No that is not what is meant in that........ I meant for the fact the we as users of the internet have to accept that we cannot police it ourselves....... It is hard to interpert that every second that I type that somebody's identity is probably stolen......... If this bill does not pass, We just gave criminals the upper hand. Now how dumb is that people? How selfish are you, that the guy down the street could have had his identity and credit card info stolen and robbed, and you want nothing done about it? Now that is why the internet is evil.... But wait....... If it was you in that situation, you would be all over goverment! POLICE IT.. I WANT SOMETHING DONE ABOUT IT.. Is the guy with no identity and no money now because it was stolen have a right to feel the same way you would if you were in his feet? I say yes he does.... You are all selfish people.... You would rather have the online then have the guy with no money and no identity be left to hang and try to prove who he is and live... What if he has a family with childern to feed and cannot now? Are you thinking about the people whom identity theft and stolen bank info might affect? No of course not... It is not you.... It is ashame you cannot think about the victims.
SOPA & PIPA - US Trainzers could be in trouble...
- Thread starter PJAMA
- Start date
ScottPhillips
New member
So, the sponsor of the bill is in fact guilty of violating copyrights...
When really all he did was slap together his website from stock images... I think his intentions were innocent enough, but under the proposed legislation, his site would need to be shut down. Isn't it a shame when law makers back a bill without understanding just what the laws means?
Interesting, isn't it? And what I find fascinating is that many of the pictures were of buildings in his district. What's wrong with sending out an intern with a digital camera and taking some snaps? Lol!
Thorinoakin
Colonel Klink
I know what Anonymous gets up to. I just don't see it having any effect. A DDOS knocks some website out for a few minutes, or a few hours, or maybe a few days. To release information, you have to GET it first - and I haven't seen Anonymous release anything vaguely threatening to government. Hacking some website to say "HA HA HA Censored WE ARE LEGION" is all well and good... but in the end, the website gets fixed and the brief flurry of activity wares out as Anonymous finds something else to get excited about.
Lack of confidence in Anonymous does not mean lack of knowledge about Anonymous.
Edit: Rumors are also going around saying FBI is placing search warrants out on anyone who has Downloaded or put up content on Mega-upload, legal or not. I would post source but it would be against the ToS. I never downloaded anything illegal in my life and I never will, but I have downloaded content for Trainz off of Mega-upload before. I just hope this be a rumor.
Last edited:
I was the victim of identity theft. 20 years ago. Before I owned a computer, before online banking. Nothing new, been going on a long time.
Every time you give up a right, you give the criminal an upper hand.
No need to police the internet if you police yourself. I have no intention of giving up my access to the internet because pirates beyond my control break laws or you can't protect yourself.
amigacooke
Well-known member
Do I take this to mean you have no form of virus protection on the computer that you are connecting to the internet?
Don't give out your CC info online, it's as simple as that. You can't have your identity stolen if the info isn't there in the first place. If you make it available, it's your fault. Think about the children you can't feed if you choose to take such a risky, dangerous action. It's as if you flushed your money down the toilet. Oh, wait, we need nanny government to put cameras in your home to prevent you from possibly doing that. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!
Seriously, of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with SOPA or PIPA. And, if you give out your CC info, you deserve at least some blame for taking the risk. Especially if you respond to messages claiming to be from your bank, or from guys from Nigeria who picked you to give millions of dollars to*.
*Scams that predate the internet, FYI.
I'm an information security consultant with his own business. Been in the infosec business in one form or another since the early/mid 90's. I have no form of virus protection running on the computer on which I type this. Never have had it on any of my own computers. I also don't patch the OS, except for certain patches that truly can affect me remotely, e.g. GDI and IGMP corruption bugs. Knock on wood, I've never been infected by any kind of bug, except those I've deliberately infected my computers with (either by way of my job, which requires this, among other things, or by playing with software from questionable sources.) However, I always do keep web-facing software (browser, Flash, Quicktime, Adobe Reader, etc.) up-to-date, and I avoid downloading and viewing files in unpatched software like MS-Word, Excel, etc. unless they're from a known, trusted source, etc.
