Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
11-29-2006, 06:00 PM,
#1
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
[Image: 291106riaa.jpg]
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2...106shutdown.htm
RIAA Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
U.S. government supports legal case that would criminalize making any files available on the world wide web

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web - and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.

Ray Beckerman, a lawyer representing clients in cases against the RIAA, recently took part in a conference call organized by DefectiveByDesign.org, an organization which opposes DRM Technology, content restricting programs embedded into software that blocks users access to music, movies, software and other forms of digital data.

Beckerman describes how Internet users are randomly targeted by the RIAA for simply having a folder of music on their computer, kept in the dark about legal details and intimidated into paying thousands of dollars immediately or facing a federal lawsuit. The RIAA doesn't even attempt to prove copyright infringement with specific examples, dates or times - it simply coerces and threatens the victim until they relent into paying out huge settlement fees.

"They have an investigator pretend to be a user of KAZAA or one of the other similar file-sharing networks. He finds a shared files folder that has a goodly number of copyrighted songs in it. He has no idea whether those song files were obtained legally, whether though payed downloads, or through making personal copies from one's own CD for backup purposes, or whether anything illegal was ever done with those files, whether anyone ever copied one. And what he does: he takes a screen shot of this shared files folders (He of course does not see the folders, he merely sees the text in the metadata) and decides that this is a big shared file folder."

"Then through some secret process which he will not share with us and has tried to conceal from the courts, he then associates it with a dynamic ip address. And then, after he has what he believes is the correct dynamic ip address, for the date and time at which he made that screen shot, he then brings a proceeding to get the name and address of the subscriber who paid for the internet access, which of course would tell us nothing. But once he gets that information he then sues the person."

In one case, UMG vs. Lindor, a cleaner who has never used or owned a computer but simply dusted near one was sued as an online distributor in peer to peer file sharing.

Accusing the RIAA of "conducting a reign of terror" by bringing lawsuits against defenseless people, Beckerman warned that one case in particular, Electro vs. Barker, has the potential to shut down the Internet completely.

RIAA's argument is that Miss Baker, a poor nursing student who lives in housing projects, should be prosecuted on the basis that "merely making files available on the internet is in and of itself a copyright infringement."

Beckerman calls the complaint "a shocking argument because if it were accepted it would probably shut down the entire internet."

The U.S. government has also filed legal briefs supporting the RIAA's argument.

Deep sixing the entire Internet seems a highly unlikely move in that it would probably derail the world economy and put thousands of huge transnational corporations out of business. An outcome more likely to happen if this ruling is accepted is that it would further pave the way for government regulation and tracking of the Internet, namely "Internet 2," a completely controlled, surveilled and autocratic cyber police state similar to the Chinese model, whereby website owners have to obtain government permission to run a blog, be approved by a biometric thumb scan just to turn their computer on, and immediately get their Internet access shut off if they misbehave.

This case is another attack arm of forces in government and the corporate structure that seek to suffocate the last outpost of true freedom of speech and dissent and it must be countered at all
[Image: terrorists_230606.gif]
Reply
11-29-2006, 06:41 PM,
#2
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
What if its your music, your allowing to be downloaded? I'm not surprised nonetheless! Shit has got to get worst for them to have to control they desire. There's no way to obtain enough manpower to monitor the web, so they have to go that route to control it. I'm sure key words in sentences wil raise flags on e-mails and blogs in their system. Encourage snitching, if people don't like your opinion they rat you out. "Man, my cousin works for the gov., you should say that! I'm a report you!" type shit. People love power, so it's seductive to the low self-esteemers. People will support it though! They will give it the spin that something is being taken from you, your favorite artist will complain he could'nt buy his second mega yacht because of file sharing or the one i always love "look at that kid in the ghetto selling cd's he downloaded get into his Benz because of file sharing' or "spies are planning terrorist act through file sharing plans of cities and key buildings". They'll enrage you enough and flash it on tv a million times that you'll think everything is fucked unless we stop file sharing. "That girl didn't give me some booty because of illegal file sharing". Hope everyone has a raid system because they'll be coming after the tracker soon!
One reason the war against racism (and sexism) cannot be won is that once a group is admitted to the club of &being white,& or being allowed, in the case of sexism, to use &the flawed white male model,& it already has learned all too well how to play the role of being superior to those still remaining outside those exclusive clubs. The real problem is that the illicit rewards, both tangible and intangible, in a racist and/or sexist society are so enormous that there is hardly any incentive to do otherwise.&
Reply
11-29-2006, 06:43 PM,
#3
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
they can't shut it down world wide...that is impossible. although they can introduce their Internet2
claiming it's safer and better off than the original here in the States, im sure more will follow.
[Image: intellektssig.png]

