic headlines, and a comments section that needs to go back to segfault. It's always been "News for Nerds". Now we need to work on that "Stuff that matters" some more.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Well, it DID work (Score:1)
You say twice that you don't encourage flames, but you praise the "positive effect" of these flames, which is almost the same thing. You compare Wieger's actions to genocide. Tit for tat, let's compare your post to white supremacist rhetoric.
How do you think the Nazis pulled it off? Not one worker ever killed Jews en masse: the only thing they did is pull a lever, drive a locomotive, show the Jews to the gas chamber. I'm not saying genocide and censorship are of the same scale; I'm saying that in both cases, institutions promoting them hope everyone involve will say, 'Well, I didn't really do anything.'
How do racist leaders incite lynchings? Most of them nowadays actively discourage violence: instead, they rail on and on about how minorities are destroying the fabric of our country, hoping that someone will follow the logical progression and kill some for the alleged good of the country. I'm not saying racist lynchings and flames are of the same scale; I'm saying that in both cases, institutions promoting them hope everyone involved will say, 'Well, maybe he says he doesn't want me to [lynch/flame people], but look at the good he says will result.'
OK, so that was pretty low, but I think it illustrates the fallacy of your argument.
There are several things you should keep in mind:
On the Internet, the main prevention of censorship is the ease with which information can be spread from one site to the other, not the efforts of stalwart ISPs standing up the the FBI.
Your observation that flames caused Wieger to put the site back up is wrong. Read the quote carefully:
With the video again streaming from his servers, Wieger is awaiting another call from the FBI. Inspired by the nasty comments in his email inbox, he's been practicing his free speech.
"I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business, you assholes!'"
The flames inspired Wieger to decide to say "Fuck you!" to the FBI, not to put the site back up. He put the site back up because he realized the FBI didn't have a legal leg to stand on, not because of the volume of flames.
The FBI told him (falsely) that the provider upstream from him would pull his entire site if he didn't. Clearly, it wouldn't accomplish much to keep the site up if his upstream provider had already caved in.
Apparently, some people were contacting Wieger's other customers, trying to get them to close their accounts, presumably in an attempt to make it more costly for Wieger to take the site down than to keep it up. These people forget that the cost of the FBI prosecuting him could be greater than his entire income. In that case, the only possible way to make keeping the site up a rational business decision is to pledge money for Wieger to support him in fighting the FBI. I guarantee that if the e-mails, instead of threatening to reduce his customer base, said, "If you put the site back up, I'll contribute $X to your legal defense against the FBI," we wouldn't be having this discussion about flaming.
Re:Easy for you to say (Score:1)
You're right, it did work. But could you imagine if this was you? The FBI calls you threatening all kinds of things. I would have done the same thing: take if off until I figure out if they can fulfill their threats. Free speech is wonderful but jail sucks.
This is at least one of the reasons why you don't have a hosting company. Having a business requires responsible behavior toward customers, and I am very pleased that we now have a good example that caving in to a bluffing from FBI was much more damaging than a person expected. I completely agree with people who flamed that provider and hope that it will make others think before damaging freedom of speech.
Are you listening to yourself? (Score:1)
By comparing anything this minor to NAZI sympathy is just setting yourself up for flames. It is a know Law that any sufficiantly long thread eventually will become a discussion of Nazis but isnt it a little soon? It is maddness to condemn this guy for looking out for his best interests.
I don't get it-- where do they mention Slashdot? (Score:1)
Re:Journalistic integrity (Score:1)
`interview' with John Vranesevich. Maybe good reason to give him a
grilling: shame that isn't what he got. Instead just a lot of flames
badly disguised as questions...
It is eaiser to complain (Score:1)
The rash of 1st post BS (like on this article) is an example.
Or Mr. Barr's letter to mindcraft is another example.
And, given the paranoia of US Citizens, how many are REALLY going to pick up the phone and call the FBI asking 'hey hows it going', when documentation exists of what happens to citizens who decide NOT to play by government rules. Phil Zimmerman(PGP fame) and the old editor of PHRACK who was suied by AT&T over 911 documents come to mind.
*sigh*
Re:I wept (Score:1)
I think I'm going to print this out and frame this obvious work of art. Future generations should be allowed to see this, in all its glory.
Amazing.
Re:The nature of the net... (Score:1)
Well said. But the percentage of idiots is growing - must be that law that says that the universe's IQ is a constant...
This just shows that free-speech advocates, ecologists, feminists, slashdotters, and similar fanatics, should be treated with extreme caution... however right they may be individually, in groups they're unbearable. (BTW I'm proud to belong to all of the cited groups.)
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
- Huxley
Now that's a great sig!
Combative Nature of the Net? (Score:2)
Perhaps a solution would be to implement a feature in email clients that would by default keep all messages in a queue for a set period of time (say 24 hours) so that you can edit some hastily written words after you've had a good night's sleep. i'm sure this post would benefit from editing of some sort :)
Re:Pardon me, but didn't it work? (Score:1)
Do you think Wieger will back down from his rights a second time without an explicit written court order signed and in triplicate? I doubt it - he is now all too aware that he is not alone.
Boy, that's a wonderful sentiment. It would have been an even more wonderful sentiment if most of the people who sent e-mail had offered to support him, with actual money, rather than threatening (and apparently succeeding) to drive away customers.
