Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Democrats Are the Ones Pushing Web Censorship

Posted 9 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 10:04 p.m. EST by MonetizingDiscontent (1257)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm bored with party shibboleth, broad divisive overly generalizing statements, the puritanic criterion & automated aphoristic doctrinal reactionary mob mentality party cries - both sides entrenched, completely indisposed from acknowledging any honorable individual from either left/right "opposing" fortifications that I see coming from both politically pornographic antipathetic persuasions. I note a lot of it here.

well Im not easily persuaded by -any- side. I like to think for myself.

It will be an i n d i v i d u a l who stands OUT from the uniform ideology of the establishments status quo, that will make a real difference. Be that person from the 'left' OR 'right'. There are a few select good ones on both side of the aisle. But again, they have become the exception, they are -not- the norm.

So purely In the spirit of providing for some balance on this forum (and you know what I mean) this is an article that currently, should make any self respecting grown up democriterion blush. Lets just call the criminals for what they are regardless of color, giving some of the dogma a little rest from time to time, because the majority up there on capital hill betray both democracy, and the republic.

Look parties truly just do not matter. Its the individual that speaks and votes in favor of my individual personal liberties and freedom, that I'm interested in. I'm not going to step in shit to "toe" -Any- party line and just stand there in it, pretending it's not there, forget it.

This article should illustrate that party fundamentalism isn't going to ~SAVE~ anyone here. Judging by othe actions of our horde of mis-representatives on both sides of the aisle.. nobody here is -IN- either of their 'clubs'. We are in their cattle chutes.

Democrats Are the Ones Pushing Web Censorship


-01/19/2012- By Washington’s Blog

MPAA head Chris Dodd is the former Democratic powerhouse (the same guy who blocked all financial reform). Dodd and Lieberman – another Democrat – have admitted... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/sopa-is-unconstitutional-would-criminalize-the-internet-china-is-the-model.html ...that they want to emulate Chinese style censorship.

Moreover, Raw Story notes: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/19/senate-democrats-hold-fast-to-anti-piracy-bill/

Democrats are now the core pillars of support for the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), which has not otherwise engendered a strict partisan divide among lawmakers.

Far and away, the top beneficiary in the Senate from interest groups that support PIPA is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who’s taken in just short of a million dollars from those groups, according to data from http://www.opensecrets.org/ ...She’s also the most recent Senator to co-sponsor PIPA... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@N ...adding her name to the list on Dec. 12. The runner-up is Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who’s taken $777,383 from PIPA-supporting interest groups, and has co-sponsored the bill since May 2011.

In fact, a list of the top 20 beneficiaries of special interest money in favor of PIPA reads like a list of the Senate’s most influential Democrats: Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) in third; Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in fourth; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in fifth; Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the bill’s primary sponsor, in sixth; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in seventh; Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in eighth; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) in ninth; and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) in tenth.

The list goes on like that until Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who places 15th with $274,600 in special interest money promoting PIPA. He has not yet announced an official position on the bill. The only other Republican on the list of the top 20 PIPA beneficiaries in the Senate is Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), in 19th place with $212,312. Corker is one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

In total, only two Democrats changed their minds on PIPA during Wednesday’s blackouts: Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). The other 11 to walk away were all Republicans, who seem more open to Silicon Valley’s warnings against onerous, job-killing regulations.

That may be due to the total sum donated to Democrats on the top 20 list: groups supporting PIPA have given over $7,319,983 to the 18 Democrats on the top 20 list, according to a Raw Story analysis. By contrast, those same Democrats have only taken in $807,502 from groups opposing the legislation.


As yesterday’s strike wore on, Raw Story reached out to all the leading Democratic senators supporting PIPA, in hopes they would step up to defend the bill. Not a single one did, and none of Raw Story’s requests for comments defending PIPA received responses.


The Obama administration said recently that it was hedging its bets on the anti-piracy bills as well …. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/14/white-house-expresses-concern-over-sopa-anti-piracy-bills/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press that he would move forward with a full Senate vote on PIPA... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SGis7w1AA ...in the coming weeks, once some of the text had been altered to build consensus on the legislation.