&A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.& -- Bertrand Russell
Reply
11-29-2006, 07:20 PM,
#4
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
[Image: MP3_man.jpg]
Reply
11-29-2006, 07:42 PM,
#5
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
Quote:[Image: MP3_man.jpg]

:laugh: awesome
Wyrd bi∂ ful aræd : Vituð ér enn eða hvat?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Image: madwolfoy0.jpg][Image: sharksmall1kd6.jpg][Image: bearkodiakchugachfe7.jpg]
Reply
11-29-2006, 09:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-29-2006, 09:11 PM by 5Katz.)
#6
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
Let Them try.

Screw these globalist bastards. Screw their rulings and their laws. Let's flash the collective Middle Finger to their inbred interests and share and download like never before.
We must be hurting these criminals BADLY.
When one is over the target, The flak is increased exponentially. If there are millions and millions of us sharing files, they will be overwhelmed. As for Internet 2, perhaps smaller routers and WiFis will be an alternative route. Dial-up again?? Whatever works. These crooks are scared to death of what we are doing. To them I say cheerfully: Pound Sand, ugly MotherF**kers.
BTW, awesome pix, Echo...

G'Day,
5K
"I've come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass; and I'm all out of bubblegum."
Roddy, in the bank, just before some 12-gauge target practice in "They Live."
Reply
11-30-2006, 03:56 AM,
#7
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
Transcript of Ray Beckerman talking about the RIAA law suits
Transcript:

Gregory Heller DefectiveByDesign Campaign Manager:
So without further ado I turn it over to Peter Brown the Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation

Peter Brown:

Thanks, Gregory. And welcome, everybody.

On June 23rd, the Defective by Design campaign organized a phone-in targeting the executives at the Recording Industry Association of America (the RIAA) and similar trade organizations in Europe and Canada. We did this to allow our supporters to express their frustration with Big Media's attempt to force DRM into our technology and onto our society. Through the action we became aware of the work of Ray Beckman and his excellent blog 'Recording Industry vs the People'. Ray practices law in New York state and is the lead attorney there in the fight against the RIAA lawsuits .

From speaking to Ray about the campaign I came to realize that we are in fact fighting the same battle but just on two seperate fronts. That battle is the battle of consumer control. DRM is simply an attempt to win this battle with technology restrictions, and the other is an attempt to win the battle through intimidation and lawsuits, that they also hope will allow them to rewrite copyright law. It's very important that we realize what's going on in these lawsuits and that we realize that in fact there's no real financial support going on. The RIAA has really been allowed to run amok here and we need to take some action. So let me introduce Ray Beckman to you and let's find out what's happening with these lawsuits, how they're connected to DRM, and what we can do to help. Ray, why don't you spill the beans on what's going on?

Ray Beckerman:
For almost three years, the RIAA has been conducting a reign of terror and they have actually tripped across what is possibly their most effective device which is bringing lawsuits against defenseless people.

You have a multi-billion dollar cartel sueing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations. And due to the adversary system of justice the RIAA will be successful in rewriting copyright law, if the world at large, and the technological community in particular, don't fight back and help these people fighting these fights.

Every time you learn of one of those rare instances in the 19000 litigations in which one person has fought back, it means that there's a lawyer out there who's either working for free or getting a nominal fee for his work and you will notice that you will never see a big law firm in that category. For one thing, the big law firms are like any big corporation: they need to make a profit. That's what their primary purpose is. And they would be interested in representing the RIAA, not the poor people that the RIAA is sueing.

Now these cases raise very important legal issues relating to privacy, and not just music, but technology. The way this campaign begins is with an investigation that is not an investigation at all. The sophisticated audience to which I am speaking will realize how bogus it actually is.

