The difference is vlad this is the internet age, and things are not as clear cut as we would like them to be, and things like this are the reason laws and the constitution need big overhauls to include things in this digital age, and unfortunately I do not think many things will be in we the peoples favor.
BUT…
As it stands right now they shut down a service they offered as a convenience not something that was a right to those who use the public transit.
The problem lies in a situation like this is that its a BIG grey area, shutting down service as they did can be taken as a way to remove someones right to assemble as cossey said, but given that the means in which were being used for people to communicate and assemble have more then a single function, it can be taken as a way to prevent civil unrest and assure the safety as those around if there was say people promoting a riot or use of force to get their cause out there. Lets say a Facebook page was made about a non-violent protest and one person says I’m going to shoot the douchebag officer. Well now that can be taken in a completely differeant fashion as its now no longer about being civil and non-violent.
Reading that paragraph over its not worded how I’d like it to be but im kinda bust ATM hopfully you will see what im saying.
THERES WAYY to many grey areas when it comes to the digital age with certain subjects these days.
Again do I think its exactly kosher? No not in the least bit, but as it stands right now I think calling it a constitutional or human rights violation a little extreme.
Well thank you Doctor Shady for explaining to the admin of an Internet Forum that this is the Internet age and there are grey areas in a thread where earlier you posted that this is no big deal. :wow
So where can they draw the line?
Let’s say somebody was starting a Facebook page for a riot to happen, do you think the government can shut that page down?
I never said it was no big deal, I simply said that given this particular situation to call it unconstitutional and a violation of human rights was a little extreme.
As far as your question goes, thats where it becomes a BIG grey area and unfortunately I cannot comment on that particular situation 100% confidently.
To many cards come into play with that one, because while its a page someone made, its hosted on facebooks servers, and at that point facebook can do whatever they want, if facebook tells the government no and they (government) shut down facebook then yes I see that as unconstitutional, but if they go to facebook and ask them to take it down and they (facebook) agree? By no means do I think its right but facebook can do whatever the fuck they want with whatever is hosted on their server space.
It’s even a big grey area with ISP’s, they can do whatever the fuck they want when it comes to content filtering, they can see everything you do, a lot of them have no issue handing over your online deeds to the government should they so choose to view it, if the government contacts all ISP’s and asks them to block a specific address is that really considered a rights violation if the ISP agrees? The ISP reserves all right to block that traffic, you sign that contract, just because the government asked them to does it become a rights violation then?
If an ISP or any provider did not agree to the governments requests and then forcefully shut down that ISP/Provider then yes its 100% a rights violation IMO
WAYY to much grey area in the age of the interwebs.
It’s hard to draw that line when theres a middleman and so much grey area.
What exactly is the constitutional right that was taken away? No one was blocked from assembling underground, and cutting off a communication method in no way coincides with attempting to block a public assembly. Anyone who wanted to protest could have organized above ground. Your argument is pretty flawed, as is this idea that cell service is somehow now considered a “basic human right.”
Here’s the deal: the right to assemble was not taken away when they shut off the ability to communicate via wireless means.
There are still ways to communicate with other people. How the fuck did people 50+ years ago assembly to demonstrate and rally? If you are so dependent on your damn cellphone and can’t figure out another way, then tough shit.
An anonymously posted press release detailed the Anonymous plan:
Begin a massive Black Fax and E-Mail Bomb action, where it would fill every inbox and fax machine at BART with thousands of copies of its message claiming the outage was unacceptable. A list of those email addresses just been posted to Pastebin, a site commonly used by hackers to share text anonymously.
It would remove BART’s website for exactly six hours. That’s twice as long as BART shut off cell phones for.
A “physical protest” will take place at the Civic Center Bart Station.
I loved what Anon stands for but some of their actions are Digitally violent if you will. They are being destructive and flexing their muscles, They are merely pissing people off rather then spreading a message.
Getting people to close paypal accounts in support of wikileaks okay cool thats fine. Hacking a local police station that arrested your buddy and releasing tons of information on officers and on going case files is destructive and unnecessary.
I really hope anon makes a difference, but I think all they are going to accomplish is pissing a lot of people are rather then promoting change.
Lets see if the actually are able to go through and kill facebook by november
well there you go. doesn’t look like they are using their cellphones to forge a head with this demonstration. looks like they are planning AHEAD of time.
I think Anon is going a great job. So you think they are wrong for exposing personal information of users on the mybart website? They said the info wasnt secure, so I see nothing wrong. It would be the users mistake of trusting that website.
You make it sound as though everyone on that payroll is in the wrong. Just because the “Higher Ups” made a decesion people dident agree with your going to punish everyone? Some people who work their simply to support their familys and leave their personal info out there for everoyne to see?
Same thing with the police station, they arrested a member of Anon, who realistically was doing illegal activites, so now your going to punish and officer for doing his job? Putting his personal information out there so someone who may not like him now knows where he lives? Your going to possibly corrupt a fellow americans chances in an ongoing case that may mean life or death, some form of closure for a murdered loved one or whatever kind of things that could be compromised from doing so.
If someone hacked your Lab steve because they dident like what they were doing and exposed every piece of personal information they had on everyone who worked their would that be right? Thats just your job, whehter or not you like what you do there, its your job.
Well Anon is a large group, some things arent done for the best interest of what anon is trying to portray. But from what I understand, there isn’t one “leader” of anon, you could have some joe hacker that’s good at what he does, freak out and do something for his personal benefit, which isnt right in my mind.
However as a whole I like what anon is doing. It might be one of the best ways to help push back at our out-of-control government.
If my lab was doing something horrid and illegal that was directly affecting people in a negative way, and my info was released. I’d probably blame myself for partaking in something like that. However if some rouge hacker just did it to do it for some bullshit reason it wouldnt be right. Not much I can do about it anyway.
What I find more interesting is where will a path like this go. The hackers have to be very nieve to think they can piss on the government without recourse of some kind. Forget which side of the debate your on actions like that aren’t going to do anybody any good in the long run.