I think it is ridiculous to ask someone to turn off their ad blocker in order to view a sites content. You are entrusting your system to the website author assuming that they have viewed these ads for malicious code. Even legitimate sites are vulnerable to scripting attacks that could infect the computers of anyone visiting their sites through drive-by-downloads. In addition, video animation chokes up a persons precious bandwidth and a lot of companies offer as slow of an internet speed as 1.5 Mbps and these customers have no better options. These ads make it take 10 minutes or longer for a webpage to load to the point that they can read it. If I get a message to disable my adblock, I leave the site. No information is important enough to render my system vulnerable to attack.
You can make the same arguments about a lock to your door since it would be so easy for someone to steal your keys or make a copy of your keys without your knowledge. A lot of companies don't even encrypt backup media and have been the victim of theft exposing records of many customers on these unencrypted stored media. A lot of the removable media is stolen during transport to off sites.
Add to this that the FBI and other agencies want to ban encryption without back doors for law enforcement even though back doors tend to weaken encryption.
After a breech last year, I was offered free identity theft protection for one year by CSID. I was weary of giving my information to them since others I have known told me how they had to give CSID their SSN and all kinds of other information in order to take advantage of the free service. Being the victim of one breech, I was concerned if CSID would protect my personal information so that I don't become a victim of identity theft again. I remember one person even was protected from Lifelock but still was a victim of this breech and wasn't eligible for the free 1 year protection from CSID since they already are signed up with Lifelock.
It isn't just the Democrats and Obama. All the current Republican Candidates are for more surveillance. Remember that it was during the George W. Bush administration that the Patriot Act was passed and the NSA began bulk collection of data.
I'm hoping that it is the beginning of the end. Unfortunately my local city got rid of their internet site and now I'm required to have a Facebook site just to access my own city website for public notices. I also have to get a Facebook account if I want to comment in my local newspaper. I am being forced to get a Facebook account even though I am 100% opposed to Facebook. The problem is business and even cities are too lazy to create their own websites and like the idea that they can easily create a page on Facebook and assume everyone will simply get a Facebook account not understanding that some people don't like Facebook and have either never created an account with them or resigned from Facebook.
I avoid Facebook even though my local city now requires me to have a Facebook account to view their website since it is now only on Facebook. I would prefer to visit a website without having to use Facebook since I don't like Mark Zuckerberg and others tracking my every move for marketing purposes. My local newspaper has now decided to take down their own comment section and require me to create a Facebook or Twitter account in order to even post comments on their site. A lot of people are leaving Facebook but now find themselves forced to create an account because companies (and even cities) are taking down their website and creating a Facebook page instead.
Even with the best legal advice before he created Megaupload, he could still be in violation of at least one US law. Some estimate that the average US Citizen commits at least three felonies a day without even knowing it. Even if he isn't breaking any laws at the time he created Megaupload, he could be in violation of some future law or the US Government could twist the meaning of a law if they seriously want to go after someone.
Then Microsoft would have their assets seized. Under copyright law you can only make one copy of music. A lot of people who are using Windows 10 have no idea that Microsoft is storing their files on the cloud and by doing so Microsoft is committing copyright infringement by making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted files.
Unfortunately as a result of the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism" most Americans don't see a problem with law enforcement coming into your house in the middle of the night shooting your dog and seizing your property because someone claimed you were a drug dealer or terrorist. Some Americans are waking up but most figure that this will never happen to them since they are doing nothing wrong. They don't understand how this abuse of Constitutional powers will eventually be used against them. A lot of Americans still support the Patriot Act even with the revelations from Edward Snowden and others about abuses by the Government. They are happy that law enforcement makes money off of asset forfeiture instead of them having to pay more in taxes not realizing that someday they could end up with their assets seized for a crime they are innocent of.
Unfortunately the mainstream media is what most US people rely on for news and they consider cases like this boring anyway and are more interested in what the Kardasians or whatever they names are up to or the latest on the Caitlyn Jenner from the Bruce Jenner transformation. If they paid attention or cared, they would be terrified that their government is able to legally do this and get away with it because nobody pays attention.
With the way he has already been treated by the United States, do you really think he would voluntarily come to the United States to fight these charges? Most likely he won't get a fair trial.
I thought ICE was involved in enforcing immigration laws, not taking down web sites of suspected copyright or intellectual property violators. Something needs to be done if a website domain can be legally seized based on a claim by RIAA that a violation occurred but they are not providing ICE evidence of this violation. Like all other A$$et forfeiture laws, it violates a suspects right to due process. Since a lot of law enforcement agencies make money off of seizures they have an incentive to abuse these powers.
