The Coming Crackdown on Bloggers

Beowulf · 03-03-2005, 02:18 PM

This really pisses me off, and frightens me. I knew it would only be a matter of time before the government starts controlling the information on the internet, but not so soon. It is bad enough that so many libraries are being forced to shut down , never mind the fact that Homeland Security has the "right" to see what kind of books are being checked out by the average joe, but this stinks. It stinks because apparently one has to "conform" to what is considered "proper" by our loving and caring Uncie Sam.
Phooey.
http://news.com.com/The+coming+crack...3-5597079.html

There is so much we would be unaware of news-wise if it were not for bloggers. This is just another attempt of the corporate media to impose censorship and control of information.

Taylor · 03-04-2005, 09:06 AM

Beowulf,
I think you misunderstand what is taking place. Some 'contributions' are illegal already, and that is what the article is referring to.

An example of the law for you. Supposed you work for Company X who makes widgets. The owner of your company comes to you and says 'Instead of you making widgets for the next 5 hours, I want you to type up a letter praising George Bush until you have 5000 such letters. I then want you to put the stamps on them and send them out. Lets do the math:
You make $10 per hour = $50 for labor
5000 stamps = $1850

Your company has just used you to contribute $1900 to the bush campaign. This would count towards campaign contributions, and many companies use this procedure to bypass the limitations of campaign finance.

OK, it applies to the 'real' world, but when regulators were deciding on limits, they excluded the internet. Well, whats happening now is companies are using the internet to bypass campaign finance laws.

So, above scenario:
You make $10 per hour = $50 for labor
5000 stamps = $1850
Is currently illegal

New scenario:
Your company has you create a George Bush website instead of making widgets like you are supposed to. Your still making $10 an hour. You spend 100 hours making this website. Total cost now is $1000. OK, so your company just 'contributed' $1000 to the Bush campaign, but it does not have to claim it as campaign finance. Your company then takes 100 of its employees to do the same thing at the same rate you are. That means your company has just legally donated $100,000 to the Bush campaign.

I hope I made it clear what is taking place....It is currently illegal for your company to do it in the real world, but it isn't illegal in the internet world. Make sense?

Codger · 03-04-2005, 10:22 AM

The internet is indeed undergoing a metamorphisis. As it continues to expand the "information highway", it enters into almost all areas of our lives. Even the lives of people who do not own computers or access the internet.

Political campaign finance laws is only one area of thousands. The struggle to apply existing laws, and to make new laws for the internet is only beginning.

When you think about it, the "virtual world" is indeed a world, or nation if you will. It exists within nearly every nation's borders, and across their borders.

The lowly "search bot" has evolved to the "hunter bot". Supercomputers drone on endlessly sifting communications for danger in national defense. "Secure communications" over the internet is a thing of the past, if it ever existed at all. Keys and backdoors are built into every program that I know of. Is this a good thing?

That a country would try to apply it's laws to the internet seems only logical. It also seems like an intrusion, but you do not have a right to privacy on the internet and that is a fact of life.

Where it is all headed, I couldn't say. As imaging technology and virtual reality come on line, personal computers outperform top of the line mainframes of only a few decades ago, the complications of applying laws are sure to increase.

Banjo · 03-04-2005, 12:21 PM

DeafLib,

I remember one Microsoft employee who got fired because he took some pictures of the PowerMac G5 computers that had been shipped to the Microsoft building, then posted them on his blog.

From what I know, he was not to post any pictures that were taken inside the building due to an agreement in his contract. Technically, these pictures were taken on the property, giving them the right to fire him.

They kind of took it a tad too far on that one if you ask me since no secrets were revealed.

deafclimber · 03-04-2005, 02:49 PM

yea. it is sad...

sometimes i read ex flight attendant's blogs from http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/ - she was fired from delta because her blogs showed some pictures of her with delta uniforms. delta was really stupid. it was long story. help urself to read her interesting blogs.

