The destruction of liberty

[time]

I thought recent developments such as SOPA (and many others) really deserved their own thread. Although the sickness has infected all western countries, the US appears to be leading the charge and unfortunately has overwhelming influence.

First up, here's an excellent debunking of the outrageous economic claims made by the 'copyright industry':

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress

 

[Chewy509]

It's quite sad that one nation has so much influence over the rest of the world...

However Arstechnica.com has some really good coverage of the blackout and several articles on the ramifications of SOPA and PIPA.

 

[time]

Interesting piece that uses numbers to throw light on what drives the film industry.

 

[time]

The case of Richard O'Dwyer predates SOPA (sorry, Wikipedia is down to protest against SOPA). He did nothing illegal - in his country - yet is facing 10 years in a US federal prison. Not a joke, not something in a movie plot, this stuff is very real and happening now.

 

[time]

And then of course, there's the NDAA. Much has been made about the effect on American citizens, but there's nearly 7 billion other people on the planet who could be detained anywhere, indefinitely, by the US military.

 

[Chewy509]

The case of Richard O'Dwyer predates SOPA (sorry, Wikipedia is down to protest against SOPA). He did nothing illegal - in his country - yet is facing 10 years in a US federal prison. Not a joke, not something in a movie plot, this stuff is very real and happening now.

A truly sad incident. It's now a running joke that all UK citizens now must follow US laws as well... otherwise they'll be shipped to the US to face imprisionment.

And with the way things are going here in Oz with our US trade agreements, I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see similar happen here.

 

[Chewy509]

<sarcasm>
Brilliant thought... How 'bout we kill all Internet connections to the US, void all trade pacts with the US, ignore all US laws since they are on a path to self destruction, change copyrights to a maximum of 25 years* and make copyright offenses a civil matter and not a criminal matter...

The first part takes care of the piracy issues Internationally, since the US can't talk to the rest of the world via the Internet...

Getting rid of the trade pacts sorts out the issues of other countries inserting bulls**t laws that don't support the citizen of the respective country.

The last one will save a late of time in the courts, as the police can focus on crimes that directly affect people individually rather than some mega corporation whinging they are losing a few dollars in markets that can't service properly...
</sarcasm>

 

[Chewy509]

*why 25 years? Well a prison life term is only 25 years... Why should a media company get more time than someone in prison? Anyway, they should trademark the actual valued item, not the whole content, that way Disney could keep Mickey Mouse under lock and key, but the clip "Steam boat willy" would now be public domain.

 

[Mercutio]

The simple fact is that I don't think these attempts to censor will amount of any serious degradation of my ability to access information online. We'll find ways around everything. Yes, the whole western world has taken a step away from free and open societies, but there's a larger issue than just the possibility that some ignorant people might try to limit access to information online; there's a major political party in the United States whose membership can be fairly described as not believing in science (evolution/global warming/age of the planet etc). These are people who think that ignorance is often a virtue and education is a mark of weak character. In my opinion, the fact that there are so many people who think their beliefs deserve equal status with observed and quantifiable reality is a far greater threat than Great Britain's police state or the ongoing attempts to censor everything in the USA.

 

[Chewy509]

The Greens are asking the Australian Government on their stance on the bill...

http://greens.org.au/content/wikipedia-strikes-back-–-where-australian-government-0

Lets see if Gillard is a sheep to the US system?

FYI. The Greens are a political party here in Australia...

 

[time]

Mercutio, does this sum up your concerns?

 

[CougTek]

Did you guys read what happened with Megaupload? Closed by the U.S. government and people arrested in New Zealand for infringments to american laws. I knew that New Zealand was a country without a backbone (no army), but to go so far as being and extention of the U.S. law department, that's a stretch.

 

[Mercutio]

... or the guy who ran TV Shack, a British citizen, being arrested and extradited to the US for violating no laws in Great Britain?

 

[ddrueding]

Mercutio, does this sum up your concerns?

My favorite bit:

...a third of Democrats believe that George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, which is an absurd sentence because it contains the words "Bush" and "knowledge."

 

[sdbardwick]

To me, the UK student case is much more offensive than the MegaUpload situation. Really, UK citizens should be up in arms about that one; if the UK courts find that the extradition treaty covers this sort of offence, they have become the 51st state.

The if the facts alleged in the indictment of MU are true, then they face a world of hurt. While it is just an indictment (if they desired prosecutors could obtain an indictment against a ham sandwich) it does lay out a systematic criminal enterprise.

 

[BingBangBop]

Sorry, but I have no problem extraditing people in foreign countries breaking US laws when they affect the US even if the country has no law against it. The world is too connected and it is too easy to cross borders using the internet and do harm. While copyright problems may be a bit minor on the scale but I can easily scenarios that even the most die-hard would agree that it is appropriate.