So basically it will be similar to the asset forfeiture laws that allow the police to confiscate property without due process for alleged drug trafficking. Currently they only want to seize assets after a court case but eventually law enforcement will ask to have laws to seize assets from people they suspect are involved in child porn. This will be a great source of income for child porn units of law enforcement agencies and what is stopping a law enforcement agency from planting evidence for a conviction. They have conflict of interest since they will get to seize property if they can get a conviction under these laws. This means they have a great source of stable revenue unlike government funding that can always get cut. If they don't get enough people charged with child porn, they will go around looking harder for people involved in child porn and even arrest people who are not involved in child porn in order to make money off of seizing assets. This is a bad idea and we need to take the rest of the asset forfeiture laws off the books.
I don't see it as feasible for the US Government to shut down Bitcoin but I can see them try. Many alternative currencies such as the Liberty Dollar were raided by the US Government. I think the bankers may want to worry more about people losing faith in the US dollar. If people start to distrust the US Government in handling financial obligations such as paying off the national debt, people may decide to use alternative currencies. One reason Gold has enjoyed a bear market is because a lot of people are buying gold fearing that the US dollar could collapse. With inflation, the spending power of the dollar declines which means if you work where your wages have been stagnant for quite some time, you are actually getting a hidden demotion since the spending power of a dollar isn't what it was a couple of years ago or even longer. Eventually we might see the US Government make Gold hoarding illegal again. They will also try to block alternative currencies such as the bitcoin through legislation but it may fail.
What is stopping a business from rendering DRM content that was legally purchased unusable forcing the "owner" to pay more money to listen to or view this content? What is stopping a company from rendering a legally owned copy unusable if it is sold to someone else even if there was nothing restricting this owner from selling their copy to someone else? In such a transaction the creator doesn't make profits since this person purchased the content from this person used rather than buying a brand new copy. What if legally purchased content is incorrectly flagged as illegally purchased content? Under DRM a person no longer physically owns this content and a company could decide to render their content useless at any time or their content could be inadvertently rendered useless due to a software bug.
We already don't have any choices when it comes to broadband services. A lot of phone companies were merged with companies such as Centurylink who is just as bad as Comcast and Time Warner. Where I live I have a choice between poor lines. I can either use 1.5 Mbps from CenturyLink or 20 Mbps from Comcast and there isn't a chance that they will ever upgrade their services since they don't have an incentive to win over customers. They make their money from corporate mergers and creating a legalized monopoly rather than winning over customers. Unfortunately this seems to be the status quo in today's corporate America.
I'm surprised so many people want to use cloud storage after hearing about what has happened to megaupload and other sites. They must assume that all the customers of megaupload are involved in illegal activity when a lot of the people were using the site to store information and backups that wasn't a violation of any law. In addition, cloud storage is susceptible to snooping by ISP's, and government agencies such as the NSA. I avoid the cloud like the plague.
What's amazing is how they are now hated more than the IRS when everyone has to deal with the IRS but not every American has to deal with the TSA since for the most part they are in airports and sometimes they set up a VIPR checkpoint (surprise checkpoint set up in public places and roadblocks). This means that a lot of people who cannot afford to travel (especially by air) have never dealt with the TSA and have no idea how the TSA acts. There are plenty of first time flyers or people who haven't flown after the TSA took over airport security who still experience the TSA for the first time. Despite not everyone dealing with the TSA, more Americans dislike the TSA more than the IRS.
A much better solution is to abolish the TSA and return airport security to what it was prior to 9/11. The TSA is out of control and when airport security was privatized, the security companies could think outside of the box. The reason the pre-9/11 security didn't detect the terrorists with boxcutters was because boxcutters were legal at the time. In addition, the US intelligence community had tips from various sources that Al Qaeda may be planning to attack the USA on US soil prior to 9/11. Instructors from flights schools indicated they were concerned some middle eastern students were asking questions that a person flying a small plane would rarely ask and they seemed more interested in flying airliners than small aircraft. They also asked questions about airline security that normal students wouldn't ask. It isn't like Al Qaeda hasn't tried to attack the US before. Months earlier the USS Cole was attacked off the coast of Yemen and in the late 1990's, it was believed Al Qaeda was behind an attempted truck bombing of the World Trade Towers. With the information they had, they could have alerted our nation's airlines and airports to look out for Al Qaeda who appears to be planning an attack of some kind involving hijacked airliners. It isn't like the 9/11 terrorists didn't raise any eyebrows prior to their attack. Many were suspicious of their intentions but couldn't do much other than contact the FBI or other law enforcement agency about their concerns. Plenty expressed concerns but the FBI and other agencies didn't think these tips indicated any activity worthy of their attention.
