[IP] Re: The terrible, no good, rotten, horrible, really bad Web site list ( YES YES djf)

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: eugippius@gmail.com [eugippius@gmail.com] On Behalf Of James J. O'Donnell [provost@georgetown.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:20 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: The terrible, no good, rotten, horrible, really bad Web site list ( YES YES djf)

Dave, thought experiment question.  The net's been around a while now,
a mess of folks have been using it.  What are the worst criminal
and/or violent acts that have been committed that (a) could not have
been committed in such a way without the net's powers and (2) could
*arguably* have been impeded, stopped, deterred, detected, etc., if
there were more regulation/control/etc.?  By the second condition I
mean to omit the to me ineluctable fact that there will be a net and
it will facilitate communication on a scale unlike what has been
possible in the past, so I don't think I'd be very impressed by an
argument that said that if we had a multitude of armies of Stalinist
spies listening in on every act of communication something like 9/11
wouldn't have happened.  Looking for a realistic cost assessment here.

Jim O'Donnell

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:01 AM, David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Deborah Alexander [dsalexan@optonline.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:50 AM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: RE: [IP] Re:      The terrible, no good, rotten, horrible, really bad Web site list ( YES YES djf)
>
> While I agree with the discussion of the problem the author propounds a
> falsehood as to there being no candidate repudiating the Bush grab for
> power. While the distinction between Presidents Clinton and Bush on the
> issue were more quantitative than qualititative, there is in fact a
> reasonably clear contrast between McCain and Obama:
>
> As to McCain, it is increasingly clear that the Senator will embrace the
> unitary executive. See
> http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2008/06/08/does-mccain-endorse-the-unitary-e
> xecutive-theory.htm
> and
> http://www.alternet.org/election08/87402/
>
>
>
>
> By contrast, Barack Obama recently announced [in late May, I believe] that
> within the first 100 days of his presidency he will be reviewing the
> constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed under George
> W. Bush, and move to overturn those which don't pass muster.
>
> This is a good start and is in sharp contrast to what is being learned about
> Sen McCain.
>
> Articles on the Obama statement can be found with some digging, although
> discussion of this was not picked up in the major media - perhaps respect
> for constitutional law by a constitutional law professor is just not sexy
> enough for the MSM.
>
> Some mention in Huffington Post June 2, 2008, and New York Sun, March 31,
> 2008.
>
> Deborah S. Alexander, Esq.
> Alexander Law Offices LLC
> 395 Springfield Avenue
> Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
> Phone: (908) 898-1800
> Fax: (908) 898-1801
> Email: dsaLaw@Alexander-Legal.com
> Web: www.Alexander-Legal.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:42 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Re: The terrible, no good, rotten, horrible, really bad Web
> site list ( YES YES djf)
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Tom Fairlie [tfairlie@frontiernet.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:55 PM
> To: David Farber
> Cc: Brock N. Meeks; karl@cavebear.com
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   The terrible, no good, rotten, horrible, really bad
> Web site list ( YES YES djf)
>
> One should always be wary when one of the four horses of the Internet
> apocalypse are trotted out (i.e., child porn, terrorism, drug trafficking,
> and any sort of generic, mob-related crime such as money laundering).
>
> Policies related to these memes aren't merely the remnants of a failed
> strategy or lazy legislation; they are frequently used to hide even more
> nefarious activities that the private (and often, governmental) entities
> really want passed. As always, follow the money (or see what's being
> hidden), and you will find out why so many people want to shut the
> Internet down, regulate it, or otherwise put it under strict control and
> close scrutiny.
>
> A free, public vehicle for communication is anathema to the goals of
> the people ultimately behind these policies. Lazy, ignorant politicians
> are just useful idiots.
>
> Tom Fairlie
>
> PS, like Brock, I have children, and the last thing I want to see is a
> terrible crime that directly affects them. However, expecting our
> government to effectively resolve any of these issues with its current
> trajectory is probably less useful than simple prayer.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Farber" <dave@farber.net>
> To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:45 PM
> Subject: [IP] Re: The terrible, no good, rotten, horrible, really bad Web
> site list ( YES YES djf)
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Karl Auerbach [karl@cavebear.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:22 PM
> To: David Farber
> Cc: bmeeks@cox.net
> Subject: Re: [IP] The terrible, no good, rotten, horrible, really bad Web
> site list ( YES YES djf)
>
> David Farber wrote:
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Brock N Meeks [bmeeks@cox.net]
>
>> First, I want to know who anointed the National Center for Missing and
>> Exploited Children as judge and jury of what constitutes a child porn
>> Web site?
>
> Welcome to the 21st Century world of private governance - plenary power
> in private hands: No oversight, no review, and often exempt from taxes
> and anti-trust laws.  It is a natural step from the Reagan/Thatcher
> belief that the powers of government are best exercised without public
> oversight by private actors.
>
> This National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is one example,
> Blackwater is another.
>
> One of the reasons that I rail so much about ICANN is that it is also
> one of these things that have power of government exercised via a
> private body.
>
> The big fights in western Europe and N. America of the latter 18th and
> early 19th centuries were concerned with redressing and constraining
> outrageous abuses of national power - one of the most extreme examples
> being the France of Louis XIV.
>
> Unfortunately we are not advancing.  Instead we are going retrograde.
> We are abandoning the idea bodies of limited government exercising
> limited powers that are derived from the citizenry.  We seem to be
> moving back to an era more suggestive of feudal powers vested in
> corporate dukes and NGO nobles.
>
> We are in an era in which power is being concentrated rather than
> diffused.  And that concentration is occurring with the greatest
> rapidity into bodies that are the least accountable to the public.
>
> And this acceptance of concentration is slopping over into other areas.
>  For instance it really bothers me that not one of the US Presidential
> candidates as repudiated Pres. Bush's "unitary executive" grab for
> neo-royal power.
>
>                --karl--
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>



-------------------------------------------