We are wholly non-partisan... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/the-founding-fathers-tried-to-warn-us-about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html ... but this sell out by Dems... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/chairman-of-the-department-of-economics-at-george-mason-university-politicians-are-not-prostitutes-they-are-pimps.html ...on censorship has to be named for what it is.



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by UncomonSense (386) 9 years ago

More proof that neither party represents the people.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 9 years ago

Agreed. Your choice is to vote for someone that who you know is going to screw you or for someone that you hope won't, but does.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Mhm - the media has definitely made their choice who they -want us to think- is 'electable' ...Not so surprisingly, their decision coincides with the will of the top 5 Banks:


They contributed more to this man than any other candidate combined. Obama too, who comes in 2nd in campaign contributions from the Big Banks. These are the choices they want us to accept.

I choose neither. Someone else has my vote, so far. There -is- a choice out there, right now - but that's my ~opinion~

...I havn't seen my Democratic choices yet either, so we will see. I for one will be considering individuals from both parties before casting a vote. It took a Democrat to begin taking us off of fiat, JFK created the silver certificate. =)

You just never know which bush the rabbit will be hiding in. Again I emphasize: Party fundamentalism isn't going to ~SAVE~ anyone here.

Good to see you Odin

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

Hm, well just a couple of weeks ago I read that Wall Street had given Obama more money than all the other candidates put together.

There's no difference between the two.

Rombama. That's our choice. Rombama.

[-] 3 points by wigger (-48) 9 years ago

Totalitarianism always comes from the left, it's what they do.

[-] 3 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

Well that's simply a lie. Both sides are equally guilty.

And right now, Dems and Repubs are exactly the same. It's like professional wrestling, the disagreements are all for show.

Good cop/bad cop.

[-] 3 points by wigger (-48) 9 years ago

You can always tell when the left is cornered, they start equating left and right as bad, and no, it isn't a lie. You people lost all credibility when you forgot what a lie actually is and started calling everyone with a differing point of view a liar.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

Wrong, dude, I call a liar a liar. Facts are facts. Deal with it. You can't find "truth" somewhere between two fucking lies, like CNN does.

Find the truth. Right now you are a goddamn liar. And should be dealt with accordingly.

And any time someone starts saying "you people" they've shown their real hand.

[-] 1 points by wigger (-48) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

but not from the right, c o r r e c t ? hmm do you believe the republiturds wouldn't use these powers after they would eventually inherit them, then? I think the majority on both sides want this in DC, and that any "fight" will be purely -symbolic-

(This is how -CapitalHill- uses the -other- party for cover, to gain -power-)

I'm afraid that only a select few -truly- despise and abhor the nature of this bill, even on the right.

[-] 2 points by TedIV (40) 9 years ago

A person can call themselves a Republican all they want, are they? same goes for Democrat..It's not who is a what it is what they are doing to us, and the votes they get in order to get away with it..Deciding where or who to blame does not fix the problem and to get techno about it this is not a problem that just happened over night or even in the past few years! Sopa? the copyright laws have been around along time. When cassette tapes came out that caused a lot of controversy over copyright and of course everyone was recording their favorite songs off the radio and even putting their own LPs on cassette that is piracy.. the laws are in place so this is just a distraction for something other than.. How many paragraphs have the other party written into sopa.. we the people are being manipulated for some other agenda that these corrupt politicians have in mind. ? . Oh we will let u pirate ur favorite movie or band just go back to the basement u occupiers crawled out of??? so no more sopa or pipa..problem solved..nice try republican party..I almost voted for U. But I trust and believe no one, for I am an Individual and know better..cause a lot of the hype is just media needing a story so they will embellish. THERE I said it yes the MEDIA.....

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

if a performer is stupid enough to post his work on the internet he should be pirated. its just a way to make more money,, greed! why should there be censorship of websites to enable the greed of someone that can make thier money elsewhere? just like they tell everyone.. do not put anything onthe internet you do not want to be stolen or used by anyone else! that rule shouldn't apply to rock stars, authors, artist? this is just a new medium for increased revenue so it doesnt work well for you? then dont do it if its copy righted,, dont post it! how much brains does that require??

