The Rise and Fall of Section 215

[labbe5]

https://timeline.com/stories/the-patrio ... al-section

Some are rebels without a cause; others are rebels with a cause : some american senators are taking at heart the true meaning of a democratic regime, which doesn't include the right to spy on everybody, from the cradle to the grave.

All but one lawmaker — Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold — voted for the Patriot Act, and it was signed by President George W. Bush less than a month after it was introduced.

Rebelling against its own government, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold upheld a vision of his country that was above the anguish of the time, keeping his head cold in face ot destruction and the unknown nature of a new threat. That's my kind of guy, able to think by himself, not rushing to the easy decision, the obvious one, because newspapers are full of cries for vengeance.

A stateman, in the true sense of the word.

[Flash]

It's not dead yet.

[8Geee]

Rand Paul has been getting face-time recently for his filabuster on the subject. In a peapod, he thinks its Unconstitutional to put "Verizon" on a search warrant that therefore covers all customers of such service. But this harkens back to the ORIGINAL problem of allowing a corporate entity the same rights as an individual. The Senator has been on record of disfavoring the original problem.

Blanket searching may not be dead yet, the root-cause is alive and quite well.

[gcmartin]

This should not be taken the wrong way (although I am convinced it will): But, do I detect a new pattern attempting to bring US politics into this "on-topic" realm; Is this the proper forum location and place for this kind of politics?

We all have political feelings, but, the forum is still Puppy Linux and maybe US politics should be somewhere else.

Can we keep this away so that political firefights do NOT emerge in the on-topic areas of the forum.

Unless, of course, US politics is now proper for the forum.

This forum topic area can be seen by EVERYONE, no matter if they are Puppy members or NOT! Thus, this specific topic area has been targeted to reach a larger audience of viewers and to begin attracting a new audience not here for Puppy LInux. I know we all want Puppy Linux membership to grow, but, I cant agree that this is a proper method for getting people on the books (But, then too, the site may be trying to reposition itself for sale by showing its number of members using and registered as is customary in corporate-website valuation for sale).

Is this what we really want? "A USA area for political firefights which are everywhere outside of this technical forum."

[bark_bark_bark]

This is the offtopic forum, so we can post whatever is legal to post.

[6502coder]

The question is perhaps not whether we CAN post, but whether it is judicious to do so.

There is certainly no lack of places on the Internet to engage in political debate. We could discuss Atlantis, UFOs, and reincarnation here too. But it might be worth considering whether any of that is a judicious use of bandwidth, server space, etc. IMHO it is contrary to the Puppy spirit to be wasting resources.

[cthisbear]

" IMHO it is contrary to the Puppy spirit "

to stop the flow of free information.

This is a free spirit place.

I am always grateful for the largesse of John Murga.

Chris.

[gcmartin]

My concern did NOT address stopping anything. It asks a question about the mission of this forum. Because the topic area is misplaced in Security, the author and others have found that they can use the Security area of "Off Topic" for politics, etc that is VIEWABLE BY ALL PUPPY USERS! This are, one would think by it topic "Security" would be used for Security related technical guidance. ... But, now, it has been DISCOVERED that this area can be used to send Political messages as well. Same is true if one wants to defame Religions, defame .... etc.

Is this what we want for general worldwide member viewing coming from this technical forum?

Puppy Linux has a high degree of credibility in the technical things it helps in General use and collaborations.

Non security related items aimed at politics or religions or countries or etc only serves to create people who will judge others based upon the kinds of things which are posted here.

I contend, again, this is NOT good for PUPPY LINUX! This is not about free speech. This IS ABOUT A TECHNICAL FORUM!

[bark_bark_bark]

My concern did NOT address stopping anything. It asks a question about the mission of this forum. Because the topic area is misplaced in Security, the author and others have found that they can use the Security area of "Off Topic" for politics, etc that is VIEWABLE BY ALL PUPPY USERS! This are, one would think by it topic "Security" would be used for Security related technical guidance. ... But, now, it has been DISCOVERED that this area can be used to send Political messages as well. Same is true if one wants to defame Religions, defame .... etc.

Is this what we want for general worldwide member viewing coming from this technical forum?

If a person doesn't like what they see here, oh well. We are a (mostly) decent crowd and if they don't like us, why should we care.

[bark_bark_bark]

\

Puppy Linux has a high degree of credibility in the technical things it helps in General use and collaborations.

Non security related items aimed at politics or religions or countries or etc only serves to create people who will judge others based upon the kinds of things which are posted here.

I contend, again, this is NOT good for PUPPY LINUX! This is not about free speech. This IS ABOUT A TECHNICAL FORUM!

I don't think you quite get that issues such as Security end-up being political.

And without having free speech, this forum wouldn't exist. If you hate free speech so much, you can talk to RSH who also hates free speech and wants his hollywood friends to take it away.

[gcmartin]

There IS one Off-Topic area which is NOT AVAILABLE for general viewing by non-members. In that area, is where this kind of stuff used to surface. But, it was only available for interaction between PUP signin members. Not viewable or accessible to non-puppy members. This WAS done by Murga for that specific purpose. Now, someone has discovered a loophole and intends to exploit it for non-Puppy purposes.

This thread's author now has found a way to exert its will on BOTH MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS!

Using the Security area as a means to project Religious or Political or Cultural messages is not how one would think to be used.

Curious
Are you suggesting that because 'Security" in a Technical Forum happens to be in an off topic area, that it should freely discuss Politics/Religion/Cultural/etc. in a manner inconsistent with what one expect in Security in a Technical forum? Is there some missing logic between Security or are you suggesting that people's logic should expect ANYTHING to be posted in the area of the forum labeled SECURITY? WOW.

P.S.