Lets see how about if someone planted a virus in a foreign country. Hacked the banking system. how about created a biological weapon and mailed it to a US citizen. Don't forget that the USA invaded Panama just to get at Ex-President Noregia so we could try him on drug charges.

Extradition on copyright violators may be new but the precedent has been set for for a very long time and has been built into treaty's with most all countries. Placing servers and the like on foreign soil only has a limited protection (it just adds a layer of bureaucracy to the process) unless you pick one with no extradition treaty.

 

[Chewy509]

I knew that New Zealand was a country without a backbone (no army), but to go so far as being and extention of the U.S. law department, that's a stretch.

IIRC, New Zealand updated all their copyright laws to be inline with US laws and added some nice extradictions laws to boot quite a few years ago when they updated/renewed their trade agreements with the US.

However, from what I've read online, MegaUpload did have a significant number of servers physically located on US soil, making the alleged piracy occur on US soil.

 

[Chewy509]

Sorry, but I have no problem extraditing people in foreign countries breaking US laws when they affect the US even if the country has no law against it.

So you don't mind that the US ignores the sovereignty of other world states?

Why we don't flip this around?

Have you ever posted anything pro-nazi (or anti-jewish), or a picture of a swastika on the Internet? (If you have you've broken several German and Israeli laws - let's get you on a plane to either country).

Has you wife/partner ever gone out alone without a male escort, and posted images of this online? Or even promoted anything against Islam online? (If so you've broken several Iranian laws, and she should be stoned).

Have you had an alcoholic drink in public or even been drunk? (If so, you've broken several laws of Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia).

Have you made disagreeable comments about Thailand and it's royal family? (If so you've broken several Thai laws).

Ever smoke pot or taken any other illegal drug and then posted the contents online? (If so you've broken laws in several SE Asian countries - some of which include the death penalty).

Ever taken a photo of a Italian government building, and posted it online? (You've just broken Italian law).

Have you carried a handgun in public? (If so, you better come to Australia and face court, as this is illegal here).

I guess my point is, is that we all done things at one time or another that are illegal in other countries, however all the states acknowledge and honour the sovereignty of other nations. (This is not a stab at the US or it's citizens - take this from a pure philosophically point of view), why should the US ignore sovereign matters that should be handled locally under the local laws of that nation? Why would a trial of a foreign national be better handled in the US, when the foreign national isn't even aware of the legal system in the US?

 

[Chewy509]

To me, the UK student case is much more offensive than the MegaUpload situation. Really, UK citizens should be up in arms about that one; if the UK courts find that the extradition treaty covers this sort of offence, they have become the 51st state.

IIRC, some MPs from the House of Lards have commented on the matter (and not in favourable terms of the US), and unfortunately the latest treaty does allow this to happen. (However the original terms were framed for terrorist acts against US assets, and not for copyright matters).

 

[CougTek]

Sorry, but I have no problem extraditing people in foreign countries breaking US laws when they affect the US even if the country has no law against it.

Such comment makes me... out of myself. The things I would do to someone saying such a thing in front of me would not be allowed to be seen even in an adult-only movie. That's the kind of mentally I despise to no end. Believing U.S. is hovering over the World and every other nation should behave under its grasp. I find it infuriating beyond belief.

Your country better starts minding its own business. I wish some FBI fuckers ring my door. Fucking totalitarian invaders.

 

[BingBangBop]

So you don't mind that the US ignores the sovereignty of other world states?

We are not ignoring Sovereignty. We have extradition treaties with most all countries. They signed them, we use them. It goes back and forth for they get to extradite our citizens too. It is not a one way street.

The process of extradition typically goes through that countries courts and use their police to arrest and detain and if the court says no, we typically don't get the individual. Each country has their own processes and rules. For example France does not allow extradition of anyone, for any reason, if it is possible that the death penalty will apply and in that case that possible penalty is always waived.

Now if we invade to get a specific person (such as Noregia or Saddam Hussain) that is a totally different situation. He's got to be awful important to start a war...

All I'm saying is that I don't see any problem with this process being applied to whatever crimes. These treaties have been in existence for a very long time it is just applying them to copyright violators is the only new portion.

 

[BingBangBop]

P.S.

I can't think of any instances where a country tried to extradite someone that didn't directly affect the country. Allowing US citizens to pirate copyrighted material definitely satisfies the affecting the US criteria. My guess is that if a country tried to extradite someone for something that didn't directly affect the country the court system would just say no to the extradition.

 

[BingBangBop]

US extradition rules and regulations for Australia

As a sample

 

[Bozo]

Usually a person is extradated when they commit the crime in the offending country and flee to another country to avoid arrest.
Being in one country and commiting a crime in another country electronically seems like a stretch.