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 9 years ago

Many of the artists that place their media on the internet are not "rock stars" with million dollar contracts. They are indies trying to make a living. Of course, the Occupy movement wants access to the intellectual and artistic work of everyone else for free isn't that right? Many in the movement believe that everything should benefit everyone and not just the person who created it. Anyone who doesn't buy into that mindset is "greedy" right? Only those who want it all for free are not greedy because they "care" about the whole world and aren't "greedy".....

Got it.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

sorry,, there have and will always be the normal ways of making a name in the arts as there was before the internet. i dont want to access anything.. but if i were the ones that did want to i laugh at anyone idiotic enough to put it on the internet! it wont benefit any one except the artist if its not on the internet,, but you want to censor shut down every website (and the ability of the website owner to make a living) that has the material or a link to the material? with out a trial or an investigation to prove thier intent was to steal ,,or that tthey make money from having a link on thier site? to a site they know nothing about, just cause of a say so from a performer? you see how the patriot act has affected the common sense of a nation.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 9 years ago

No, I don't support the bill as it stands now. However, I was responding to your painting those who use the internet to sell their art/music whatever as greedy while apparently excusing the theft of their product simply because it is on the internet.

The bills scope is far too wide with untold numbers of unintended consequences - fight that instead of excusing theft because you think those who place their product on the internet are "greedy".

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

im not excusing theft, but it is what it is. if theres a way to steal , someone will steal theres nothing you can do about that. and knowing this an putting your valuables out there in the open anyway just to make more money is greed. and stupidity. and then to threaten freedom for your own personal gain ,, i dont even know the term for that! the way to avoid being stolen from is to keep your valuables locked up, this is why they invented locks and banks after all.

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 9 years ago

You've just been given proof that the Democrats are solidly behind this bill - while Rubio among others are against it. Yet, you continue to simply blame Republicans and the media.

You my friend, are part of the problem. From this post, should we take it that you will vote against Republicans - based upon what you read in the media about them - and vote for Democrats - despite what you just read in the media about them?

[-] 1 points by TedIV (40) 9 years ago

where do you get what you are stating? This thing popped up saying u are replying to my post? My words I almost voted for u are a facetious statement to the title of the main post..So if this is not the case? But the main title says that it is the democrats pushing the censorship, so I would say that the title suggest that I should vote republican..cause of the democratic push to censor the web..

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 9 years ago

Aw, the joys of communicating through text rather than face to face where emotion and context can be more easily determined....If you are saying that you are aware of the spin and push of both parties in trying to get your vote, then I recant my statement that you are part of the problem....

This is why I try to get folks to go to the bill itself; to read things written by both conservation, moderate and liberal authors so that you can get past the BS of the party lines on every issue. Those lines are designed to confuse the issue and divide the populace.