Re:Increasing public awareness (Score:1)
But I absolutely hate the way you go around spamming every single slashdot board in existence, pushing it in people's faces where it's not wanted, and most especially, not on topic. I'm sorry... can't you read anything from the fact that your posts are constantly marked off-topic? I'm sorry for being harsh, but... what the hell's wrong with you???
Be happy about your statue fetish. Be proud of yourself for who you are. If you find a discussion on sexuality, or repression of sexuality, or sex with statues, or sex with people, or whatever... post there.
But don't come into a fucking technology forum discussing news and tech, and fucking well SPAM us with that stuff! It's not wanted. It's OFF TOPIC!!!!!!!!!
You don't see anyone else spamming every single thread with posts on what they do to their girlfriend, or boyfriend, or whatever. And there's a damn good reason for it. It's SPAM. It's NOT WANTED. It's OFF TOPIC. Get it????
If you want to advocate, fine! Do so! BUT NOT HERE!!!!!
The only thing you're doing is making people hostile. Hostile to you, and your ideas and your beliefs. You're being counter-productive, dude. You're turning people OFF, not ON.
--
- Sean
Re:realworld.stupidity == internet.stupidity (Score:1)
That situation is not the same. The car dealer is lying. We are talking about a guy who started his own web hosting business not knowing all the details of the law. This man was not a lawyer and should not expected to act as one. His business is web hosting.
Not to say that he shouldn't have stood up and told the fbi to produce something more substantial, he should have.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Its time to take some responsibility (Score:1)
-Steve Bergman
Re:Duh huh (Score:1)
As he said in the Wired story - he can't afford counsel. If the FBI actually wanted to do something and fight it in court, then he'd probably be scrambling to the ACLU hoping someone would take his case pro-bono. Regardless, I have a strong feeling he never considered the possibility the FBI would find a site run by one of his 50 clients and threaten him over it. "Calls from the FBI are not routine, but they aren't rare, either, nor are similar calls from others".
I really, really don't think so. "Hi yes, this is the FBI again. After surveying x bazillion pages on the web, we've determined you need to take this, and this site down". This story was a fluke, and that's why it was a story in the first place.
"These things are even less rare if you're hosting something obviously provocative, like that movie"
Porn sites and such, yeah you may expect it. This? I'd never have guessed a really poorly made, very obscure, video about rioting on New Years would have gained the FBIs interest considering there's all sorts of this sort of thing in bigtime media. I would also guess hosters don't know the details of everything their hosting.
"The reason this bugs me is that I'm getting really tired of the general level of incompetence that's tolerated on the Web"
I think you're confused at where you're placing the blame. I think I'd be a little bit more worried about the FBI's actions, eh? You seem to have lost sight of what the actual problem.
From your response to another poster: "... and, for likely cases like this, yes, you can even get your lawyer to explain enough of the law to you, in advance, that you at least feel comfortable telling, say, the FBI to wait while you call that lawyer."
And in the meantime, take the site down while you're finding out what's going on. Once you've got the facts, put it back up. That's what the guy did. If the guy had refused to put it back up ever, as I imagine many larger ISPs would've, that's a different story.
"We're talking about the feds, not a bunch of film critics. From their point of view, it's provocative"
And god knows what that means. As I said before, if I were hosting this site and the FBI called me about it, I'd be scratching my head as to what exactly caught their attention about it relative to what else is out there.
"... and BECamation, which obviously can't support its customers because of its total lack of a clue, should be one of them."
I'm a little lost on how this incident points to "not supporting the customer". "What? The FBI called, and you took my site down temporarily in order to make sure things were kosher? HOW DARE YOU, incompetent idiot! And by the way, if the FBI actually does do something about it that's illegal, could you uh, front the money to fight them in court for me? That's what I expect out of my ISP you know".
"The reason this bugs me is that I'm getting really tired of the general level of incompetence that's tolerated on the Web"
I have no idea how you relate this to incompetence on anyones part other than the FBI. Which, strangely, you haven't taken issue with.
Re:Please, no, not again. I'm tired of this (Score:1)
Re:Best business decision? (Score:1)
I don't know what the actual laws allow them to do, but the reality of it is that people have had cash seized simply because they were driving around with too much cash.
I've never heard of any threshold for "enough" drugs to make you subject for forfeiture. There is a whole list of crimes that being suspected of makes you subject to forfeiture. http://www.fear.org [fear.org] has a bunch of information about civil forfeiture.
or lack of.... (Score:1)
It seems to me that the writers/posters at slashdot are posting more purely technical and slanting towards the net culture/we world. This is fine because you can want a bit of diversity. But not at the expense of accuracy of facts, ability to quote sources, accountability
One solution (there are surely others) is for users to moderate stories for *quality* much like our posts are moderated. This will force the writers to lift their game as users can quantitativly access a story. Read the post [slashdot.org] to see what i recommended. Slashdot can only improve.
Target the folks (Score:1)
You all know this. It's fine that we all talk on
I used to own and run an ISP and I have to take my lumps to protect many-a-user. People didn't like what they had to say, for a nunber of reasons. I stuck to my guns. It took all my time to deal with issues like that (that and Pacific Bells continuous billing errors).
So, if you have just come home after a night of drinking, or what not. Yell, rant, go wild here and not to the inbox of some poor guy trying to stay afloat.
-- Smile
Re:Duh huh (Score:1)
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.
Anybody who has any serious chance of needing a lawyer should have one. You don't ask them all your questions in advance. You call them up when you need them. The point is that you know who to call... you don't have to spend time finding a decent lawyer when you need an answer immediately. Your lawyer will already know your business, so you don't have to spend a lot of time explaining the situation to her. You will already have a relationship of trust, so you don't have to spend a lot of time building one.
