James Joseph Emerald said:
I think you're all misunderstanding exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a big censorship/surveillance initiative with a bunch of "cybercops" dedicated to spying on and censoring citizens like in China. You're all very quick to jump to that conclusion, that any attempts to clean up the Internet is inevitably part of some Orwellian conspiracy.
Since I was quoted in that, I have to wonder if you even read what I said before you included me in "you're all" since I said LITERALLY NOTHING to that effect, but I'm lumped in there anyway.
It's funny, as I was talking about the things you were railing against already being illegal and criminally enforced when possible, even citing Lulzsec. You know, contrary to your claims.
But nowhere did I say or even imply an Orwellian origanisation in terms of thought police. I was addressing
precisely what you were talking about, these crimes that are actually policed on the internet. By police. Funny that.
However, since you brought me into it, I will point out that you jumped from that notion, which is admirable but misinformed, to "why is regulation bad?" And "Why do people oppose regulation?"
Well, that's a horse of a different colour, and if people are bringing up Orwellian sentiments in response, then it is well-deserved.
First, the major point:
These crimes are already crimes. Regulation does not make anything you described a crime, as it is already a crime.
Actually, let's put in a second major point:
These crimes are already enforced to the limits of practicality. Regulation does not change enforcement as they are already enforced.
Now, I'll try to lay off the bold for a while and I apologize for the redundancy in the statements, but it seems these things needed to be stated, redundantly or otherwise.
Generally, regulation of the internet has been opposed and viewed as bad because it imposes actual censorship and infringement upon legal things like free speech. SOPA is, for example, trying to follow the China/Iranian model of the internet. You know, fairly Orwellian. when you're asking why this sort of thing is a bad thing, it's no wonder people jump to the conclusion that you want thought police out there. You know, since that's what a lot of the regulation does.
Similarly, many of these bills give more power to the companies that control them. Not actual better enforcement or more policing, but more rights, rights that are not allowed in the analogous real world. As you were comparing the real world to the cyberworld before, I'm going to take the bold step and assume you actually meant it to be a fair comparison. In said comparison, you could be made a felon for singing happy birthday at a birthday party, under the SOPA legislation.
Do you understand the body of "regulation" you're asking about? If so, I have trouble believing you don't understand the opposition, or why you would think it has more to do with your initial argument than the Orwellian one you're railing against.
The DMCA didn't make it any easier to catch pirates, but it did make law-abiding citizens into criminals if they exercised their right to fair use. SOPA will turn them into felons. Felons, I might add, who can be attacked without due process or appeal.
Even the worst child molester, rapist or serial murderer gets a trial and due process; do you believe that someone who covers "happy birthday" or a file downloader deserves less due process than a child molester, rapist or serial murderer? Moreover, do you believe an ACCUSED copyright infringer, who may be innocent, deserves less due process than an accused child molester, etc. etc.?
Again, if Sony's HQ was broken into, even if wads of thousand dollar bills and paper trails of account information was discovered on the criminals, they would be given a fair trial and right to appeal.
Since this is already a long post, I'll sum it up briefly:
Policing on the internet as you propose is impractical, but it's already done. That's basically all I initially said. but since you brought up regulation and Orwellian themes, it seems you do not understand what legislation has been proposed, or you ARE supporting Orwellian measures. Not sure which. The above assumes the former, rather than the latter.
However, if you didn't name me for something I didn't say, I wouldn't have done even that.
Ironic, I guess, since you appear to support regulations that would allow such a misnaming to lead to people being labeled felons without appeal. Actually, that seems to be the crux of the matter here.
I hope you appreciate the irony here, and find this little novel informative. If you did not, however, you have nobody but yourself to blame, since you called me out for things I did not say.
... 