I don't think you quite get that issues such as Security end-up being political

Not sure who else "buys" this statement. I don't.

[bark_bark_bark]

P.S.

I don't think you quite get that issues such as Security end-up being political

Not sure who else "buys" this statement. I don't.

You should because it's true. Topics such as Security do get very politcal (not always in the sense you may be thinking). A good example of this would be with open source vs closed source:

There are people who, like me, view the open source model as more secure and then there are idiots that believe that closed source software is more secure.

And a lot of times we see this often "politcal" fight have an influence on the laws and policies of various governements.

Either way, political doesn't really mean it has anything to do with laws and governments. A store debating corporate policy, could be considered political.

At this point, I'm talking to an arrogant brick wall.

[gcmartin]

Again, coming from someone who has genuine respect for US representative Feingold, I still understand that this thread starts not as an appeal for member support of technology, but political without any tie into Puppy technology. And, it is made in an area, a loophole, where it is crafted to address the WORLDWIDE PUPPY FORUM VIEWING PUBLIC! ... politically, while not being aimed at anything related to Puppy security.

Hope you don't find that as arrogant. Hope you can see benefit in what I am exposing; versus your ...

Surely, I am not the only one who knows what "Truly Off-Topic", another area, is designed for.

[Deacon]

I don't think you quite get that issues such as Security end-up being political

Not sure who else "buys" this statement. I don't.

Not to be problematic, but I kind of do. I almost put up something about it in the off-topic section.

I watched the legislative session end with my wife for almost 6 hours today. This isn't a political issue in an American sense (those for and against are of mixed parties) but a question of privacy and security. These are two issues that are totally relevant considering the nature of Puppy Linux, indeed any flavor of Linux, because they come back to the central question of who dictates to the user how to use their machine.

Today Sen Wyden, in supporting Sen Paul, began asking about backdoor policies that allow governments to check back what websites people are looking at and their being prosecuted accordingly. That there are laws in place governing this ties into a bunch of other things such as the use of the Tor browser, which to my knowledge has a place here. (And has been controversial here too.)

All of us agree that we are the arbiters of who does what with our machines. That question, I would think, is pretty apolitical. Today I found myself wondering about email encryption after what I heard, and I have one of the most boring inboxes on earth. Even though Section 215 went down (for the present) there is now a much wider infrastructure capable of monitoring everything from wireless networks to individual computers. And as Sen Wyden pointed out, instead of encouraging greater security protocols such as encryption, the USG seems to be taking a position of telling companies to allow for security holes for surveillance purposes.

Just a week ago the Free Software Foundation put this up on that very issue:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/aski ... not-enough

This is bigger than Democrats or Republicans or monarchists or whatever. It's part of a terrifying worldwide trend to:

* take advantage of users of devices who are dumbed down by the apparent simplicity of our multi-layered systems (most kids think Facebook apps are direct, not realizing they are a layer above the HTTP layer, which itself is above the (compiled) browser layer, which is above the raw code itself. It's just clicking a button and liking pics of pets!

* restrict those users of devices who do know better, and attempt to subvert their software at the level of code. If we find your garden-variety thief swiping information from our machines unethical, should we assent to government doing the exact same thing on a massive scale?

In that context, it is an important discussion, no matter where this topic ends up on the forum. As it stands we can say something to stop it and fight for our freedom to use our machines as we choose to. But if these measures pass, and back-dooring is allowed, we-- all Free Software users and in fact any software user with even an inkling of how to remove or bypass those legal backdoors-- run the risk of becoming enemies of the state.

[gcmartin]

@Deacon hits right where it hurts. He is raising the real question that should have been a part of the initial opening post. I agree!!!

As it stands we can say something to stop it and fight for our freedom to use our machines as we choose to. But if these measures pass, and back-dooring is allowed, we-- all Free Software users and in fact any software user with even an inkling of how to remove or bypass those legal backdoors-- run the risk of becoming enemies of the state.

And, if this had occurred, it would have changed this thread from a political thread aimed at emotions on individuals to one where it discusses the technology and asks the community to contact their representatives addressing this.

The people must begin to understand that its their responsibility to insure that their voices are heard as it relates to the impacts on our technological use; now and into the future. And, asking members to review the topic and contacts those site organizations which exist to make representatives aware of their responsibility to the Public (and not a Party which help them get elected) is what citizens expect. But, we have seen little of this kind of requests in the forum. Instead, we do see a new effort to insert "political discourse" into this very forum where it can reach a wider audience than used to do so before in the forum.

Thus there is a difference between politicking for emotional public persuasion versus asking the community to review to protect or change rights (laws) associated with technology usage when those things "land in the lap of your legislature representatives".

As was the case when they were asked about Net Neutrality (And this request has been made to US Congress by every US President since, including, Clinton. It has been on the US Congress's docket for 22 years and still, today, they will not bring it to the floor.), US Congress goes and hides rather than address the real Public concerns.

We do, across the world, need to be open eyed for requesting legislative need for Public benefit and protections.

Again, this thread needs to be moved to "Truly Off-Topic" while the forum, in this Security topic area could begin to discuss the technical security aspects and how to keep legislatures aware of technical specifics when it rises to THEIR plates to address. We are a technical forum and, yes, we should, I feel, exert ourselves when technical laws are made such that Public benefit is either derived or protected.

Thanks.

[8Geee]

I would say that if the government did not blanket-spy, I would not post what I did post. I think there is a proper way for the government to infiltrate terrorism and social-media recruiting leading to acts of terror. Innocent well-minded citizens have a protected inalienable right of privacy that must not be violated. Our government much to our dismay has violated this right using a corporate entity (Verizon in the original post) as the subject of a search warraant. This because a corporate entity has been given the same right as any other Living Citizen. (It makes Political Action Committees legal.)