... and, for likely cases like this, yes, you can even get your lawyer to explain enough of the law to you, in advance, that you at least feel comfortable telling, say, the FBI to wait while you call that lawyer.
We're talking about the feds, not a bunch of film critics. From their point of view, it's provocative. It doesn't matter how well done it is. They have no sense of humor and no sense of aesthetics. If you don't know that much about feds, you're really not in a position to have an opinion here. Um, incompetence isn't relevant to complaining about incompetence? Exactly what is relevant?I expect basic competence in every area... technical, business, and legal.
Most of the small ones, and many of the big ones, are incompetent. Most of the big ones, and many of the small ones, are disorganized and unwilling to help their customers to the degree they deserve. Damned few of either kind provide an acceptable level of service. Hosting providers are often, but certainly not always, worse than bandwidth providers. Consultants vary widely but are frequently completely worthless Web designers are the absolute bottom of the barrel.
Re:Flaming accomplishes little, if anything (Score:1)
If the FBI contacted the ISP, and he did such a thing, he could be found guilty for obstruction of justice, even if the act of justice being performed by the FBI was illegal.
The right thing to do is not "avoid the problem", but rather to confront it head on, and stand up for your rights. Running to some mystical data haven won't solve the problem. The FBI is an agent of the country with the most firepower. Fortunately, it's also one of the most democratic countries in the world.
If you want to have rights you must stand up for them, and be prepared to fight for them. Don't wait for the ongoing of infringement of your right to be fought off by thrid parties.
Re:Terrorist Militia Group? (Score:2)
Despite the First Amendment, it's not unusual to see journalists going on and on about the evils of, say, Paladin Press, or hate groups, or militias; and then cheerily, but incorrectly, implying that they're all part of some Hillaryesque Right-Wing Conspiracy headed by Limbaugh, Buchanan and the Aryan Nation.
If it makes you feel any better... (Score:1)
I would NEVER transform a girl into a statue unwillingly if she didn't enjoy being a statue. If she did NOT like being a statue, I would immediately restore her to her animate state, apologize thoroughly, and go look for females with more of a proclivity for being marble.
Rufies are NOTHING of the sort. They do NOT actually transform flesh into any kind of inert substance while preserving the consciousness of the transformed person. That's what's important.
In all of my fantasies, the women LOVE being statues. In fact, the transformation is usually voluntary, or at the least, temporary. Many of the women I talk to about this say they DON'T think they'd probably enjoy being statues. But until science or magic actually advances far enough to find out, we don't know WHAT it would be like to be a statue, and whether or not the women would enjoy it.
So how can you decide if it's good or bad?
And since it's something that can never happen, in our lifetimes or probably ever, what is the bag fat hairy yak-brained idea??
Petriphilia (or statuephilia) is a VERY common interest. You'd be surprised how many hundreds of us there are on the Internet, and how many THOUSANDS in the world. So before you switch into FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME mode, maybe you should read what this article is actually saying. How would you like it if I criticized YOUR sexuality?
Okay, I'll do just that.
GOD, YOU'RE SICK! YOU ACTUALLY HAVE *SEX* WITH PEOPLE! THAT'S DISGUSTING! YOU CAN GET ALL KINDS OF DISEASED AND PREGNANCY AND STUFF DOING THAT!!! SICK SICK SICK!! YOU SEXUALISTS MAKE ME WANT TO VOMIT! I'M HEVER READING SLASHDOT AGAIN!
There. You didn't like it very much, did you.
Throw stones elsewhere, or better yet, don't throw stones at all.
I was actually rather disheartened when this got moderated up. That's not what's supposed to happen. My "Open Letter to ESR" was supposed to be moderated up, and it was. Because, not to brag, it was very clever. This was no more clever than my favorite cartoon, Pokey the Penguin. It was meant for those who, like me, keep thresholds at -1, sort by score, and always skip to the bottom of the article to find the REAL good stuff.
I apologize for the inconvenience caused by it being moderated up.
For those who want to learn more about people who love turning girls to stone:
http://www.oaktree.net/argoforg [oaktree.net]
http://members.xoom.com/meddie/Medusa [xoom.com]
We're really quite normal, good, honest people. Please don't judge us based on the fact that one of us (me) enjoys a good Troll now and then!!!
Good day, and God bless.
Big e-mails... (Score:1)
Well, anyhow, seeing the moderation totals for this comment is quite interesting. When I checked, it was:
Moderation Totals:Offtopic=8, Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Funny=5, Overrated=2, Total=18.
Nice going -- finally a moderator war...
/* Steinar */
A little idea.. (Score:2)
I seem to remember that the artist lives in New Jersey? Is the ISP located in NJ too? and dose it matter where he is located, i.e. dose he do web hosting. I would definitly talk to the guy about switching.. execpt that I'm in school and I get everything for free.
Regardless, if the guy really is more protecting of people's rights now, then someone out there sould definitly figure this out (by talking to him) and switch to his service. If people were to switch to him specifically for freedom based reasons then the FBI is the only looser here.. and we can all home happy.
Jeff
"Think twice, click once" (Score:2)
"Measure twice, cut once"
has some important, useful information that it would behoove us in the information age to take heed of:
"Think twice, click once".
...and be civil!
