navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
UK's most popular Renewable Energy Forum May 25, 2012, 03:49:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: UPDATE ON DECC APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT | Yingli Green Energy's PV Module Ranks No.2 in TUV Rheinland Energy Yield Test | Navitron Solar Showers at Glastonbury for Year 5!
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why I want to bring down the internet – for a day  (Read 499 times)
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11438



WWW
« on: January 17, 2012, 08:43:34 AM »

from - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/why-i-want-to-bring-down-the-internet--for-a-day-6290703.html

Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder, hopes sites from Google to Twitter will join his protest against a legal crackdown

The founder of Wikipedia is leading calls for search engines and social media sites including Google, Facebook and Twitter to take themselves offline for an entire day in protest against a controversial bill winding its way through the US Senate that could have profound implications for the internet.

Jimmy Wales has called for a "public uprising" against the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), which critics say will have a "chilling effect on innovation" by forcing websites to keep a much closer tab on what is posted by users on their pages.

Last night the Wikipedia founder confirmed that all English-language sections of his website would be taken offline for 24 hours starting tomorrow.

Although the legislation is American, it is likely to have a deep impact on websites around the world because so many of the largest search engines and social networking sites are based in the US.

The bill is the product of years of lobbying by music labels and film studios, which are infuriated that so much pirated content is still available through search engines and websites. They have lobbied Congress and the Senate to introduce Sopa, which in its current form will transfer the onus of responsibility for policing the internet from law enforcement agencies to websites and the internet providers themselves.

That has caused serious concerns among the founders of leading search engines and websites such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia, who have written a joint letter to Capitol Hill urging a rethink of the current legislation. Fearing that the Senate will push the bill through unamended, Mr Wales is now pushing for the world's most popular websites to initiate a "day of darkness" and shut down simultaneously in an attempt to galvanise opposition to the bill.

The idea was first mooted by Reddit, a popular social media website where users aggregate and rate links to other sites. Writing on his own blog, Mr Wales asked followers to decide whether Wikipedia should do the same and initiate a "public uprising" against Sopa.

"Right now what I'm thinking is that if there is a credible threat that this might happen, this could have a positive impact on the thinking of some legislators," he said. "Do not underestimate our power – in my opinion they are terrified of a public uprising about this, and we are uniquely positioned to start that."

The vast majority of responses to the blog post were in favour of a one-day strike that would target all English-language sections of Wikipedia, which would mean the website would be temporarily unavailable in Britain.

Facebook, Twitter and Google, which have all publicly stated their opposition to Sopa, have yet to declare whether they will join Wikipedia. But many users are already planning to flood social networking sites tomorrow with information and links about Sopa and why it could be harmful for freedom of expression.

The growing movement of discontent appears to have rattled the White House, which has issued a statement suggesting President Barack Obama would be reluctant to sign the bill in its current form.

"We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet," the White House said, adding that online piracy needed a "serious legislative response" but one that must not "inhibit innovation".

What happens next is likely to depend on the efforts of competing lobbyists and whether enough steam can build up behind the online protest movement. Mr Wales is intending to meet senior politicians over the coming days to press for a more flexible piece of legislation but the media conglomerates that want to see a hard line from Capitol Hill are determined not to see their lobbying work stumble at the final hurdle.

It is not the first time Mr Wales has used the popular encyclopaedia he founded to make a political point. When legislation was put before the Italian parliament last year that would have forced websites to automatically delete any content that was flagged up as defamatory, Wikipedia hit back. For three days in October, visitors who accessed the Italian version of the site were only able to read a critique of the new legislation, which was quickly shelved after a growing public outcry.
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Contadino
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2012, 09:00:35 AM »

I think this is one of the few things that 'the market' will steer. Websites, investment, technology companies, and thus tax revenue will move to countries where this legislation won't affect them.
Logged
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11438



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2012, 09:08:24 AM »

I think it's a none too subtle attempt by the US to take control of the 'net*, and hope that Contadino is right - if they try let's see if it's "self-healing" ability will take over and reroute it...........

*We really don't need some loony fringe religious nutter in the midwest deciding what we can/can't do/say on the 'net (quite apart from the US government) whistlie
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 09:10:49 AM by martin » Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
titan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2012, 09:16:42 AM »

Looks like the White House have stepped in and for now it is being shelved  www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/putting_sopa_on_a_shelf034765.php
Logged
Baz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1386


« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2012, 09:25:15 AM »

Simply shutting down would just confuse people who were not aware of what was going on. I assume as with the italy example above they will put up an explanatory notice.
I think a more effective method would be to continue as usual but put up a clear message at the beginning of every page "O.a.a is evil don't vote for him" that would enter the subconcious of all users. Note I have omitted his full name or the CIA web bots will be marking the forum for destruction if it isn't already on the list for expressing anti GM views.
Of course it does also raise the question of excessive power in the hands of a few web companies.
Logged
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11438



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2012, 09:28:13 AM »

from Wikipedia

"To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate—that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.
This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:
It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.
Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.
On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.
In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.
But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.
Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.
That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place—many do!—but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.
My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA—and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States—don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?
The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
 Make your voice heard!
       