 

[BingBangBop]

But now that the world is interconnected, one can commit crimes in a foreign country like hacking a banking system and never leave your own country. I think of it like using a sniper rifle to kill someone across a border (never leaving your own country). I just don't see a reason that that is not extraditable. Applying the same logic creates the possibility of extraditing copyright pirates.

 

[BingBangBop]

Basically, it is not the fleeing that makes an offense extraditable rather it is the offense itself. If you look at the rules for Australia, fleeing is not even mentioned as a factor.

 

[Chewy509]

US extradition rules and regulations for Australia

As a sample

I guess Australian citizens are safe for the time being... due to the folllowing:

Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the following offences provided these offences are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year or by death

At least an Australian citizen can't be extridicted for a law that only applies in the US and not Australia... ;-)

 

[Chewy509]

I would just like to make a quick comment. My anger is mainly directed in regards to the UK citizen being extridiced, and not in regards to the MegaUpload case. (The latter was in violation of both NZ and US laws, servers were located on US Soil, and they paid people to pirate).

Also BBP, you failed to answer my other questions?

 

[BingBangBop]

I would just like to make a quick comment. My anger is mainly directed in regards to the UK citizen being extridiced, and not in regards to the MegaUpload case. (The latter was in violation of both NZ and US laws, servers were located on US Soil, and they paid people to pirate).

Also BBP, you failed to answer my other questions?

I didn't think you needed those answers.

Have you ever posted anything pro-nazi (or anti-jewish), or a picture of a swastika on the Internet? (If you have you've broken several German and Israeli laws - let's get you on a plane to either country).

No, I have not.

Has you wife/partner ever gone out alone without a male escort, and posted images of this online? Or even promoted anything against Islam online? (If so you've broken several Iranian laws, and she should be stoned).

No, she has not, at least to my knowledge.

Have you had an alcoholic drink in public or even been drunk? (If so, you've broken several laws of Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia).

The only alcohol I have drank was on my 21st birthday and then it was only one fruit drink out of obligation. So, no I have not.

Have you made disagreeable comments about Thailand and it's royal family? (If so you've broken several Thai laws).

I know nothing about Thailand's royal family and thereby no I have not.

Ever smoke pot or taken any other illegal drug and then posted the contents online? (If so you've broken laws in several SE Asian countries - some of which include the death penalty).

Sorry, but no I've never done drugs either, even pot.

Ever taken a photo of a Italian government building, and posted it online? (You've just broken Italian law).

Sorry, I have never traveled to Italy so I could not have taken a photo of an Italian govt, bldg.

Have you carried a handgun in public? (If so, you better come to Australia and face court, as this is illegal here).

No, I have never owned a gun so I can't have broken that law either.

I guess my point is, is that we all done things at one time or another that are illegal in other countries, however all the states acknowledge and honour the sovereignty of other nations. (This is not a stab at the US or it's citizens - take this from a pure philosophically point of view), why should the US ignore sovereign matters that should be handled locally under the local laws of that nation? Why would a trial of a foreign national be better handled in the US, when the foreign national isn't even aware of the legal system in the US?

Sorry, to disagree, but I would not have broken a single one of those laws.

These extradition treaties outline exactly what is extraditable and are not. Look at the Australian link, as an example,and you will see exactly what crimes are extraditable from that country (it explicitly lists them). Each treaty was negotiated separately between both countries and if you don't like the one in yours, talk to your govt...

I contend that there is nothing wrong here with the US extraditing that British citizen for piracy. If there is a problem, all he has to do is fight the extradition and show proper cause in the British courts for they will just say no and that will be the end of it.

 

[jtr1962]

Extradition to the US is fine if the person is a committing or plans to commit crimes which cause injury or death to US citizens. What we're talking about here is at best financial loss, and even that part is debatable. The majority of people who download stuff illegally aren't people who would have paid for it if the illegal downloads weren't available. Rather, they would just have done without it. That being the case, exactly what was stolen here? It isn't like someone stole a physical product which cost a company money to produce.

The hard truth is the movie and music industries need to change with the times. Make what they produce easily available for download, and at reasonable rates (i.e. maybe $0.25 for a song or a few bucks for a movie). And more importantly, stop producing junk which largely appeals only to the 15 to 19 crowd. Far too much of what is made nowadays is so bad it's basically a case of "I'll take it if it's free, but I'm not paying for it". Same line of reasoning applies to software. A lot of freeware or shareware is actually as good as the stuff you pay for, or at least not that much worse such that it's worth going payware. Here again, same lesson. Make stuff worth paying for and people will buy it.

 

[Mercutio]

Copyright infringement has only recently become a criminal matter. Until fairly recently, it was handled only in civil court. Unfortunately, certain industries have decided that it's more important to bribe our legislature into forcing the world to conform to its business models than to try to adapt to the changing media landscape.