I'd highly suggest reading the slashdot article mentioned in this posting Thoughts from the Furnace [slashdot.org]
-core
Re:Well, it DID work (off Topic) (Score:2)
Utter crap. Both the SS and the Wehrmacht routinely massacred people (mostly Jews) in Poland, the Baltic States, the USSR, wherever.
In Kiev (for example), several thousand were walked up to large pits, ordered to strip and then shot.
In the Pripet marshes, the Jews were walked into the swamp and shot so they fell there, babies were to be held close to their mothers so one bullet would do for both.
In France and Italy, whole villages were expunged.
Sorry about this rant, but you have absolutely no idea of the scale of the operations.
Re:Sit in? (Score:2)
What do you think the sit-ins and bus boycotts of days gone by were? They were a deliberate attempt to change conduct through hurting businesses financially. I have no problem with it, as long as facts are the weapons that get used.
>>I made no intention of saying they should 'fit in'. Your self-imposed geek exile is a fallacy. We're all alone on this big, dumb rock. Get over it.
I don't have anything to get over, I'm a college student with a good GPA, I makedecent money at my job and I'm married to a big breasted blonde.
You and your desire to fit in amongst people who don't want you, will forever keep you an alone bitter little man.
LK
Re:Horseshit (Score:2)
This has turned out to be a very interesting story. I read the initial
I agreed with Weiger's comments on the wired article. He seems like an intellegent person. But running a business is another story. And as a business student, it seems to me that he has gotten what he deserved. The 2 most important things you do before setting up a business are:
1. take some sort of business class... you need to know more than how to balance a book, or advertise... you need to know ethics, and laws, and the whole 9 yards.
2. you find a lawyer! You don't find one when you need one. This is the single most important thing to do before setting up a business. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You don't go with the first lawyer you talk to... you interview many... because your lawyer is going to be your lifeline in a situation you least expect to happen.
I happen to have a really excellent corporate law professor this semester so I feel empowered by my knowledge now. And if Weiger wouldn't have been so entreprenuer gung ho... he would have done things "right". He also would know that he's probably got a very good Defemation case against the FBI, depending on the events that took place. It's sad that he's not sophisticated enough to know this.
Now as for the video, if he had any business sense... he would have never put that on his servers to begin with. Have you seen this video? omg! You're damn right the FBI wanted that taken down. Now wait a second... I didn't say it shouldn't be on the web. This is what the web is all about. But if I was a web hosting business owner... there is no way in hell I'd allow that on my server. It looks like some kind of terrorist plot and to tell you the truth.. it sent chills up my spine. I'm not tempted to email his clients and flame them for his actions, I'm tempted to email them and tell them that their are better businesses out there. Run by people with education. I'm sorry... but he really did get what he deserved. If his business goes down because of all of this, well... Darwin lives again.
Hizonner I'm glad someone else saw this. It seems to me that a lot of people are getting all caught up in the "no censorship!" and "I have rights dammit" parts of this issue. I want to be a hippy as much as the next person, but look at this from an entrepreneur prespective. Now think about it.... there ya go.. yikes.. what was he thinking.
Re:The Whole Story and Journalizism (Score:2)
Re:Best business decision? (Score:2)
The swiss banks might not have killed a single Jew, but they DID hold onto their assets after the Nazis expatriated and murdered them.
>>If his customers had been told that, do you really think Wieger would be facing the loss of his business, which he is?
Maybe he should have thought about the consequences of that BEFORE he pulled a paying customer's site.
Even the least constitutionally aware among us knows that the FBI would need a court order or a warrant to force us to do anything that we did not want to do. I don't buy the "they bullied me" defense. (I'll say it again) I've stood face to face with two armed BATF agents when I was falsely accused of owning an illegal firearm. I stood my ground and I haven't seen hide nor hair of either one of them in years. You don't have to be "brave" or "foolish" to stand up for yourself, just aware.
LK
Gone Wrong? (Score:2)
Re:FIRST POST!!!! (Score:2)
Flaming accomplishes little, if anything (Score:3)
The best way, IMO, to handle problems like this was what I (among several) suggested as the most direct solution: Mirror the site in an area outside FBI jurisdiction. As recent times have shown, once something is released to the 'net, it's pretty damn hard to get it off again. Throw up a couple mirror sites and that information is forever guaranteed to stay in circulation.
Well, maybe not forever, but at least until people get bored of it. ;)
<sarcasm>Save the flame wars for something useful, like the linux vs. bsd "Fork!", "Spoon!" debate.</sarcasm>
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Flaming/Dumbing Down - my thoughts (Score:4)
1) Nothing is effective unless it is constructive, this goes for criticism, conversation, relationships *anything*. Flaming is a pointless excersize and a complete waste of energy. Think of it from a simple point of view, surely it is so much better for both sides if the energy put into the argument was of a positive nature rather than negative. Not to mention the simple aspect of respect. - It's all be forgotten about on the web, primarily IMO because you are faceless and it's very unlikely you will get any comeback. Unlike IRL!
2) Dumbing down.... are we really getting more stupid??? Are we unevolving into chimps who don't understand subtleties anymore. Where satire and humor is lost totally? After all it was a satirical movie and if people decide to get scared about it then what are we to do. Is pulling it really the answer?
It's a strange situation, but one which is happening everywhere. TV, politics, almost everything has been dumbed down for the masses. It's a disturbing trend.
I have no easy answers, but the whole thing worries me deeply. It has such far reaching consequences not just to do with privacy and rights, but on a much more basic human interaction level.