03-03-2005, 02:18 PM	#1 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,091	The Coming Crackdown on Bloggers This really pisses me off, and frightens me. I knew it would only be a matter of time before the government starts controlling the information on the internet, but not so soon. It is bad enough that so many libraries are being forced to shut down , never mind the fact that Homeland Security has the "right" to see what kind of books are being checked out by the average joe, but this stinks. It stinks because apparently one has to "conform" to what is considered "proper" by our loving and caring Uncie Sam. Phooey. http://news.com.com/The+coming+crack...3-5597079.html There is so much we would be unaware of news-wise if it were not for bloggers. This is just another attempt of the corporate media to impose censorship and control of information.

03-04-2005, 02:49 PM	#5 (permalink)
deafclimber :: is a dirt dirty ? :: Join Date: May 2003 Location: hotlanta Posts: 3,568	yea. it is sad... sometimes i read ex flight attendant's blogs from http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/ - she was fired from delta because her blogs showed some pictures of her with delta uniforms. delta was really stupid. it was long story. help urself to read her interesting blogs. __________________ Feel free to PM me if you have any question about Windows Mobile or AT&T Mobiliy's TAPs.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

03-04-2005, 09:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
Taylor Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,586	Beowulf, I think you misunderstand what is taking place. Some 'contributions' are illegal already, and that is what the article is referring to. An example of the law for you. Supposed you work for Company X who makes widgets. The owner of your company comes to you and says 'Instead of you making widgets for the next 5 hours, I want you to type up a letter praising George Bush until you have 5000 such letters. I then want you to put the stamps on them and send them out. Lets do the math: You make $10 per hour = $50 for labor 5000 stamps = $1850 Your company has just used you to contribute $1900 to the bush campaign. This would count towards campaign contributions, and many companies use this procedure to bypass the limitations of campaign finance. OK, it applies to the 'real' world, but when regulators were deciding on limits, they excluded the internet. Well, whats happening now is companies are using the internet to bypass campaign finance laws. So, above scenario: You make $10 per hour = $50 for labor 5000 stamps = $1850 Is currently illegal New scenario: Your company has you create a George Bush website instead of making widgets like you are supposed to. Your still making $10 an hour. You spend 100 hours making this website. Total cost now is $1000. OK, so your company just 'contributed' $1000 to the Bush campaign, but it does not have to claim it as campaign finance. Your company then takes 100 of its employees to do the same thing at the same rate you are. That means your company has just legally donated $100,000 to the Bush campaign. I hope I made it clear what is taking place....It is currently illegal for your company to do it in the real world, but it isn't illegal in the internet world. Make sense?

03-04-2005, 10:22 AM	#3 (permalink)
Codger This body is on loan Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 817	The internet is indeed undergoing a metamorphisis. As it continues to expand the "information highway", it enters into almost all areas of our lives. Even the lives of people who do not own computers or access the internet. Political campaign finance laws is only one area of thousands. The struggle to apply existing laws, and to make new laws for the internet is only beginning. When you think about it, the "virtual world" is indeed a world, or nation if you will. It exists within nearly every nation's borders, and across their borders. The lowly "search bot" has evolved to the "hunter bot". Supercomputers drone on endlessly sifting communications for danger in national defense. "Secure communications" over the internet is a thing of the past, if it ever existed at all. Keys and backdoors are built into every program that I know of. Is this a good thing? That a country would try to apply it's laws to the internet seems only logical. It also seems like an intrusion, but you do not have a right to privacy on the internet and that is a fact of life. Where it is all headed, I couldn't say. As imaging technology and virtual reality come on line, personal computers outperform top of the line mainframes of only a few decades ago, the complications of applying laws are sure to increase.

03-04-2005, 12:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
Banjo Mr. Movie Guy Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,966 Blog Entries: 1	DeafLib, I remember one Microsoft employee who got fired because he took some pictures of the PowerMac G5 computers that had been shipped to the Microsoft building, then posted them on his blog. From what I know, he was not to post any pictures that were taken inside the building due to an agreement in his contract. Technically, these pictures were taken on the property, giving them the right to fire him. They kind of took it a tad too far on that one if you ask me since no secrets were revealed.