They have an investigator pretend to be a user of KAZAA or one of the other similar file-sharing networks. He finds a shared files folder that has a goodly number of copyrighted songs in it. He has no idea whether those song files were obtained legally, whether though payed downloads, or through making personal copies from one's own CD for backup purposes, or whether anything illegal was ever done with those files, whether anyone ever copied one. And what he does: he takes a screen shot of this shared files folders (He of course does not see the folders, he merely sees the text in the metadata) and decides that this is a big shared file folder.

Then through some secret process which he will not share with us and has tried to conceal from the courts, he then associates it with a dynamic ip address. And then, after he has what he believes is the correct dynamic ip address, for the date and time at which he made that screen shot, he then brings a proceeding to get the name and address of the subscriber who paid for the internet access, which of course would tell us nothing. But once he gets that information he then sues the person.

The way he gets the information is through a one-sided lawsuit against a host of John Doe's. Usually the people who are named as defendants in these cases, live in cities hundreds of thousands of miles away from where the lawsuit is pending, and they only find out about it after an order has already been entered directing the turn over of information.

They usually receive only just a few days' notice and are told that unless they can hire a lawyer in that far off city and that lawyer can make a motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the order, that their information will be turned over. And of course at that point they don't even know that there's a lawsuit. Most of them do not even know that they have been sued. They don't have copies of the court papers, they don't have copies of the application for the order. They have absolutely no way to resist.

A couple of people have been alert enough to alert the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others, and so we've managed to bring a few cases in which we've attacked this initial John Doe process. But the judges, who are anything but digital natives, have no understanding of it, have given us very short shrift, haven't listened to anything that we've had to say. There was a case in 2004 where an elderly judge was told by a lawyer in his brief from the RIAA that from the metadata and the hash you could tell that these were illegally copied files, which was of course nonsense. But the judge actually referred to that in his decision as to why he was upholding the subpoena.

Once they get the name and address of the victim, they then basically seek to extort a settlement of either $3750 or $4250. If the victim calls them up and tells them that they've never even done any file sharing of any kind, that they have no idea what it's about, that they're completely innocent, the RIAA doesn't care and then it commences a federal lawsuit.

Now, defending a federal lawsuit is an extremely costly process. If you get into the merits of the case to prove that you're innocent, you've already lost because under any scenario you're talking tens of thousands of dollars at least in legal expenses in order to defend such a case.

Now there are some very important cases going on. In my office we've tried to attack process early on. We're the only firm that lately has made motions to vacate the John Doe cases. Once the name and address is known and they sue a person in their name, they still have this extremely vague complaint which tells you nothing because they know nothing. They say the defendant downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution certain song files. But they have no evidence of any downloading, they have no evidence of any distributing. And at most they can say that someone who might somehow be associated with the ip address might have made some files available. But they certainly don't know that the defendant did.

All they know that the defendant did was to write out a check for internet access. Now, we've tried to point out in our John Doe cases that the technical underpinning of the investigation is meaningless, that the metadata doesn't tell you anything, that it can be scrubbed, that it can be changed, that any real pirate would never leave the metadata of the thing he had perloined. And the IP address makes no sense because any real pirate would be using someone else's internet access account. The metadata tells you nohting, the hashmarks do not conclusively establish anything. Even seeing the shared files folder doesn't tell you which computer it resided on because all of these networks use one form or another of a hierarchy of computers (those with fast broadband connections and those with slow broadband connections, so you have the nodes and super nodes or whatever terminology they use). So that when you see the shared files, all you're seeing is metadata from one computer or from a group of computers that are connected to one node, but the judges have no clue. They actually won't even let me talk about it. One of the three motions had no oral argument. And the two that had an oral argument, the judges would not let me speak and kept cutting me off.

Now, there's a case called Electro vs. Barker which has become very important. This is a nursing student who was sued in her name. We made a motion to dismiss the complaint because doesn't specify any acts or dates or times of copyright infringement as the law normally requires. We've made several arguments like that before this motion and the RIAA put in an argument which basically fudged it. However, in this case they basically decided to go for the gold and they made a bold argument claiming that merely making files available on the internet is in and of itself a copyright infringement. It was a shocking argument because if it were accepted it would probably shut down the entire internet.