Well, it DID work (Score:4)
Well, well. So it did work. People have complained that the ISP didn't stand for freedom of speech and it gave them a spine. Frankly, Weiger is trying to play the victim here. Saying stuff like, 'Oh, but we're just a lil' company, it wasn't our fault.' Yeah. But it's never anybody's fault when freedom of speech is concerned. You pull content from a website, and you're claiming you're just paying the rent. What you're doing next is approving of massive censorship in the name of passivity.
How do you think the Nazis pulled it off? Not one worker ever killed Jews en masse: the only thing they did is pull a lever, drive a locomotive, show the Jews to the gas chamber. I'm not saying genocide and censorship are of the same scale; I'm saying that in both cases, institutions promoting them hope everyone involve will say, 'Well, I didn't really do anything.'
Like I said, flames is never the solution. But making your voice heard is. In the light of the conclusion of this story, the Slashdot effect, civilised or not, did have a positive effect. I'm not endorsing it, but... Well, you gotta wonder.
Its time to take some responsibility (Score:2)
Re:Figures (Score:2)
Not really. There are plenty of bbs's brimming with people with attitudes like this. Not to mention IRC's, Usenets, Churches...
It took me a long time to teach myself to take a couple of deep breaths first and really imagine what was going on in the other person's mind (and whether anybody needed to hear my angst over a post) before replying.
Most people never do. They feel that they have the innate right to express ANYTHING they may feel, at any time, because somewhere, somebody got the idea that we have the right to never be offended, that life is fair, etc.
Life only becomes fair, methinks, when people don't respond to any possible upbraidance of their "rights" with anger and flames.
With people as edgy as they are these days, and people out there flying off the handle and walking into work with shotguns...you bet the FBI is going to be edgy about anything that can possibly generate a buttload of flames. All they need is for just ONE of those people to decide that flaming just isn't enough to get that point across...
And just enough people, every year, do just that. Some stupid stunt that started out enlightened, but just winds up hurting somebody, and certainly damaging the rights of others.
Sophistry is not a big step toward species wide survival.
Re:FIRST POST!!!! (Score:4)
"What the..."
Question is, do you make it a positive or negative mod? Either way, that's what I'd have to mod this. It's definitely the strangest post I've seen on Slashdot yet. It'd be a shame to mod it down, but it kind of deserves it (it's offtopic, after all).
Re:Please, no, not again. I'm tired of this (Score:2)
I clearly meant readers. In the context of the original discussion, it's not all that important how many people are posting to Slashdot, but what percentage of those who learn about something through Slashdot may be sending "angygrams", no matter whether they post or not.
And I know it's hard (or rather impossible) to do, but I also know that at least soms counting is being done, since there are lists of the most frequently accessed stories. Maybe if one has access to all the data that Rob has, it would be possible to make a (very) rough estimation of the number of readers. Accuracy is not all that important, anyway. What counts is to get a feeling for the order of magnitude.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
--
Re:Stupid people. (Score:2)
However, there is also no excuse for Wired and these guys posting those flames. If I posted every "bad" e-mail I got, the 'net would have run out of bandwidth long before now.
This is about a guy who is probably going to lose his business becuase a bunch of busybodies decided to start contancting his customers since he isn't "defending his rights" or whatever. Sounds like a news story to me.
Could this post have been worded better? Probably. At the moment, I'm alittle upset - both at how people responded, and how it was handled. The 'net is anonymous... stuff like this threatens that anonymity
I really don't see what this has to do with anonymity. Its not like the guy didn't want people to know he was behind the site or anything.
Ironic, innit? (Score:3)
Um. So you think that some of the people who ranted on the ISP for caving in instead of standing up to the authorities did so in part because they would rather do that than risk standing up to the authorities themselves?
Hmmm. You know, I wouldn't be surprised.
The slashdot populace. (Score:3)
Though with a site like Slashdot, given the amount of people who read it, I'm not surprised that people did. I'm sure that some of the e-mail was well-written, thought out arguments for why the person should have kept the site up. I'm also sure that the majority of the e-mail wasn't of this form at all.
I'm a bit optimistic when it comes to the slashdot populace. I think most people here are of above average intelligence, and are capable of rational argument. I think what happened in this case was that these people did what I did. Nothing. I didn't have all the facts, and I knew it. I wasn't going to take it upon myself to mail this person and tell him to do something that I myself might not have done. I think the majority of clearheaded slashdotters thought the same way.
But there are a lot of people on slashdot, and not all of them are exactly clearheaded. There are flamers for all types of wars (KDE, Beowulf, Emacs, pick your favorite holy war), and those who are simply abusing slashdot for their own bizzare reasons (petrified posts, anyone?). Most likely, it's these people who are flaming and using the Slashdot Effect for ill. That's what I'd like to think.
Personally, there's not much I can do about it. I could flame the flamers, but then I'm at their level (some would say that's exactly what I'm doing here). I certainly don't advocate the canceling of slashdot accounts. The only action I see as being fair is to push the positive side of the slashdot effect more. It can be done. Some positive things that slashdotters have done in the past include the Mass mirroring of deCSS [slashdot.org] and helping to critique [slashdot.org] and rewrite [slashdot.org] for Jane's Intelligence review. Those on slashdot who are well-spoken, intelligent and can actually get their point across without the caps lock key could help turn our failing reputation around.