[-] 1 points by TedIV (40) 9 years ago

Are u Threatening me as a bully? are u under the strain of some God syndrome? are u the whole of the sum coming apart under the pressure? I do understand the importance of face to face when discussing subjects, But the subject at hand emotion is not of importance due to the subject. So I see no intellect in your ranting on any subject that is being put forth by those who are out to do exactly what is called for.
Oh I see it is all about U. Are u not paying attention to what is said on all sides, are you just spewing out words for some raging child from with in? You wanna meet let me know I even have a webcam that way we can go face to face. It is said do not argue with a sick mind yet if we do not then that mind just goes on being sick and getting sicker, till we have the problems we have now..U think for one second that what is being done to us not just here in america but threw out the world? A FUCKING BILL ARE U KIDDING!!!!!! now u throw a bill on the table? before it was the genocide, then the muslims and before that and as always religion..A Bill. According to the Bill is that Bill Clinton? Bill Moyers? According to reality like it or not we are all entitled to equal shares of life and just accepting a bill or a word is what? enforcing a bill or an issue or amendment or our constitution takes more than hey excuse me, did u read the bill, there is more to it than just words on a paper, its proper representation from our Court system, from our politicians, and that proper representation is not being sold out cause who cares NOBODY so then just do what ever u want cause the majority is mentally ill, and it does not matter.. Hey this is all yours but U cannot have it cause I said so and I passed a Bill that allows me to do this, So read the bill and eat shit and die..Seems no one wants to do that..Confuse the issue is only an issue to those who are not up on 45 years of tyranny here in america..A Bill u sound like that cartoon " I am only a Bill" as u sit on the steps of the senate waiting to be passed.. Did u know back in the late 50's and into the 60s and then early 70's that people were informing the public about government and on goings of the corporation such as monsanto etc..thru porno such as penthouse playboy and oui while those in control were drooling over the naked bodies and not bothering with the articles that were full of awarness of the corruption.. U need to get a grip..and masterbate somewhere else.(playing with urself) cause that is exactly what u are doing..the populace has been divide a long time study history, thats why we have the different religions and different countries and different political parties, and on.....seems no one is splitting on the subjects at hand and of course U disinfoist are gonna get more annoying..But I for one understand that those brought up in the lie do not know it is a lie so they cannot be held accountable.. Bull they are gonna be held accountable..So again the Bill is bullshit....Being the majority is mentally ill according to psychological statistics then how can u even believe what u are saying to be self evident and true, by the standard these people in power other than politicians have shown?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

congress and the president passed a law allowing the military to detain people indefinitely without telling the public

the government should not be allowed to censor people

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

a person indefinitely detained with public disclosure is also censorship

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 9 years ago

You forgot one: "..Tim Holden, D-Pa. said Wednesday that they were withdrawing as co-sponsors of SOPA, according to The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times. They cited possible unintended consequences of the bill."

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Because the Democrats are the architects of SOPA, they should probably not get their jobs back this November. I may be a Progressive, but I'm not a party hack. If only there was a way to get another Caucus to usurp the Democratic Party. Or better yet, get enough progressive Republicans to counter the Blue Dogs and Corporate Liberals.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

No, we need NEW PARTIES. Completely new. What we have now is one party rule and it is corrupt to the core. It is not salvagable.

Burn them down (figuratively) and start over.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

The party system is just a vehicle. having different caucuses in the parties would change the parties. I mean what i'm suggesting would take coordination across the nation and once done could passably change the names, such as when the Wig and the federalist parties were changed. But there would still be a left and a right. Even if every state was to come up with their own party once they got to Washington they would have to either caucus with the left or the right, hence becoming Democrats or Republicans.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

Sorry, the parties as they exist are extremely powerful and will not LET anybody change them. That's just how it is. Changing the parties now is just wishful thinking. A fantasy that they WANT you to believe.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

or maybe you know it is possible and you want me to be discouraged. I am always hesitant when someone uses that cheesy ass line, that is what "they WANT you to believe."

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

I'm probably a lot older than you, and it's not that I want you to be discouraged, I want you, and others like you, to not waste your energies on things that can't happen. I want you to spend your energies on things that will actually change the system! And the only way to do that is to start with entire new parties, and let the others wither on the vine! It really is the only hope in this country!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

How would you suggest something like that in a majority take all contest? If both the libertarians form their party and the progressives form their party, I don't believe that would be twenty five plus one votes. I say this because these two schools of thought are so diametrically opposed that they would only be able to siphon votes from the two parties individually . Now, say the two schools of thought did run against the parties, do you believe they could get fifty percent plus one of the votes? because of this dilemma, parties don't dissolve they get reformulated. Forming a party takes from the lesser of the two evils and gives to the worst, unless each party can coop twenty five percent or one party can coop fifty percent plus one. It is the old federalist vs states' rights feud vying for power in the form of progressives and libertarians, in my opinion? Now, state by state cooping of the parties could be possible, and seems like the best way because state legislators get to determine districts every ten years and Jerry gerrymandering seems to be a state's best trick, that and keeping the prisons nice and stocked.