 

[Mercutio]

This week's episode of On the Media has some fairly interesting and balanced (in the actual, non-Fox News definition of "balance") coverage of SOPA and Megaupload. It's basically the first 20 minutes of an hourlong program.

 

[Chewy509]

Getting slightly offtopic in regards to SOPA/PIPA, a judge in the US ordered someone to provide the crypto keys and/or password so that police are able decrypt their personal computer in order to look for evidence...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-5...icans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/

So in the US at least (if the order gets through the appeals process), use of crypto to safe guard against police investigation is no longer a viable measure. (And I thought the 5th admendment was there to protect against this type of action, eg giving over evidence that may be used against you).

Mind you, if you're using our own personal computer to illegal activities, best to use external media to store your stuff... and hide it really, really well... The more they have to wade through, the more sloppy they'll be in finding stuff...

 

[ddrueding]

I don't think that ruling will survive the supreme court ( at least I hope not). Best to use an encryption method that supports plausible deniability anyway. That adds a whole other layer of fifth amendment rights that should be more defensible.

 

[BingBangBop]

Best to use an encryption method that supports plausible deniability anyway.

What encryption method is that? Using someone else's encrypted computer, for example, creates all sorts of potentially undesirable scenarios like blackmail or them going to the police.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't think that ruling will survive the supreme court ( at least I hope not). Best to use an encryption method that supports plausible deniability anyway.

1. We can more or less count on the current court to be wrong on every issue of importance. We can already reliably predict how the court will decide every case set before it; the only real doubt in any decision they hand down is how broadly or narrowly they choose to write their decisions. Remember this is the court that gave us Citizen's United.

2. Encryption doesn't work that way. It's there and it's conspicuous. You can possibly make a case for using steganography in addition to crypto, but if someone suspects you're hiding data in other data, it's usually pretty straightforward to detect.

Realistically, that person's option is to continue to refuse to provide the crypto key and hope that all she gets cited for is contempt of court until such a time as someone sane changes their mind about the matter.

 

[MaxBurn]

That is interesting.

I was thinking the hidden partition situation might suit as protection. Provide the wrong pass phrase and the contents are decrypted in a way where the real info is still hidden and other bogus contents are revealed.

I had no idea they could for example force you to unlock a safe. But if there is president on that I can see how it would apply here.

Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.

On the other hand are civil libertarians citing other Supreme Court cases that conclude Americans can't be forced to give "compelled testimonial communications" and extending the legal shield of the Fifth Amendment to encryption passphrases. Courts already have ruled that that such protection extends to the contents of a defendant's minds, the argument goes, so why shouldn't a passphrase be shielded as well?

Fricosu was born in 1974 and living in Peyton as of 2010. She was charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering as part of an alleged attempt to use falsified court documents to illegally gain title to homes near Colorado Springs that were facing "imminent foreclosure" or whose owners were relocating outside the state.

I guess I would weigh the contempt against whatever the charge would be for the other thing and then appeal. I also don't find it hard to avoid this type of behavior and stay out of the whole subject.

 

[Mercutio]

I was thinking the hidden partition situation might suit as protection. Provide the wrong pass phrase and the contents are decrypted in a way where the real info is still hidden and other bogus contents are revealed.

I can tell you that law enforcement computer forensics guys are trained to look for hidden partitions and alternate data streams in files as a matter of course. They're also taught how to deal with non-Windows file structures. They're aware of what steganography is and roughly how large files should be based on their contents and properties.

One of my former students is a forensics guy for the Indiana DNR. Based on conversations I've had with him what I can say is that if you're doing something wrong that uses a computer and you've run afoul of anything greater than county-level law enforcement, they probably do have the resources and knowledge to figure out the systems you have in place.

 

[Handruin]

Getting slightly offtopic in regards to SOPA/PIPA, a judge in the US ordered someone to provide the crypto keys and/or password so that police are able decrypt their personal computer in order to look for evidence...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-5...icans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/

So in the US at least (if the order gets through the appeals process), use of crypto to safe guard against police investigation is no longer a viable measure. (And I thought the 5th admendment was there to protect against this type of action, eg giving over evidence that may be used against you).

Mind you, if you're using our own personal computer to illegal activities, best to use external media to store your stuff... and hide it really, really well... The more they have to wade through, the more sloppy they'll be in finding stuff...

Interesting timing on the question of the 5th amendment. Another CNN article discussing a judge requesting a woman to decrypt her hard drive on her laptop.

The government had argued that there was no Fifth Amendment breach, and that it might "require significant resources and may harm the subject computer" if the authorities tried to crack the encryption.

 

[MaxBurn]

True enough Merc.