One thing about the now-up-again website: (Score:3)
Oh, well. Hopefully nobody found my site too slow this weekend. It felt neat to see "http://moxy.wtower.com/mirrors/timesq.ram" mentioned all over the net, though.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Ooo, a Slashdot story! (Score:2)
+1 (Flamebait) FIRST POST!!!! (99/11/30/1258205-1, 3 points left)
Since when was flamebait +1?
Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law (Score:2)
Re:Flaming/Dumbing Down - my thoughts (Score:2)
Yes.
At the same time we have more information available to us (us == humanity) we're beginning to just look at the headlines and skip the actual content. (Yeah, I mean both real stuff here and Slashdot stories ;)
There are so many areas today in which you can become an expert, so if you indeed follow one of those paths, you're bound to loose out on the rest of them.
uh
I'm actually quite close to look into that "back to basics" thing .. nice little cottage out on the country ... chopping wood ... no computers ...
Dumb?
Re:Well, it DID work (Score:3)
Please, no, not again. I'm tired of this (Score:5)
It's not going to do one bit of good. It *can't*. Because in any crowd, there's always going to be *some* flamers writing nastygrams. It's not because Slashdotters are particularly rude, it's simply because the huge number of responses means that even a vanishingly small percentage of flamers will still produce enough of them for a news article or a section on a web site. If Wired *wants* to run a story about nasty flamers, they will, even if the flamers are only 0.01 of all the replies--you can't stop them. The media likes to sensationalize.
Telling people here not to be rude, in an attempt to avoid situations like the Wired article, is like getting a bin of ten thousand apples and expecting there not to even be a single bad one. It doesn't work that way.
Re:Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law (Score:2)
There are places where people can make pledges to support the costs of open source development. Perhaps there needs to be something similar for public-interest litigation. Not something as amorphous as donating to the ACLU, but a way to target your donation to a specific action. Anybody know of anything?
Re:Gone Wrong? (Score:2)
Pardon me, but didn't it work? (Score:3)
On the other hand, I hasten to point out the obvious redeeming characteristic of this mass action: Hello! It worked!
What did the flamers accomplish apart from gratifying their egos ("laid my life on the line" - please!) and offending a number of inoffensinve people? Well, for one thing they riled up Wired, a cool-wannabe but nonetheless mainstream media publication, to run a story about the violation of a man's rights. For another, they provided Wieger with a glimpse of the boiling vehemence of thousands of people who - although they were insulting him - were also expressing their support for his rights in their own emotionally strangled fashion. Do you think Wieger will back down from his rights a second time without an explicit written court order signed and in triplicate? I doubt it - he is now all too aware that he is not alone.
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business, you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Suppression tactics work by cultivating a sense of isolation in the victim. The government works to portray artists as exhibitionist misfits. The christian right works its damndest to instill the idea that people who enjoy pornography or drugs are freaks and loners. The liberal left demonizes christians as a tiny and irrational sect working to install pews in every classroom. Eventually the ostracised target accepts the lesson, begins to believe that he or she is really all alone, and capitulates.
Wieger won't do that. He can't. He's been taught the opposite lesson in a most unforgettable manner. I won't say there are no negatives to flame - I've had more than my share of lost hair due to it myself - but I also reject the contention that it is useless and immoral.
Something to ponder.
-konstant
I can't afford to fight (Score:2)
I don't think we can expect every host who's pressured by the gov or any group to stand up to them all the time. There's more than just the question of removing a video here. There could be massive time, financial, and legal expenses for the host to fight such action. Goodness knows I don't have the resources to fight the FBI, and I can't be sure I would get help from organizations that do.
Small web hosts face this quite often (Score:2)
Re:Well, it DID work (Score:2)
What got the video back on the Web was the realization that the FBI's threat was an empty one. A bunch of poorly-worded, expletive-filled emails did little, other than allow Wired to make Slashdotters look like potty-mouthed malcontents.
I'm not saying that what Wieger did was all that great, but given the same choice, who would? For such a small ISP, litigation is not just a cost of doing business, it could very well be fatal. If we feel that free speech is important enough to defend, then let's defend it. But defend it by coming to the assistance of the weak, not beating them down. Remember what Ben Franklin said about hanging together.
Re:Please, no, not again. I'm tired of this (Score:3)
Just a thought.
--
The nature of the net... (Score:4)
In my opinion, Michael jumped the gun the other day when he started painting id and John Carmack out to be evil, when in fact the lack of documentation on the disabling of the hardware string was just an oversight. He wasn't flaming profanities by any means, but I would assume that him writing for slashdot must mean somebody thinks of him as a rather levelheaded and thoughtful dude. And if even the most levelheaded of us can overeact on issues we are emotional about, should we really be surprised that there are others who do so more often, and with less grace?
I'm sure there isn't a reader here who hasn't overeacted and flamed someone unecesarily at one time or another. A few years ago I made a vow never again to send an email while I am angry because of trouble that had gotten me into. Its a good rule that I try to apply even today (though older and wiser), but not even it is foolproof.
Now onto my real point: given the size of the Slashdot community, and compared with other communities I have taken part in on the Internet, the flames emerging from us have been rather benign. We have been through this with somebody posting the examples of horrible mails they have recieved from Linux users and Slashdot readers a number of times now, and my surprise has always been at how mild the flames actually are. In my Usenet days I once had a person I had been arguing with over some pitiful subject post hundreds of messages to a popular group with subject lines containing explicit sexual insults about me. Just an idiot, they happen, and I certainly did not attack or blame the majority of the subscribers of the group.
