= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bugmaster comments on Is anyone else worried about SOPA? Trying to do anything about it? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
If one person knows about it they can tell anyone else who's interested. Tools like Freenet are reportedly very popular in China, since people just pass them to their friends and they're easy to use; I believe there are already Firefox extensions that allow the easy use of an alternate/extended DNS list, so those will likely be passed around in the same way.
Yes, and then what ? Freenet servers can (and, AFAIK, routinely are) be blocked by IP. Protocol analysis tools can (and again, AFAIK, already are) used to block undesirable packets regardless of IP. Perhaps more importantly, any person who is using a tool like Tor or Freenet is exposing himself to a serious risk of prosecution, incarceration, or, in extreme cases, execution. This is a risk that most people simply wouldn't be willing to take.
Block Freenet servers? AFAIK Freenet doesn't have servers to block, and the authorities have (to date) had serious problems tracking its use.
This appears to be wrong. I haven't used Freenet myself (yet), but it doesn't seem to have servers at all, or admit IP blocking. In this it appears to be analogous to the hidden services (.onion sites) in Tor. And protocol analysis tools (packet sniffers) would appear to be irrelevant---I think---since Freenet traffic is encrypted. But this is not an area I know much about.
That's a problem in China. I really really doubt the US (the topic at hand) would go this far.
What makes you believe that the US won't go as far ?
Because using Tor or Freenet is not a crime. There's a chance you could be investigated - we've definitely done that for things that weren't criminal, and I wish we wouldn't. Just for using a legitimate anonymizing service, though, the chances of prosecution are remote. What is the prosecutor going to say that a non-asleep defense attorney can't tear apart? They'd have to charge you with something specific - and for that, they'd have no evidence (the only sector of US law enforcement that tolerates locking people up on no charge and throwing away the key is immigration - and again, I seriously wish we wouldn't do that).
The worst it could do is attract law enforcement attention that could either lead them to something you've been doing - and there are enough freenet users that they can't afford to investigate every random user.
Yet. But new laws and treaties such as SOPA and ACTA are conceived every day...
We're almost at the point now where you can be indefinitely detained on mere suspicion of being a terrorist. And if you happen to have a suspicious-sounding last name, and you happen to be using suspicious services such as Tor to communicate with your relatives in a suspicious country such as Syria -- then you're acting very suspiciously indeed.
This sounds a bit like the "if you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide" maxim. The problem here is that, with enough legislation, everyone is guilty of something.
I'm not sure about ACTA, but SOPA was pushed by a very different group. Anonymous communications are basically off the radar.
Being a U.S. Citizen noncombatant detained without charge? That's a big line to cross, legally. I'm fairly confident it hasn't been.
Yes, but do you think they'd go for the little guy - you? No. They'd get a warrant, spy on you to get the big guys wherever. When they find you're not a terrorist, they can go after you or not based on what you're actually doing - or not. Or possibly they could be confused. It's not perfectly safe. But they're not aiming at you specifically just because you're using the anonymizing service.
A little bit. If you're innocent, then an investigation is a big hassle, but it's way less severe than permanent incarceration or death.
A very quick Google search found me José Padilla. According to Wikipedia, during several years of his detainment there were no charges against him. He was designated as an enemy combatant at the time, but this seems arbitrary, since he was arrested in an airport, not captured on the field of battle.
Ohkay... on the other hand, this guy had gone to a terrorist training camp. Classifying him as a terrorist may have been inaccurate, but it wasn't crazy - the circumstantial evidence was a lot stronger than 'uses anonymizing software'.
(btw, upvoted for correcting me)
Depends on whose radar you're talking about. The laws aimed at hunting down terrorists, and the laws aimed at hunting down pirates, are being pushed by different people, but they are converging rather rapidly.
Is it ok to detain non-US citizens without charge ?
I'm not ok with being spied on just because someone wants to get some "big guy" somewhere. And, as I said before, it's virtually a certainty that I'm doing something illegal, without even realizing it. I don't feel any safer knowing that they are "not aiming at me specifically", because I don't want to get hit, period.
You say this as though our only possible choices are "an investigation which is a big hassle" and "incarceration or death".
As executions? As far as I know, the U.S. has only ever had capital punishment for murder and treason. Defining 'use of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection' as 'treason' does not appear to be on the horizon yet. I think.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that you were referring to executions specifically; I thought you were referring to the entire process of erecting a sort of "Great Firewall of USA". I agree with you regarding executions, they are extremely unlikely.
Well, it wasn't me doing the referring, but anyway I'm a bit relieved you agree.