View Full Version : [OT] Internet Laws - Your Opinions
Discussion thread.
What do you think of the prospect of an Internet Authority? Revised Internet Laws? What would classify as crimes? Internet Fraud over shops like E-Bay, viruses, hacking into copyright games to create exploits? Should there be "internet police"? What about currently debated issued such as legal Abandonware, and pornography with no age verification and the limitations of age verification? How would we deal with the multi-national issue, what nationality or nationalities should controll what parts of the internet, and how?
What are your opinions and ideals for the future of the internet in regards to Authority and Law?
(Keep it clean.)
There are already laws that cover pretty much everything that happens on the net.
The beauty of the internet in my opinion is that it is not policed, while this does create a haven for a few disgusting people, it allows everyone else to be what they want to be.
Wasn't there a bill a few years back over the same thing? Proposterous in my opinion, we can't even watch Television these days without constant censorship, movies are edited, games are modified. What is the point, human's NEED to express themselves freely, the internet is one of the last places in wich we can truly do this.
If we bring internet police will this really help? The 'bad people' they will just find another way, leaving us all to suffer, much like certain recent events.
Isn't this just another attempt to control who we are? We go to the supermarket, we buy what THEY sell, we watch TV, we watch what THEY play, rent a movie, we rent what THEY have, our lives are controlled in almost every concievable aspect, the only thing we have that no-one can tell us to do is sex and our other basic functions. (bet your all wondering how i got sex into this eh ;) )
The internet does not tell you what to do, it does not force you to learn how to Make that bomb, or to kill that hamster, or how to assemble an m16 blindfolded, it offers you choice, some people may well not be responsible enough to accept that, but it is your choice. That is what this is about, choice, policing the internet, removed choice, in a world with so few choices, can we really stand to lose another?
Remember, Guns don't kill people, nor do bullets, or knives, or bombs, The people behind them do, while an argument can be made that this information should not be available, would it really stop it? people Dont always get the info from the internet, terrorists do not get their education from the internet, yet when a bomb goes off, or someone murders someone, the internet is blamed. Bullshit, there is no-one to blame except THAT person.
You cannot shirk responsibility. But it is your choice.
The main problem would be to make these laws stick. Think about a law regarding free flow of information and the Chinese policy of prosecuting people post negative stuff. And do you really want a council that makes the laws that is like UN and at least half of the members would like to ban posting negative stuff about their country on the net?
Spam is a problem that needs a software solution (no faking of the sent adress, limit on posts per day for normal accounts (every normal account could do with 100 e-mails per day). The best solution would be costs for e-mails. Not big once say 0.5 cents per mail. This wouldn't hurt anybody using the net in a normal way but spmmers would be hit hard cause they will 500-1000 mails for 1 guy stupid enough to use their Viagra.
The beauty of the internet in my opinion is that it is not policed, while this does create a haven for a few disgusting people, it allows everyone else to be what they want to be.
That is a dangerous misconception. The Internet is policed. Criminal actions on the internet don't make you immune to the law.
Basically The Internet should be considered and treated the same as "international waters", it should be untouchable and anything should be legal.
But, obviously like now, if you are caught doing something wrong you are treated as your own countries law states.
So basically it should remain as it is... maybe loosened off a bit more even.
Anyone who doesnt want to be exposed to the porn, etc. or doesnt want thier child exposed should pay the extra with thier ISP to get protection put on, ( that cant be hacked by a child ) or they just shouldn't allow access to the net at all.
The internet should be a sacred place, Almost a black market... but with a carebear side for everyone else.
That is a dangerous misconception. The Internet is policed. Criminal actions on the internet don't make you immune to the law.
I had a big comment on the whole thing again, but it would violate forum rules. :D
So instead i'll say that i know that it is monitored in some areas, note 'bad people' concerns these people.
No my comments were certainly not attacking you :D <3 Archeus
I think people should mind their own business. Retalliating against a spoofed attack can give you lots of problems.
Only way is cooperation inbetween policeforces. Want a fascist US created law? Then you can as well disband the internet. Internet was founded on the stones of Arpanet and adopted the policy of free flow of information.