The nature of free expression is that stupid things are said. The redeeming quality is that the smart things are more plentiful, more provocative, and more important.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:Stupid people. (Score:3)
have run out of bandwidth long before now. We don't need to air other people's dirty laundry or our own.
Sure there is. Wired is excercising their free speech. If it's okay for
-Rich
Re:FIRST POST!!!! (Score:5)
I must say that 'Mr. Petrified' has gone above and beyond his usual effort for this one. He's moving beyond the standard one-line 'xxxx xxxxx NAKED AND PETRIFIED'. Either that, or we're seeing a new 'Mr. Petrified'.
Keep up the good work!
Never pretended to be a news agency? (Score:2)
Slashdot isn't just pretending to be A news agency, they want to be THE GEEK news agency. And if they want that, as I've said a million times, they will have to DO IT RIGHT.
Every Slashdot "editor" (especially Taco, Hemos and Katz) needs to take classes in:
---
not news, but at least /. apologizes ... (Score:4)
So the more over-reactionary elements of slashdot have over-reacted
(again) sent useless flames Wieger instead of well-informed
objections to the FBI.
This article nearly overwhelmed me with deja vu.
Now, now people. We are all familiar with slashdot. We are all
familiar with how easy it is to be immature on the Internet. We all
know how easy it is to misunderstand these things and get mad at the
wrong party.
I think the most likely chain of events was became obvious when the
original article was posted on slashdot.
We all knew this was going to happen
What I don't know is why wired thinks this is news.
After I read that wired article, I (once again) wished I hadn't given
wired's hit counters one more little boost that (a) they don't
deserve, and (b) will encourage them to become still more
sensationalist, continuing their transformation from a typical lousy
computer magazine to the Enquirer of the net.
It is certainly regrettable that these things happen. It is worth
pointing out that slashdot at least tries to apologize and convince
its more over-reactionary members to be better behaved next time.
But news? Come now. This happens all the time.
Slashdot can be forgiven for posting a link to this article because
they are trying to apologize (A Good Thing(tm), even if it doesn't
change the behavior of slashdot's more reactionary readers).
Oh, btw the way, if share my opinion, moderate me up. If you don't,
moderate me down. Encourage like-mindedness.
Journalistic integrity (Score:5)
Lately,
/. used to be a small site, that basically gave 'sightings' rather than stories. But
When
The last few weeks have seen a lot of stories that would have read very differently if
It's easy to blame the flamers for getting out of control, but at some point slashdot has to accept the responsibility for what is posted here by the staff. When somebody like CNN posts a story without checking the facts, everyone here gets very upset. Slashdot has grown to the point where they should begin adopting the same kind of journalistic integrity they insist from others.
Nobody expects a full private investigation into stories from
Who's the Bully? (Score:2)
You called him a coward because he wouldn't 'stick up for himeself' in the face of the FBI. Now, the name FBI has a fair bit of weight behind it (wether it's from actually, the movies, or x-files...?) and I don't blame him for what he did. (I think what he did was a kind of instinctual response)
Now you're saying that he's no longer the coward because he's facing up to the FBI?
No, He's still the coward he was... he just has a few hundred bullies knocking at his email.
All your 'flaming' and 'telling him his rights' did was give him something else in this world to be afraid of...
Hope you enjoy this type of popularity.
Less talk, more action! (Score:3)
EFF [eff.org], the Electronic Freedom Foundation, is one of the most respected advocates of "electronic civil liberties" in the United States. This includes the freedom to communicate, and the freedom to protect your communications from unwanted interlopers. You can suppport your continuing right to use data protection tools-- which Administration oficials are working to remove-- by supporting the EFF.
EPIC [epic.org], the Electronic Privacy Information Center, concerns itself with publicity, lobbying, and court challenges, in the continuing battle over personal privacy in the Information Age. How much of your private business and personal habits do you want to be freely available to corporate and government busybodies? If your answer is anything less than "I don't care, let them have it all," you probably want to support EPIC.
Re:Pardon me, but didn't it work? (Score:3)
>the defiance of a fucking lion.
yeah, that's what happens when you've got nothing left to lose.
lets not lose sight of the fact that this man may have lost his business as a result of the actions of slashdot readers. i don't care if it "made him a better person", he did nothing wrong and doesn't deserve to lose his means of making a living as a result of something that turned out to be a mistake.
-garrett
Re:Pardon me, but didn't it work? (Score:3)
Well It must be okay then. From now on I'd like everyone to send mass flames to people who disagree with the
Did you read his final quote at the end of the Wired story? "I'm going to tell the FBI, 'Fuck you! You've probably cost us our business,
you assholes!'" Now a man who might have backed down timidly has the defiance of a fucking lion.
Wow great! We turned
-Rich
Terrorist Militia Group? (Score:4)
And what's the crap about a "rogue government agency"??? If such an agency existed and produced a video, why shouldn't it be put on web sites?
As usual, it seems like the FBI is going way overboard in their zeal to "protect" us. Welcome to the police state.
Re:Flaming accomplishes little, if anything (Score:2)
Well, more grumbling never hurts. Mabie it'll eventually get loud enough that a bunch of people will actually get together and *do* something.
Re:FIRST POST!!!! (Score:2)
"What the..."
Question is, do you make it a positive or negative mod?
You could have it twice, one positive and one negative.
It shouldn't be more confusing that the post that you are moderating is anyway.
Re:The Whole Story and Journalizism (Score:2)
I think that's great.