Not that I advocate this for most people, since most people don't have the required knowledge to know what patches to apply, which programs and file formats are unpatched, the nature of various vulnerabilities, etc. Nor, statistically, is the average user savvy enough not to download malware - by far the primary method viruses, trojans, etc. get on people's computers is STILL social-engineering trickery, such as running fake Microsoft patches somebody sends in an email. But a small HOSTS file, a good ad-blocker, and - by far the most important of all, practicing "safe hex" - go a long way towards protecting you online.
Last edited:
So in a way in refusing to have a Virus blocker, is much like Game Theory.
To some extent. I'm using my knowledge to outwit any attackers. Specifically, by ratcheting up my perimeter defenses (light firewall, certain vulnerability patches, ad-blocking) in order to keep any potential sploit or malware from getting through. The most important perimeter defense is, of course, to avoid engaging in high-risk activity (using P2P, visiting "those" kind of sites, downloading and viewing MS-Word and Excel documents, etc.)
FYI, I do have a couple sacrificial machines I use in the course of my research that have various anti-virus installed, so, conceivably, I could use them to scan a suspicious file or check out a questionable website, but I don't bother.
FYI, I do have a couple sacrificial machines I use in the course of my research that have various anti-virus installed, so, conceivably, I could use them to scan a suspicious file or check out a questionable website, but I don't bother.
Fact, You do not have to give cc info out to have it stolen... It can be stolen by the people you would least expect... They could be freinds, and even worse, your local banker can steal it and use your money.... So Guess what, We cannot take the blame. You are saying that we should take the blame because we filed to have a credit card with a bank and the employee there took the info and used it? That is our faults? No it is not....
The premise of your earlier rant, albeit incoherent and irrelevant to SOPA/PIPA, seems to be about online ID theft, "giving criminals the upper hand", etc. Yeah, no kidding that your local banker or, far more likely, a waiter at the restaurant you visit. Overwhelmingly, the leading causes of identity theft occur offline. Therefore, any law designed to target internet use/abuse ignore this primary cause. Therefore, it's far more imperative we tackle that. The problem is, if we followed the example of SOPA or PIPA (or, what you seem to have espoused earlier), we should start jailing people permanently and without a trial because of the possibility that they might someday commit a theft of personal information.
Once again, if you're afraid of having cc info stolen, don't get a credit card, get a prepaid card or use cash. I NEVER use credit or debit cards and any on line purchases are done through paypal. Most places still accept cash, last I heard.
Sorry, but your rants seem to be devolving. In the end, it's your responsibility to protect yourself and in the case of SOPA, monitor your own web wanderings. Like RR said, we can't lock up everyone who MIGHT harm you or shut the net down to prevent you from gong to sites you don't like. Seems you want to control everyone, except yourself.
Dave.......
I have been reading this thread with some interest, however any thoughts I have have already been suitably covered.
I am certainly not in favor of such Government Censorship (if that's what it comes down to).
However, on a couple of news sites in Australia this morning the following is being reported, link will show some people in Power are changing their minds.
US lawmakers abandoning online piracy bill
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8406365
Not sure how accurate the report is but as I say I have read it on 2 sites.
Craig
I am certainly not in favor of such Government Censorship (if that's what it comes down to).
However, on a couple of news sites in Australia this morning the following is being reported, link will show some people in Power are changing their minds.
US lawmakers abandoning online piracy bill
Not sure how accurate the report is but as I say I have read it on 2 sites.
Craig
The last I read on it, they want to amend it to remove the more objectionable portions of it. There are very deep pockets lobbying for this. Being it's an election year here, we will have to keep our eyes open. It will sit idle until after November and it will be revived again. It's not going away.
Dave......
Dave......
somehow, I've got a sneaky suspicion that this monstrosity is going to get passed at in the middle of the night at 3:00 AM when no one's looking.
"So this is how freedom ends: with thundering applause." Yeah, it's from Star Wars, but personally, I think it really fits here.
"So this is how freedom ends: with thundering applause." Yeah, it's from Star Wars, but personally, I think it really fits here.
No bill is EVER dead and buried. Even a bill procedurally tabled can be brought back under specific circumstances, never mind revived for passage in a following legislative session.
