While no one ever claimed it, tptacek was correct in assuming people were thinking it. Or, at least, a person was thinking it.
I'm really glad to see a possible explanation for why Homeland Security would be cracking down on music blogs. While I don't agree with the DoHSs actions, I now have a foothold in understanding the situation. It may or may not be correct, but as a fairly logical interpretation of the scenario, it'll suffice.
I'm disappointed to see your fairly dramatic response (though I like the elipses and poetic linebreaks :) ) and 'yummyfajitas's pat response earn collectively more upvotes for delivering far less information (no offense).
To me, jurisdictional questions around the particular authority claimed by ICE to censor the web are interesting only in relation to the larger political decision to censor the web.
Tptacek focuses on only the first question and righteously refuses to look at the latter question. He "prefer not to be baited into discussing" the substantial question here. What I consider an important and disturbing development: the US government effectively taking up the authority to censor websites sans any conviction of web master for anything (sure they "file a lawsuit" but they do NOT have to actually convict or even serve the webmaster in question. It's the effective negation of free speech whatever the ostensible argument).
I thus think the various responses are appropriate. I've disagreed with Yummy on plenty of other issues but he decodes the misdirection in the GP well here.
Tptacek doesn't have to look at the latter question. He simply made a useful point that this has nothing to do with the department of homeland security (and by inference the excessive laws passed as part of the war on terror) but instead another department that is administratively connected.
Of course the US government is acting badly here, and if someone is making a strawman argument it is right to call it out as misdirection, but to my mind, tptacek was simply providing a useful fact.
I suppose this is teaching people about intellectual property...
...how some intellectual property, that owned by large corporations, is so important that other intellectual property should be confiscated by fiat to protect it!
Comments
While no one ever claimed it, tptacek was correct in assuming people were thinking it. Or, at least, a person was thinking it.
I'm really glad to see a possible explanation for why Homeland Security would be cracking down on music blogs. While I don't agree with the DoHSs actions, I now have a foothold in understanding the situation. It may or may not be correct, but as a fairly logical interpretation of the scenario, it'll suffice.
I'm disappointed to see your fairly dramatic response (though I like the elipses and poetic linebreaks :) ) and 'yummyfajitas's pat response earn collectively more upvotes for delivering far less information (no offense).
To me, jurisdictional questions around the particular authority claimed by ICE to censor the web are interesting only in relation to the larger political decision to censor the web.
Tptacek focuses on only the first question and righteously refuses to look at the latter question. He "prefer not to be baited into discussing" the substantial question here. What I consider an important and disturbing development: the US government effectively taking up the authority to censor websites sans any conviction of web master for anything (sure they "file a lawsuit" but they do NOT have to actually convict or even serve the webmaster in question. It's the effective negation of free speech whatever the ostensible argument).
I thus think the various responses are appropriate. I've disagreed with Yummy on plenty of other issues but he decodes the misdirection in the GP well here.
Tptacek doesn't have to look at the latter question. He simply made a useful point that this has nothing to do with the department of homeland security (and by inference the excessive laws passed as part of the war on terror) but instead another department that is administratively connected.
Of course the US government is acting badly here, and if someone is making a strawman argument it is right to call it out as misdirection, but to my mind, tptacek was simply providing a useful fact.
You found me out. It's all part of my evil plot to make HN'ers care about intellectual property. Curse you!
I suppose this is teaching people about intellectual property...
...how some intellectual property, that owned by large corporations, is so important that other intellectual property should be confiscated by fiat to protect it!