The problem is with that sort of credibility comes a certain responsibility to be correct. I'm not saying that the folks at
-Rich
same old story... (Score:2)
Sure, flaming isn't very mature, but is it any different than arguing in real life? Telling the average person to not flame is like asking the human race to evolve an order of magnitude beyond what we're at now. You should work for change but you have to deal with the current reality as well.
Selfishness is a root probem in our society. He put his money (and perhaps well being) in front of a right we need to stand up for. Sure this is just some silly y2k movie but the principle is the same.
"I have put my life on the line several times for [free speech] and all the freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution," one angry advocate wrote Wieger. "You were not given a court order. You just got scared for your mortgage and your Lexus payment and are in that light a coward."
Obviously a flame but in a way he's right as well. People in the past did fight and die for the freedoms we have today. I know this sounds preachy and holier than thou since I can't live up to the people who really did put their lives on the line. But lets not simply ignore the fact. Simply saying that "thats just the way it is" is part of the reason the world is the way it is.
Whole situation deserves some serious thought... (Score:2)
Anyway, I think that as you read the article and think about the situation that developed, the most important thing to remember was nicely stated by Wieger:
"The [free speech advocates] are saying,'Why didn't [Wieger] stand up for the Constitution?'" Zieper said. "I think that's very easy to say from afar. But when the knock comes for you, it's a terrifying experience."
It is one thing to stand up for certain things no matter what, there comes a point where one has to say, is this worth losing my house, my car, my computer, my whatever? And I'm sure someone will flame me saying that if they don't have their 'rights' they don't want to live, let alone have any of those possessions. While that too may be true, Wieger was simply taking precautions in order to prevent the ruining of his life. And when dealing with anything like this, situation and individual preferences will dictate.
And finally, I think we need to remember that not everyone has the same morals nor does everyone choose the same level of involvement. Me, for example, I support forest and wildlife conservation efforts and show my support passively by donating money to groups like the Canadian Wildlife Federation [cwf-fcf.org]. But I can't ever see chaining myself to a tree and actively protesting in that manner. Does that make me any less of a supporter? I dunno for sure, but I don't think so.
-dr
Best business decision? (Score:3)
I am one who has had multiple accounts cencelled by multiple ISPs, not for breaking their rules but for getting complaints from too many people because they didn't like what I had to say.
(While I'm at it, Tim Gaiches from Telerama likes to suck big dicks!Ý)
If the FBI couldn't get a warrant to pull the site WHY would anyone be concerned with the FBI confiscating their computers? In case you didn't know it does require a court decision to deprive a person in the US of property.
This ISP pussied out, plain and simple. The FBI asked and the FBI got. I'd be wary about spending any money with these people in the future. It's because of spineless actions like these that threaten to turn the internet into the largest infomercial that the world has ever seen. If opinion is punished, denied and censored, commerce is all that will remain. Controvercial ideas are the reason why the first amendment was written. If we are all homogenous, then why do we need protection?
I say that this is the correct response to this IS a nice slashdotting. Clogging a company's e-mail server with 10 thousand complaints about their practices is a GREAT way to get their attention.
I also think that informing a company's customers of their actions is a great way to force a company to re-examine their business practices. If their customers agree with those actions, then they'd be more likely to stick with that company and not defect to others, but if they're unhappy that company will pay a definate financial penalty for their actions.
From the standpoint of the Swiss banks it was the right business decision at the time to hold the stolen assets of expatriated european Jews. Was it the right thing to do? From a business standpoint it was. After all SOMEONE would have taken the money, why not them?
For Microsoft it's always a good business decision to stomp out competition before they get a chance to mount a serious threat to the corporate bottom line.
I could go on for years citing example like this.
My point is this, just because it's the best "business decision" is no more valid an excuse than the "Just following orders" excuse of Nazi war criminals.
I say WAY TO GO SLASHDOTTERS! You're on the way to becoming one of the most powerful forces of change on the 'net. Lest I remind you all of that peope PC commercial? "Strength in numbers my friends." It is people like us who built the internet, it must be people like us who fights against the commercialization of the net where "the bottom line" is always the most important motivating factor.
LK
ÝI don't have any personal knowledge of Tim Gaiches as it regards to his penchant for sucking dicks (big or small), I'm just venting.
Re:Best business decision? (Score:2)
>> Maybe he should have thought about the
>> consequences of that BEFORE he pulled a
>> paying customer's site.
> Come on, I'm sure he refunded the customer.
So you seem to think that refunding the customer should have been the ONLY consequence?
>This is hardly
> reprehensible or cowardly behavior.
It is that, and more. What's more, ignorance of the way law and order works in a country where you do business, particularly if you are in this business and the laws in question have to do with freedom of speech and search, seizure and restraint, then by all means, the ignorance itself qualifies as reprehensible.
Re:I can't afford to fight (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it is your duty as an American
to say "no," and demand a court order before you
even talk about doing something you don't want to do.
Re:Small web hosts face this quite often (Score:2)
The reason we let stuff that was possibly illegal go on is that we didn't have the time to fight any battles at all. We would just send the threats off to our lawyer and worry about it when the lawyer comes back and says we need to take action.
-Rich
Disturbing (Score:3)
Some aspects of the message were funny. But I found them completely overshadowed by the scary sexual overtones of being able grope unwilling females held in permanent bondage. I don't doubt that the whole thing was a joke. I just find it in very poor taste.
Heh. (Score:2)
Pretty interesting. I think it deserves a 1 or a 2 myself. The comments underneath are interesting enough to warrant a few plusses.