Comment

Comment on The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website

sab@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.

As the title mentions, this an endless chase if you approach it like this. Vigilante mobs aren’t going to solve this, it’s going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can’t. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.

As mentioned several times in this thread, shifting the responsibility for what is allowed to be said on the Internet from governments to corporate entities is a terrible precedent.

source

Sort:hotnew top

pqdinfo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.

That’s not the point, no. The “whole point” from the EFF’s standpoint, if you’d bothered to read the article, is that ISPs shouldn’t block each other unless ordered by a court, even when lives are at stake.

Edit: Nevermind. I see you’re also responsible for this wonderful gem:

it’s going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can’t. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.

(Unlike you, I’m not quoting out of context above. As I already wrote, there are no enforceable laws here, the only way the state can act is if it passes draconian laws that work on an International level.)

(Oh, and the quote out of context? We’re talking about the EFF demanding ISPs not block websites organizing the deaths of transgender people, while simultaneously saying it’s the role of the state while arguing (rightly) the state shouldn’t create draconian privacy invading laws to do just that. Explain please how you can be against privacy invading laws AND against private entities from deciding their infrastructure should not be used to kill transgender people, unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people? Because there’s no fucking middle ground here. There’s no third option between “The state shouldn’t take action” and “ISPs shouldn’t voluntarily take action”. What is it?)

source
- jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Everyone here, including the EFF, has explicitly said the state should take action against people plotting to murder.
  
  source
  - pqdinfo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Cool story bro.
    
    Now address what those laws would look like if you’re trying to take down an international network with anonymous users and you want it to be effective.
    
    There is no way, no way on Earth, the EFF would be in favor of those laws.
    
    source
    jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Sure. Court gets together says hey this content’s illegal, you backbone provider terminate their access. As long as there’s a court and due process I’m okay with it.
    
    Letting a corporation do an arbitrarily is the problem
    
    source