Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to HPT. Register Here



Username:   Password:
Add Reply
internet blacklist
Topic Started: May 12 2011, 07:38 PM (194 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

the fuck, congress?

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/petition_blacklist/?source=front

Quote:
 
What exactly does it do?

The bill creates a blacklists of Internet domain names which the Attorney General can add to with a court order. Internet service providers, financial transaction providers, and online ad vendors (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the list.


http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica
Quote Post Goto Top
 
HPT-134538
Member Avatar
Bronsolini
The end is near/
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
imnotflare

Aint no internet petition gon' do no shit
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teflon merriwether mondas

as long as hptforum isnt blocked then i dont mind the bill
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
[17:40] GRENADE | RoD: any1 thats not from icla, or we leave the srvr
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erosion
Member Avatar
Negro Patrol "¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What types of sites would be blacklisted? I mean if it's fake sites/phish sites that only look to give you trojans/steal information...I certainly wouldn't mind.

Need more information.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains "dedicated to infringing activity," which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" would be blocked.

What's so bad about that?

Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal -- as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that's enough to get the whole site censored.





any cite. im against phishing cites as much as anyone, but i think they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. not with a violation of our first amendment rights.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

we're becoming like china and the arab countries


smh
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erosion
Member Avatar
Negro Patrol "¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dcnt?
May 12 2011, 11:26 PM
Quote:
 
What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains "dedicated to infringing activity," which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" would be blocked.

What's so bad about that?

Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal -- as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that's enough to get the whole site censored.





any cite. im against phishing cites as much as anyone, but i think they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. not with a violation of our first amendment rights.
gotcha.


fuck these guys then.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
[p]rime

Uncle Ruckus
May 12 2011, 11:58 PM
dcnt?
May 12 2011, 11:26 PM
Quote:
 
What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains "dedicated to infringing activity," which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" would be blocked.

What's so bad about that?

Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal -- as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that's enough to get the whole site censored.





any cite. im against phishing cites as much as anyone, but i think they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. not with a violation of our first amendment rights.
gotcha.


fuck these guys then.
Well granting any one agency (or person) complete deference is a bit scary. What sorts of checks would there be? It is a bit dangerous to let the AG have authority to add sites to the list that he sees fit.
#Influx: nope with a woman
Prime: your mom?
#Influx: i wish
#Influx: my mom is hot
Prime: ....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Halo PC/CE · Next Topic »
Add Reply

counter added 11 Sep 2013, board started in 2008