Take that away and we get digital cable TV. I already have that and i dont want another worthless piece of shit service that i hardly never watch.
My opinion of governments' ability to govern and police the internet :
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
the pentagon gets 15,000 hack attempts per day, HACK THE PLANET!!
the pentagon gets 15,000 hack attempts per day, HACK THE PLANET!!
Bullshit.
Imagine this for the future of the internet. Eye implants and sattalite implants connecting your body to the net. Data is stored on an internal hard disk, and graphics are displayed on your eye retina.
Looking around a city street, you would see people with logos similar to MSN logo's above there heads, and perhaps even there names. IE "Chat w/ me!", or "I'm Buisy!". Imagine looking at a shop window and being able to download the shop information into your internal hard disk and having it displayed on your eye retina. Perhaps you will even be able to see how many people are inside, who they are, or perhaps they are set to annoymous or invisible. Imagine "buttons" set into physical city streets, electronic information that shows up in your eye that you can access by looking at it and opperating it. That is likely the near future of the internet. By the time I am 60-70, I expect this will be the case. (I'm 20 atm in case you wondered :p)
I really really hate the internet as it is at the moment. In the future we will probabally be more dependant on it, and l don't like the prospect of things being this virusy, spammy, and assholey.
I really really hate the internet as it is at the moment. In the future we will probabally be more dependant on it, and l don't like the prospect of things being like they are now.The only really bad things with the internet atm are :
1) ICANN - a bunch of crooked morons
2) Slow uptake of IPv6
3) AOL and it's users
4) Excessive marketing to try and fund poor business models
All of things can really only get better in the long run except maybe number 3.
Governments haven't had any noticable impact since the early 90s and even then it wasn't much (education and research usage had pretty much taken over long before the commercial restrictions were lifted).
/edit @ Benjie - My phone can theoretically already do all that except the eye implant interface part.
The only really bad things with the internet atm are :
1) ICANN - a bunch of crooked morons
2) Slow uptake of IPv6
3) AOL and it's users
4) Excessive marketing to try and fund poor business models
Not really.
You can't press charges againt your E-Bay seller for fraud, you would probabally get fined for wasting court time! If the exact same thing happens at your doorstep you would get all the support you require, and that bastard would go to jail, or at least get a fine!
In England we have the right to privacy, and spyware is in contempt of that right! Can we press charges against websites for installing spyware on our computer? Again, we would probabally be fined for wasting court time.
If someone links me to a virus and lies about the link, can I pres charges for damaging my property? No! I would probabally get fined for wasting court time again, but if someone snapped my mother over there knee then that would be a different story. Both destroy my property, whats the difference?
I could go on about hacking into copyrighted material to exploit game mechanics, or "disordally behavior" by websites for creating repeating pop-ups that ultimately crash your computer, but you get the idea.
The law is biast against internet crimes.
Not really.
You can't *sue* your E-Bay seller for fraud, you would probabally get fined for wasting court time! If the exact same thing happens at your doorstep you would get all the support you require, and that bastard would go to jail, or at least get a fine!Of course you can bring charges for fraud. In fact ebay will do it for you (in theory) if the person is a repeat offender. There have already been several successful cases. The only reason it doesn't happen more often is that credit card insurance usually pays up and the insurers (who would then be the prosecutor) don't pursue lesser amounts because they aren't cost effective. From the consumer's POV internet purchases are the safest they can make.
In England we have the right to privacy, and spyware is in contempt of that right! Can we sure websites for installing spyware on our computer? Again, we would probabally be fined for wasting court time.We don't actually have a specific "right to privacy" however you can sue them under the Computer Misuse Act (1990) as long as you didn't accept the install in some way. Again people have been successfully prosecuted this way and the CPS will process larger claims for groups of "victims" where a clear defendant is found. If people agree to be infected that's their lookout.
If someone links me to a virus and lies about the link, can I pres charges for damaging my property? No! I would probabally get fined for wasting court time, but if someone snapped my mother over there knee then that would be a different story. Both destroy my property, whats the difference?Yes you can, see above.