Why should I make my computer vulnerable for their site
I think it is ridiculous to ask someone to turn off their ad blocker in order to view a sites content. You are entrusting your system to the website author assuming that they have viewed these ads for malicious code. Even legitimate sites are vulnerable to scripting attacks that could infect the computers of anyone visiting their sites through drive-by-downloads. In addition, video animation chokes up a persons precious bandwidth and a lot of companies offer as slow of an internet speed as 1.5 Mbps and these customers have no better options. These ads make it take 10 minutes or longer for a webpage to load to the point that they can read it. If I get a message to disable my adblock, I leave the site. No information is important enough to render my system vulnerable to attack.
Re: Re: It is not like the idea of encrypting customer data is new
You can make the same arguments about a lock to your door since it would be so easy for someone to steal your keys or make a copy of your keys without your knowledge. A lot of companies don't even encrypt backup media and have been the victim of theft exposing records of many customers on these unencrypted stored media. A lot of the removable media is stolen during transport to off sites.
Re: Re: Re: It is not like the idea of encrypting customer data is new
Add to this that the FBI and other agencies want to ban encryption without back doors for law enforcement even though back doors tend to weaken encryption.
Always wondered how safe identity theft protection sites are with information
After a breech last year, I was offered free identity theft protection for one year by CSID. I was weary of giving my information to them since others I have known told me how they had to give CSID their SSN and all kinds of other information in order to take advantage of the free service. Being the victim of one breech, I was concerned if CSID would protect my personal information so that I don't become a victim of identity theft again. I remember one person even was protected from Lifelock but still was a victim of this breech and wasn't eligible for the free 1 year protection from CSID since they already are signed up with Lifelock.
Re:
It isn't just the Democrats and Obama. All the current Republican Candidates are for more surveillance. Remember that it was during the George W. Bush administration that the Patriot Act was passed and the NSA began bulk collection of data.
Re: The beginning of the end
I'm hoping that it is the beginning of the end. Unfortunately my local city got rid of their internet site and now I'm required to have a Facebook site just to access my own city website for public notices. I also have to get a Facebook account if I want to comment in my local newspaper. I am being forced to get a Facebook account even though I am 100% opposed to Facebook. The problem is business and even cities are too lazy to create their own websites and like the idea that they can easily create a page on Facebook and assume everyone will simply get a Facebook account not understanding that some people don't like Facebook and have either never created an account with them or resigned from Facebook.
Why do people still use Facebook?
I avoid Facebook even though my local city now requires me to have a Facebook account to view their website since it is now only on Facebook. I would prefer to visit a website without having to use Facebook since I don't like Mark Zuckerberg and others tracking my every move for marketing purposes. My local newspaper has now decided to take down their own comment section and require me to create a Facebook or Twitter account in order to even post comments on their site. A lot of people are leaving Facebook but now find themselves forced to create an account because companies (and even cities) are taking down their website and creating a Facebook page instead.
Re: joke
Even with the best legal advice before he created Megaupload, he could still be in violation of at least one US law. Some estimate that the average US Citizen commits at least three felonies a day without even knowing it. Even if he isn't breaking any laws at the time he created Megaupload, he could be in violation of some future law or the US Government could twist the meaning of a law if they seriously want to go after someone.
Re:
Then Microsoft would have their assets seized. Under copyright law you can only make one copy of music. A lot of people who are using Windows 10 have no idea that Microsoft is storing their files on the cloud and by doing so Microsoft is committing copyright infringement by making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted files.
Re:
Unfortunately as a result of the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism" most Americans don't see a problem with law enforcement coming into your house in the middle of the night shooting your dog and seizing your property because someone claimed you were a drug dealer or terrorist. Some Americans are waking up but most figure that this will never happen to them since they are doing nothing wrong. They don't understand how this abuse of Constitutional powers will eventually be used against them. A lot of Americans still support the Patriot Act even with the revelations from Edward Snowden and others about abuses by the Government. They are happy that law enforcement makes money off of asset forfeiture instead of them having to pay more in taxes not realizing that someday they could end up with their assets seized for a crime they are innocent of.
Re: I'm Back From the Grave
Unfortunately the mainstream media is what most US people rely on for news and they consider cases like this boring anyway and are more interested in what the Kardasians or whatever they names are up to or the latest on the Caitlyn Jenner from the Bruce Jenner transformation. If they paid attention or cared, they would be terrified that their government is able to legally do this and get away with it because nobody pays attention.
Re:
With the way he has already been treated by the United States, do you really think he would voluntarily come to the United States to fight these charges? Most likely he won't get a fair trial.
Why is ICE enforcing intellectual property in the first place?
I thought ICE was involved in enforcing immigration laws, not taking down web sites of suspected copyright or intellectual property violators. Something needs to be done if a website domain can be legally seized based on a claim by RIAA that a violation occurred but they are not providing ICE evidence of this violation. Like all other A$$et forfeiture laws, it violates a suspects right to due process. Since a lot of law enforcement agencies make money off of seizures they have an incentive to abuse these powers.
A$$et Forfeture is always great for Law Enforcement, bad for citizens.