As a result of that bold argument, certain organizations came in putting in an amicus curiae brief to support Miss Barker's motion to dismiss. In reaction to that the Motion Picture Association and the United States Government put in briefs supporting the RIAA trying to... Well, the Motion Picture Association directly supported that extreme argument. The US government didn't quite go that far but it tried to support the RIAA by attacking another argument that had been made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Meanwhile, Miss Barker is a nursing student. She has no money. She lives in the housing projects, and she has to have lawyers reviewing all these briefs, writing briefs for her etc. Now, this case is pending and the judge may call for oral argument or he may render a decision.

But if our motion to dismiss is granted and sustained on appeal it would mean the end of the RIAA juggernaut against innocent people not known to have committed a copyright infringement. And yet we've received no support of any kind from anywhere, and Miss Barker has no resources to defend this case.

In the case UMG vs. Lindor where the defendant Lindor is a home health aid who's never used a computer. She's never used a computer, she's never owned a computer, she's never even turned on a computer. The only connection she has had to a computer is that she has on occasion dusted near the parts which she believes are a computer. And yet she is being sued as an online distributor in peer to peer file sharing. This is a case started by her so we were not able to (we stepped in in the middle) so we're not able to attack the complaint, but we're seeking information on the cartel-like behavior of the RIAA and we're in all kinds of discovery disputes. The RIAA is trying to conceal information about how it conducts its "investigation" to conceal the information on how the different companies work together to run this campaign to destroy competition in digital music.

All these discovery disputes... There have been depositions and now they're calling... They've already deposed her and her son, they now want to depose various other relatives and her daughter. And meanwhile they've stonwalled every discovery request we've made. And unless the world comes together and helps these defenseless people the RIAA is going to win all these battles one way or another and they're going to rewrite the copyright law.

end.

Gregory Heller:
I want to thank everyone who was on the call today for joining us and to let you know again that this call was recorded and that the audio will be made available on our website later today at DefectivebyDesign.org.

Please blog about it. Tell your friends about it. Stop by the website. Be sure to sign our petition to Bono. You can get the link off the front page and also make a donation via the link on our front page in the upper right-hand corner to support Ray's work in defending some of these cases against the RIAA.

Thank you once again everyone. Thank you Ray and Peter. And stay tuned for more information from DBD about what's next in our campaign.

Now Take Action!
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/node/404
[Image: terrorists_230606.gif]
Reply
11-30-2006, 05:39 AM,
#8
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
Quote:Let Them try.

Screw these globalist bastards. Screw their rulings and their laws. Let's flash the collective Middle Finger to their inbred interests and share and download like never before.
We must be hurting these criminals BADLY.
When one is over the target, The flak is increased exponentially. If there are millions and millions of us sharing files, they will be overwhelmed. As for Internet 2, perhaps smaller routers and WiFis will be an alternative route. Dial-up again?? Whatever works. These crooks are scared to death of what we are doing. To them I say cheerfully: Pound Sand, ugly MotherF**kers.
BTW, awesome pix, Echo...

G'Day,
5K

I believe that once the Internet is phased out and they begin to encourage and force people onto Internet 2, people who are "awake" should start setting up oldskool dialup BBSes throughout the world. Networked communication (e-mail) could be easily maintained via Fidonet, which BTW is still alive and well and is still the only viable option in some countries. Jason Scott has a whole segment devoted to the development of Fidonet in his awesome BBS Documentary. I highly recomment getting ahold of it for anyone who grew up in that era with computers, ever used dialup BBSes, etc. It's been posted on various torrent sites in the past
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
Reply
11-30-2006, 06:09 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-30-2006, 06:14 AM by Conspiracy Dave.)
#9
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
LOL

I'm not too worried about anything of the sort happening at all. As if Americans/Canadians/Western countries would ever let the stupid music industry ban all file transfers. Canada for god sakes for some reason I can't quite understand didnt even pass the file transfer laws that makes it illegal or so that you can be prosecuted like the USA did a few years ago.

But, their little case might help push Internet 2 further into reality, which I think is the underlying real point of this stink the RIAA is raising.
Do you really think your a higher form of life? You...With your dripping jaws, and your bloodshot eyes. You...With your varicosities and your vermin for an appendix. You...with your hemroids and assterioids. Often I wake up at night and ponder these matters. And then I feel very strongly that I should talk them over with Brother Theodore...and then, and then I wake up fully and remember that I am Brother Theodore. And my heart aches. And my tears flow. And I see my Aunt Marie floating in the chicken soup...more dead than alive...more naked than not. And oh, now I see a mailman, a mailman giving birth to a dog of all things!