I could go on about hacking into copyrighted material to exploit game mechanics, or "disordally behavior" by website for creating repeating pop-ups that ultimately crash your computer, but you get the idea.
The law is biast against computer crimes.Anti-social behaviour is a problem but that's also true IRL. If people cause malicious damage online it is exactly the same in law as if they did it IRL. The only problem for the average person is the difficulty of obtaining proof to support a prosecution. However as anyone who's been a victim of RL crime will tell you that's nothing unusual. What percentage of car thieves, muggers and burglars do you think the police catch? Of the few they do how many of the victims get their stuff back and damages repaired at no cost?
Ultimately, as with RL law, the problem is excessive specifics. Good law is highly generalised (eg Theft Act (1968), Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and Sale of Goods Acts) yet there is a modern obsession with over-specifying and this makes bad law that is out-of-date or circumvented before it is on the statute books (eg Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), pretty much all European human-rights and employment law, all recent "anti-terror" laws and anything else the Daily Mail supports or David Blunkett proposes). Either that or they make contradictory and dogmatic laws like the DMCA (again: see Blunkett for further examples) which are enormously expensive to maintain and ultimately useless in the modern world where you can't lock people in towers with dustbins welded on their heads.
the pentagon gets 15,000 hack attempts per day, HACK THE PLANET!!
15000 Hack attempts/day and 15000 intrusion signatures/day are 2 totally different things. If you ever tried configuring a IDS system against false positives, you know it screams "Intrusion!!!" if you move your mouse.
Crearting viruses, spy ware, programs that screw up your browswer, programs that install on your computer without consent, and cheating in online games should be punishable by death from firing squad if convicted.
15000 Hack attempts/day and 15000 intrusion signatures/day are 2 totally different things. If you ever tried configuring a IDS system against false positives, you know it screams "Intrusion!!!" if you move your mouse.
Someone probably installed Kazaa. That'll get you all the unwanted crap you can handle.
programs that install on your computer without consent,
Alot of companies are doing that as their new angle to fight against piracy.
Also I tend to agree with Jernau... Governments trying to police the net is just funny.
Alot of companies are doing that as their new angle to fight against piracy.
You mean Mediamax and such like?
If you find them in a shop demand the manager explain himself and make him do it in public if you can. They are about as legal as selling explosive chocolate laced with crack to 5-year olds.
I was mis-sold one of them last year and it's become a personal crusade.
Someone probably installed Kazaa. That'll get you all the unwanted crap you can handle.
Actually - no, IDS systems are touchy unless properly configured. It takes skill to make them report what you want. (Like, do i give a fuck if i get SNMP probed with different community strings if i dont use SNMP?)
...Governments trying to police the net is just funny.
I dont find them funny, our up her got their panties twisted and went after Postal 2:
1. First they said "It contain racism" but later found out it was slang of some kind. (I never heard any racism remarks while playing the game)
2. They moved on about the violence bit.. I've played just as violent games before, cannot see what's the problem.
3. The game is old.. defuseing a bomb after it have blown is REALLY stupid.
I for one cannot understand that my government is wasting money on something like this.
IMHO, internet laws are a tricky issue... because it's my belife that your rights end where mine begin.
You don't have a right to spam, troll, harass, stalk, mailflood, PHPnuke and send frightenly obscene material to other people, but I don't want the government policing it either, because I don't trust them not to go to far.
Basically I think that the internet is the ultimate Temporary Autonomous Zone, a social phenomenon where basically for some odd reason people form their own consensual laws. Look at the amount of hacking that goes on against spammers, and groups like Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia, and you see the highest form of internet self-regulation and self-government. It's primitive, more along the lines of: "You hurt good people, we hurt you *much* worse", but it's mostly effective. We don't need government oversight.
Actually - no, IDS systems are touchy unless properly configured. It takes skill to make them report what you want. (Like, do i give a fuck if i get SNMP probed with different community strings if i dont use SNMP?)
I realise that. I was implying they don't know what they are doing. If you've ever dealt with the DoD you'll have some doubts too ;).
/edir @seraphian - PHPNuke may not be the best system out there but it's not that bad.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.