So basically it will be similar to the asset forfeiture laws that allow the police to confiscate property without due process for alleged drug trafficking. Currently they only want to seize assets after a court case but eventually law enforcement will ask to have laws to seize assets from people they suspect are involved in child porn. This will be a great source of income for child porn units of law enforcement agencies and what is stopping a law enforcement agency from planting evidence for a conviction. They have conflict of interest since they will get to seize property if they can get a conviction under these laws. This means they have a great source of stable revenue unlike government funding that can always get cut. If they don't get enough people charged with child porn, they will go around looking harder for people involved in child porn and even arrest people who are not involved in child porn in order to make money off of seizing assets. This is a bad idea and we need to take the rest of the asset forfeiture laws off the books.
Any currency could fail.
I don't see it as feasible for the US Government to shut down Bitcoin but I can see them try. Many alternative currencies such as the Liberty Dollar were raided by the US Government. I think the bankers may want to worry more about people losing faith in the US dollar. If people start to distrust the US Government in handling financial obligations such as paying off the national debt, people may decide to use alternative currencies. One reason Gold has enjoyed a bear market is because a lot of people are buying gold fearing that the US dollar could collapse. With inflation, the spending power of the dollar declines which means if you work where your wages have been stagnant for quite some time, you are actually getting a hidden demotion since the spending power of a dollar isn't what it was a couple of years ago or even longer. Eventually we might see the US Government make Gold hoarding illegal again. They will also try to block alternative currencies such as the bitcoin through legislation but it may fail.
"Digital Restrictions Management"
What is stopping a business from rendering DRM content that was legally purchased unusable forcing the "owner" to pay more money to listen to or view this content? What is stopping a company from rendering a legally owned copy unusable if it is sold to someone else even if there was nothing restricting this owner from selling their copy to someone else? In such a transaction the creator doesn't make profits since this person purchased the content from this person used rather than buying a brand new copy. What if legally purchased content is incorrectly flagged as illegally purchased content? Under DRM a person no longer physically owns this content and a company could decide to render their content useless at any time or their content could be inadvertently rendered useless due to a software bug.
We already don't have any choices when it comes to broadband services. A lot of phone companies were merged with companies such as Centurylink who is just as bad as Comcast and Time Warner. Where I live I have a choice between poor lines. I can either use 1.5 Mbps from CenturyLink or 20 Mbps from Comcast and there isn't a chance that they will ever upgrade their services since they don't have an incentive to win over customers. They make their money from corporate mergers and creating a legalized monopoly rather than winning over customers. Unfortunately this seems to be the status quo in today's corporate America.
I'm surprised so many people want to use cloud storage after hearing about what has happened to megaupload and other sites. They must assume that all the customers of megaupload are involved in illegal activity when a lot of the people were using the site to store information and backups that wasn't a violation of any law. In addition, cloud storage is susceptible to snooping by ISP's, and government agencies such as the NSA. I avoid the cloud like the plague.
Re:
What's amazing is how they are now hated more than the IRS when everyone has to deal with the IRS but not every American has to deal with the TSA since for the most part they are in airports and sometimes they set up a VIPR checkpoint (surprise checkpoint set up in public places and roadblocks). This means that a lot of people who cannot afford to travel (especially by air) have never dealt with the TSA and have no idea how the TSA acts. There are plenty of first time flyers or people who haven't flown after the TSA took over airport security who still experience the TSA for the first time. Despite not everyone dealing with the TSA, more Americans dislike the TSA more than the IRS.
Re: Knee Jerk
A much better solution is to abolish the TSA and return airport security to what it was prior to 9/11. The TSA is out of control and when airport security was privatized, the security companies could think outside of the box. The reason the pre-9/11 security didn't detect the terrorists with boxcutters was because boxcutters were legal at the time. In addition, the US intelligence community had tips from various sources that Al Qaeda may be planning to attack the USA on US soil prior to 9/11. Instructors from flights schools indicated they were concerned some middle eastern students were asking questions that a person flying a small plane would rarely ask and they seemed more interested in flying airliners than small aircraft. They also asked questions about airline security that normal students wouldn't ask. It isn't like Al Qaeda hasn't tried to attack the US before. Months earlier the USS Cole was attacked off the coast of Yemen and in the late 1990's, it was believed Al Qaeda was behind an attempted truck bombing of the World Trade Towers. With the information they had, they could have alerted our nation's airlines and airports to look out for Al Qaeda who appears to be planning an attack of some kind involving hijacked airliners. It isn't like the 9/11 terrorists didn't raise any eyebrows prior to their attack. Many were suspicious of their intentions but couldn't do much other than contact the FBI or other law enforcement agency about their concerns. Plenty expressed concerns but the FBI and other agencies didn't think these tips indicated any activity worthy of their attention.