And 11th hour votes or rider attachments are common. No bill is ever dead and buried.
I can't tell you how much I would love SOPA and PIPA to be gone for good...in their entirety. But, don't think for a second the battle is over or even halfway through.
And 11th hour votes or rider attachments are common. No bill is ever dead and buried.
I can't tell you how much I would love SOPA and PIPA to be gone for good...in their entirety. But, don't think for a second the battle is over or even halfway through.
Last edited:
Not happening...
No one can vote for the bill and call themselves conservative.
Too many people objected, enough to make a difference on voting day.:hehe:
I don't know about your reps. but Congressman Diane Black replied to me about the Gibson Guitar raids within three days.
Most of the "pirating" involves movies and it is done overseas anyway. Performing Musicians have learned how to use the web.
I e-mailed Viacom about pulling music videos several years ago. They replied within a week with a full page e-mail. I acknowledged the need for compensation to musicians and they agreed and restated that purpose. I gave them my YouTube (backyard76) and pass code and none of my favorite videos went missing. The videos were made from concerts and for MTV back in the '70's & '80's. I explained how great it was to see some of the concerts I attended and hear the music again and how AM-FM radio has always been there to be copied, however most everyone wanted the albums & to attend the live performances and that they should consider this fact in dealing with YouTube, to use it and not abuse it!:wave:
Now, Viacom is a leader in releasing content to YouTube. There is power in e-mail.
No one can vote for the bill and call themselves conservative. Too many people objected, enough to make a difference on voting day.:hehe:
I don't know about your reps. but Congressman Diane Black replied to me about the Gibson Guitar raids within three days.
Most of the "pirating" involves movies and it is done overseas anyway. Performing Musicians have learned how to use the web.
I e-mailed Viacom about pulling music videos several years ago. They replied within a week with a full page e-mail. I acknowledged the need for compensation to musicians and they agreed and restated that purpose. I gave them my YouTube (backyard76) and pass code and none of my favorite videos went missing. The videos were made from concerts and for MTV back in the '70's & '80's. I explained how great it was to see some of the concerts I attended and hear the music again and how AM-FM radio has always been there to be copied, however most everyone wanted the albums & to attend the live performances and that they should consider this fact in dealing with YouTube, to use it and not abuse it!:wave:
Now, Viacom is a leader in releasing content to YouTube. There is power in e-mail.
Viacom is also a supporter of SOPA. One of the key ones, actually. So, what are we supposed to take from this, that they post their own self-servicing advertisements on Youtube means they oppose SOPA? Evidently not.
Viacom is no different than most people or companies: They support or oppose whatever is in their interests, with zero regard how it affects others. Given the implications for fair use, Youtube will contain little more than ads by Viacom, NBC, etc. if PIPA or SOPA were law of the land, let alone any next-tricks which would be the same thing with a different domain name.
BTW, good for you that Viacom was nice. I'll wager non of those copyrighted products are presented in a sufficient entirety or quality as to substantially threaten the copyright owners. Probably, more importantly, they recognized it was not worth protecting those rights. Now, do you have $50,000 or $100,000 in liquid reserves available in case Viacom wasn't quite so pleased? And, if you were a service provider, can you survive months or years offline and without your brand to ultimately prove your innocence of willful copyright infringement?
Note that I'm discussing best-case scenarios there.
Viacom is no different than most people or companies: They support or oppose whatever is in their interests, with zero regard how it affects others. Given the implications for fair use, Youtube will contain little more than ads by Viacom, NBC, etc. if PIPA or SOPA were law of the land, let alone any next-tricks which would be the same thing with a different domain name.
BTW, good for you that Viacom was nice. I'll wager non of those copyrighted products are presented in a sufficient entirety or quality as to substantially threaten the copyright owners. Probably, more importantly, they recognized it was not worth protecting those rights. Now, do you have $50,000 or $100,000 in liquid reserves available in case Viacom wasn't quite so pleased? And, if you were a service provider, can you survive months or years offline and without your brand to ultimately prove your innocence of willful copyright infringement?
Note that I'm discussing best-case scenarios there.