Never a moments peace, never a moments peace...never a moments peace.
Reply
11-30-2006, 08:29 PM,
#10
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
Threats To Internet Freedom All Too Real
Cyberspace police state dismissed by some, yet agenda for regulated, controlled, patrolled "Internet 2" advances

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 30, 2006

The Internet is the last true unregulated outpost of freedom of speech but moves are afoot to stifle, suffocate and control the world wide web. These threats are not hidden nor are they hard to deduce and yet a significant minority of truth seekers and activists remain naive as to their scope.

Following our publication of yesterday's article, RIAA Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet, we received a mixed response. Many were aware of the imminent dangers that threaten to change the face of the Internet but others were more hostile to the supposition that the world wide web could be devastated by landmark copyright case rulings as well as plans to develop "Internet 2."

Some accused us of yellow journalism and scaremongering yet the warning that the Elektra vs. Barker case could criminalize the very mechanism that characterizes the Internet was not concocted by Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson, it was a statement made by the very lawyer fighting the case, Ray Beckerman.

It was a danger also reported on by one of the UK's biggest technology news websites, the Inquirer, which also yesterday highlighted the frightening development in an article entitled, RIAA wants the Internet shut down.

The RIAA's argument is that defendant Tenise Barker downloaded music files and made them available for distribution by placing them in a shared folder. Though Barker paid for the files and downloaded them legally, and the files were not copied by anyone, the RIAA's motion states that simply making the files available constitutes copyright infringement.

As Beckerman points out, the entire Internet is nothing more than a giant network of hyperlinks making files 'available' to other people. If we link to CNN.com, we are making the file that constitutes the CNN homepage 'available' to other users. We don't own the copyright to any of CNN's material therefore if the RIAA's argument is accepted, by simply making that CNN file available from our website, even if no one clicks on the link, we are committing a breach of copyright.

At no point in our article did we suggest that the ruling definitely would shut down the Internet, we highlighted the fact that hundreds of transnational corporations like Amazon.com who solely rely on Internet trade would scream bloody murder. But what the ruling would grease the skids for is the move towards a strictly regulated Internet whereby government permission would be required to run a website and that website would be subject to censoring and deletion if it violated any "terms of use."

The example I highlighted yesterday on the Alex Jones Show was that running a blog would be like having a You Tube account - any politically sensitive or controversial information that the owners dislike would immediately be removed as it is frequently on You Tube.

In addition, the slide towards a licensed Internet that will be sold using fear of identity and credit card fraud could lead to mandatory biometric thumb or finger scanning simply to access the world wide web.

This is hardly a stretch of the imagination, since numerous public services and functions of society are increasingly accessible only through providing some form of biometric identification. Credit passes for travel, ATM terminals and access to theme parks like Disneyland are just a few of the many services we use that are shifting towards mandatory biometric gatekeeping.

Furthermore, Pay By Touch Online and other companies have already developed and launched keyboard biometric finger scanning terminals that require users to submit their biometric print before they can access the Internet or buy online.

Piggybacking the net neutrality debate, Internet 2 is being shaped to replace the old Internet, which will be allowed to self-destruct as it labors under the pressures of being relegated to slower and slower pipes and users will simply desert a painstaking system.

Earlier this year under the headline, The End of the Internet?, The Nation magazine reported,

"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."

"Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."

Internet 2 is being billed as the next generation of the world wide web and it has already set global speed records in terms of data transfer, far outstripping the old Internet.

One of the fathers of the Internet, David Clark, who served as chief protocol architect for the government's internet development initiative in the 1980s, has been given $200,000 by the National Science Foundation to covertly work on a "whole new infrastructure to replace today's global network," according to Wired Magazine.

Clark has vowed to create a "brave new world" in designing the new Internet, characterizing what he wanted for the new network to be "a coherent security architecture."

Dovetailing the onset of Internet 2 are government propaganda campaigns to demonize the existing Internet as a wild backwater for hate crime, child pornography and a terrorist recruiting ground.

Establishment kingpins and their cheerleaders have increased their level of vitriolic rhetoric against the Internet in recent months, as legislation in both the U.S. and Europe to regulate, stifle and license the Internet moves forward.