On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.
Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation"
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11438



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2012, 09:50:06 AM »

Supreme irony - " In a tweet, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo called Wikipedia's plans to pull the plug on its website "foolish" and "silly" - from the progenitors of the "Twatterverse" that's more than a bit rich! hysteria
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
GavinA
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1190

Solar PV & water heating installer


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2012, 12:51:07 PM »

I think this is one of the few things that 'the market' will steer. Websites, investment, technology companies, and thus tax revenue will move to countries where this legislation won't affect them.
problem is, this legislation is aimed at none US websites, and allows the US to force US based search engines to remove the websites listings on the search engines, and paypal etc to stop their accounts.

it also allows this to happen even before the full court decision, just as an interim measure, so basically US corporations will be given a massive stick to beat any websites around the world with no matter where they're based, even if they eventually get found to be innocent, or to have only had a minor infraction that would currently be dealt with via a standard take down notification for that specific web page.
Logged

at home | 80 tubes, 2 tanks direct PV powered SWH + 5 x Yingli 185Wp solar PV panels.
clockmanFR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 775



« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2012, 01:00:04 PM »

Martin, YOU WOULD GET A DAY OFF...... signofcross
Logged

Everything is possible, just give me TIME.
Contadino
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2012, 03:23:46 PM »

problem is, this legislation is aimed at none US websites, and allows the US to force US based search engines to remove the websites listings on the search engines, and paypal etc to stop their accounts.

So, instead of searching using google.com, use google.co.uk. Amazon won't come down, because they'll only be able to shut down part of their cloud. It's only sites where critical IT services (such as names services) are wholly US-hosted operations that we'll see any effect from - like PayPal, but they're shits anyway.

The companies and people who will really suffer are Americans, but then they let their country deteriorate to the corpocracy it currently is, so who cares?
Logged
kalas666
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2012, 03:23:58 PM »

Well that's what happened to 'Wikileaks'.  They got shafted by the US gov putting pressure on Paypal and Amazon.....
Logged

3.96 Kw P.V.
475 Ltr Thermal Store
Woodfire RS21 Log burner
rt29781
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 775


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2012, 06:58:43 PM »

It needs you to take action if you agree:
Scroll down the linked page until you get to this:

If you are a US citizen, write your representative. If you live outside
the US, sign this petition. If you want to do more, check out these
suggestions from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/sorry-youre-not-allowed-read-internet-censorship-threatens-activism-20120117
Logged

dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4561



« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2012, 05:17:34 PM »

The music industry needs  to  make decisions about it's future.   Compared to the small number of people who regularly buy   music on pieces of plastic  there is a much bigger audience  available if they are content to settle for very small payments for downloads.   

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/is-file-sharing-the-global-future.ars
Logged
SimonHobson
Guest
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2012, 05:27:00 PM »

So, instead of searching using google.com, use google.co.uk. Amazon won't come down, because they'll only be able to shut down part of their cloud. It's only sites where critical IT services (such as names services) are wholly US-hosted operations that we'll see any effect from - like PayPal, but they're shits anyway.
I think that's a bit naïve.
Google is US owned, so if US law says to do something they'll do it rather than be shut down.
Similarly, all the major finance houses (think credit card companies and online payment processors) have a US presence and their choice will be to pull out of the US altogether or comply.

So you can be running a business that's completely legal in your country, and a US corporation can accuse you of piracy and have you effectively deleted - you'll be off the search engines, you'll be off the DNS (good reason not to rely on a .com or .org domain), and your income will be stopped. Of course, you do have recourse to go through the US courts to get that overturned - if your business survives that is. If you are found to be innocent, you'll get no compensation, and the perpetrator will suffer no consequences for their abuse.

But of course, we can trust all US businesses not to make any false accusations against a foreign competitor can't we - so nothing to worry about hysteria

But while these acts may get shelved, there'll be new ones next year with much the same intent, and the year after, and ... US lawmaking - the best that money can buy banghead
Logged
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11438



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2012, 05:27:38 PM »

Avaaz petition - http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet_signing_h/?cHzntab
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!