[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 9 years ago

Censorship, 1-18-2012 here on OWS.

[-] 0 points by muddFlapp (-108) 9 years ago

Obama is heavily pushing this and now he is getting a severe backlash from Hollywood. The idiot in chief is one and done


[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 9 years ago

Where is ZenDog? His beloved Democraps are showing their stripes!

[-] 3 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Leave him alone, justthefacts ...ZenDogs Ok. Try emphasizing unbiased facts (just do your best to keep them straight, we might all be surprised who we find ourselves having a refreshing conversation with.)

anyway the whole point of this is NOT to antagonize. The article is thought provocative. Its not a weapon or an attack. The focus should be on our overlords, not eachother.

Identify the fraud. Identify the perpetrators.

We are in this together, left and right, the sooner we accept it and work together the better off we'll be. Power to the Peaceful.

[-] 0 points by Zenfog (-9) 9 years ago

Someone call for me ?? REpeLiCans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 trees
They stare at me
they want me nachos
I said no
a branch fell
my nachos to hell

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

-Off Topic, Zenfog-

focus people, ( ( ( p l e a s e ) ) ) No wonder congress gets away with this crap. You are distracted from the issues. No thoughts on the article? Solutions? Observations? ...thats it, nothing to add?

---Was my post about ZenDog or something?---

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

ZenDog is DONE!

[-] 2 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

C'mon uncenored, shouldn't - p o l i c y - be the point of focus here. (?) I was hoping people might show a little more discipline than usual on this page. No thoughts about the article? Just ZendDog (?)

Maybe antagonizing and personally attacking each other have become priority over the policies I had hoped were going to be discussed here.

You too illustrate my point for me, i think there is too much reactionary emotion happening here sometimes. No one appreciates the information for what it is. People bicker back and forth where thoughtful discussion and honest open debate is needed.

Every opportunity should be taken to highlight that the two party's both want the same thing. More Control. More Power. More Money. It doesn't make our freedoms or personal liberties any more secure when we divide ourselves, limiting our strength.

The discussion here would benefit a lot more if identifying those on Capital Hill that are for and against these types of power grabs were more predominant through these threads. We waste valuable time and energy concentrating on eachother.

Is ZenDog the one censoring anyone's computer?

[-] -3 points by capella (199) 9 years ago

the democrats are the proponents of this bill, the republicans are fighting it,.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

Of course they are. They're not going to support a Dem bill. That's not their job.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 9 years ago

the democrats are for censorship, the republicans are fighting it.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 9 years ago

So what's your point? You think republicans are the good guys? HA.

It's good cop/bad cop. They're both on the same team. Behind the scenes they're all holding hands and playing kissy face. It's all bullshit, and if you believe there's actually anything real to the "debates" they go through, you've been conned. And, yes, most people are conned. The media perpetuates the con job.


[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Hi capella - but the Republiturds by and large do not protect our freedoms elsewhere, and you KNOW they want this too. (Even if by simply -inheriting- these powers) ...The specific individuals supporting this crap-bill are not real liberals. NeoLiberals, perhaps ...if you like ...and NeoConservatives.

But -both- 'neoconservatives' & 'neoliberals' want it. (they provide cover for eachother in this way.) I suspect that, any fight they put up, will be purely -symbolic-

The Majority of republicans silently want to inherit the power this bill would give Washington. Only a few are actually repulsed by the nature of this power grab.

Anyway, did you know that Ronald Reagan the "quintessential conservative" was very liberal in many ways, including monetarily? That should shake things up.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Did you know that Unless you are a Christian Fundamentalist or a Catholic you are a liberal? Liberals are the product of the enlightenment.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

nonsense. your trying to paint the whole world, using only broad strokes. Good luck with that.

[-] -1 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 9 years ago

lmfao , that's funny. I needed a good laugh to start my day

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Being stupid, or having a lack of historical knowledge, should not be something amusing. How are you going to be able to be taken seriously when you are dumber than the town dunce. Also, capitalism is a liberal Idea. All the Founders were liberals. Conservatives are old school liberals who fear change. Progressives are forward looking liberals who welcome change.