The White House's own recently de-classified strategy for "winning the war on terror" targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to "diminish" their influence.

In addition, the Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.

In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills."

Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down "terrorists" who use the Internet to spread propaganda.

The dangers to the freedom and very existence of the Internet as we know it are all too real and the way to counteract these developments is to get involved and get the word out. Simply burying our heads in the sand and being apathetic and naive about the threat is only going to aid those who wish to see the last outpost of freedom of speech shut off forever.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2...rnetfreedom.htm
[Image: terrorists_230606.gif]
Reply
12-01-2006, 02:29 AM,
#11
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
How long do we have and what's our alternative? Seriously.

The old days, where I got my connected start online was at 1200 baud, text only, and dial up. There was a bulletin board service (BBS) here named Chatline that required a voice telephone call verification to assure the owners you were the 18 years of age required. It was a cool community and being adults only, people tried to act adult. It had 32 dialup lines that must have cost a fortune.

What if the internet does get fuxxored? Back to the phone lines?
Reply
12-01-2006, 02:39 AM,
#12
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
that would suck to have to start over from page 1 of the underground internet.
[Image: terrorists_230606.gif]
Reply
12-01-2006, 02:47 AM,
#13
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
Would it?

If we lived in the same city, I'd BY FAR trust having privacy sending you files modem to modem using a protocol like zmodem or kermit than TCP over the internet..... with NEITHER being encrypted AND with my phone being tapped.

It's only my humble opinion here, but due to technology advances, I highly doubt the things like DCS-1000 a.k.a. carnivore, or eschelon listen to "dinosaur" speaking computers anymore.

I don't hear a shitload of difference between a modem in a fax machine, a computer, an older dialup debit machine, or a TTY telephone device for the deaf.

How are they going to know one from the other?

I highly doubt they stayed retroactive in their technology of snooping "bits".
Reply
12-01-2006, 02:57 AM,
#14
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
would still suck to not have any database to grab from. but i hear what you're saying it would be cool to have it all local, but thats what they didn't want. guess that little monster backfired on them. and now they have newt crying to regulate free speech.
[Image: terrorists_230606.gif]
Reply
12-01-2006, 03:35 AM,
#15
Riaa Legal Ruling Could Shut Down The Internet
Quote:It's only my humble opinion here, but due to technology advances, I highly doubt the things like DCS-1000 a.k.a. carnivore, or eschelon listen to "dinosaur" speaking computers anymore.

I don't hear a shitload of difference between a modem in a fax machine, a computer, an older dialup debit machine, or a TTY telephone device for the deaf.

How are they going to know one from the other?

I highly doubt they stayed retroactive in their technology of snooping "bits".

During raids in the early 1990s such as Operation Sun Devil law enforcement and government agencies were able to hone their techniques of intercepting and reconstructing modem communications. It was no small feat but they were able to do it successfully, and I'm sure that advances in technology have only aided in their ability. And as far as the differences in various forms of analog data communications, TTY audibly sounds much more different than modem communications, and fax also sounds different as well if you know what to listen for.
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Eyes Wide Shut RaFTertheONE 4 945 08-07-2013, 03:19 PM
Last Post: shortwave
  Pledge for free and open Internet mypronesss 0 338 02-07-2013, 05:25 AM
Last Post: mypronesss
  I think Concen is tracking my internet activity. BlindTheory 11 2,452 01-01-2011, 09:35 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  RIAA wins $1.5m from 24-song file sharer TriWooOx 1 682 11-05-2010, 02:02 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  you won't find much on the internet --- 1 540 04-16-2010, 05:17 PM
Last Post: Packrat
  free dmt and legal too --- 10 3,129 02-15-2010, 03:59 AM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
  The "Illuminati" are getting creative about stopping Internet Knowledge joeblow 3 1,228 10-02-2009, 06:01 AM
Last Post: Bobert
  Chinese teenager beaten to death in internet addiction clinic Weyland 0 421 08-06-2009, 09:37 PM
Last Post: Weyland
  Eyes Wide Shut drummer 4 986 06-22-2009, 10:34 AM
Last Post: rsol
  Time to shut up shop and go home ? drummer 36 4,772 05-12-2009, 09:49 PM
Last Post: ---

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)