[-] -1 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 9 years ago

lol keep rewriting history. It's fun to watch

[-] -3 points by capella (199) 9 years ago

if liberals had any brains they would be conservatives.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

If Conservatives had vision for something new they would be Progressives. But they are Robots that Conserve the status quo. Must do what my parents tell me to do. Change does not compute.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 9 years ago

progressive is another name for the communists /socialists/ marxists. people who hate the USA as founded.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

You are so silly. You should spend more time reading the Founders words verbatim and stop letting other people tell you what the Founders thought. People like you are dangerous to our Union. Progressives are called on to clean up the mess that blind, greedy factions cause every other era. Progressives are as American as greedy, blind industrialists. We the people can only put up with so much before we stem the tide. Read your history, fool.


[-] -1 points by capella (199) 9 years ago

No they do not want it. the republicans in the senate lead by mcconnell will filibuster it. reid had withdrawn for now , knowing he does not have the votes.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) continues his support for the bill - claiming that the design of the bill is such that it will not be used as a means of censorship.

He is an attorney, and he has been out in front opposing internet censorship in the past - he has had tremendous support of the ACLU in the past - and yet his position appears to differ from theirs on this bill.

I need to look further, and haven't as yet.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

I so hope that is true. And If it goes through, lets hope there is no mission creep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep#cite_note-8

Do you think the idea of a bottom-up, people driven internet clashes with the ideological and political worldview that --surveillance-- should only exist in one direction: From the top down?

Have we overlooked what it really means in terms of discomfort & career-risk to those who normally bask and benefit from the art of statecraft?

The common rabble are in possession of one of the most powerful tools in the world, and have learned to use it, in a way that might endanger their ten-year.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

-surveillance-- should only exist in one direction: From the top down?

It doesn't. There was a local drug operation that got busted for accessing DEA undercover operatives phone numbers through someone at the phone company, some within the Occupy Movement have advocated using tactics that Otpor used in Europe, targeting cops family and neighbors with an . . . .information campaign . . . and if I think long enough I'm sure I will come up with other examples. The whole thing has gone mainstream.

The best tools, data analysis and observation devices, still remain in the hands of the elite of course, much of it either in or available to the private sector.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

There was a local drug operation that got busted for accessing DEA undercover operatives phone numbers through someone at the phone company.

wow, that's not good, but laws are already in place to deal with what happened there, if they were busted for it. Nothing new needed (?)

I thought this article had a pretty good break down of some of what is found in the bill, for anyone interested.

::::::::::::::::::::::::Why SOPA Is Dangerous::::::::::::::::::::::::


(((But, on the other hand, I also found this story a little worrying)))

"Anonymous Shuts Down Corporate and Government Websites Worldwide ...The Timing Couldn’t Be Worse"

::::::::::::::::Anonymous Shuts Down MPAA, RIAA, FBI, DOJ and Copyright Office::::::::::::::::


-January 20, 2012-

I would not be quite so upset if this had occurred after Congress passed a draconian web censorship bill such as SOPA. But the fact that this is happening only 24 hours after the web’s successful protest concerns me greatly....

Had Anonymous not gone on a rampage yesterday, the absurdity of the claims that SOPA and PIPA are needed – and perhaps the absurdity of the shutdown of Megaupload – would have gotten widespread attention. Instead, the denial-of-service attacks will likely lead to even harsher crack-downs in the name of fighting a cyberwar.

(((SomeHumorousSatire))) http://www.flickr.com/photos/expd/6730443003/

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

Nothing new needed (?)

Not on that particular piece, I don't think. I didn't keep close track, but I think the clowns involved got some serious time for it.

but it is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the surveillance society we have in place today - most of which goes completely unnoticed.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Never mind that it was written by Lamar Smith. :/

Look, http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

Now, let's get down to who got paid.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Now we're getting somewhere.. figures! I have to leave soon. Thanks for this link GirlfFriday, I certainly appreciate it.