Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Korea Kicking People Offline With One Strike 176

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the strike-onetwothree dept.
An anonymous reader writes "While there's lots of talk of 'three strikes' laws in places like France, it may be worth looking over at South Korea, which put in place a strict new copyright law, required by a 'free trade' agreement with the US (which was the basis for ACTA). It went into effect in the middle of 2009, and now there's some data about how the program is going. What's most troubling is that the Copyright Commission appears to be using its powers to 'recommend' ISPs suspend user accounts based on just one strike, with no notice and no warning. The system lets the Commission make recommendations, but in well over 99% of the cases, the ISPs follow the recommendations, and they've never refused to suspend a user's account."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Korea Kicking People Offline With One Strike

Comments Filter:
  • Online gaming (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:17PM (#34029394) Homepage Journal

    Given the importance of online gaming and internet addiction in South Korea, this is actually bigger there than it would be here.

    However, in the age of 3G internet access, roaming WiFi hotspots, anonymizer services, and the prevalance of internet cafes in South Korea, I think you'll find it difficult to nail individuals to specific IPs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bondsbw (888959)

      Speaking of games... ever notice how many real-life rules are based on baseball? What if the guy who invented baseball chose four-strikes, or two-strikes? Law and our economy may hang in the balance of some one-off decision made by a kid hundreds of years ago.

      • by Entropius (188861)

        Just imagine if it had been cricket, baseball's close cousin...

        • I don't want to be out middle stump just for downloading "Transformers".

          • by rockout (1039072)
            I find it ironic that the guy who brought up the "three strikes" thing was modded Offtopic, and yet dozens of people have responded to him, implying that his post was, at the very least, interesting to some.
      • by XanC (644172)

        That's an interesting idea. But I think it's likely that for any kind of "chances", three turns out to be a good number. Whether it's strikes or convictions or whatever, one is an accident, two is a coincidence, and three is a pattern of behavior. In other words, three strikes in baseball and three strikes in other things have the same root.

        • Fool me seven times or fewer, shame on you. Fool m eight or more times, shame on me.

        • by Gerzel (240421)

          Except there is not data being used to establish this. It is just an arbitrary number absolving the legal system of thought, and due process.

          • by c6gunner (950153)

            What kind of data would you want, exactly?

            Crime and punishment aren't based on a rational analysis of data - they're based on biological imperatives and emotions. We feel that being lenient with someone a few times is warranted, because everyone makes mistakes. We know that repeat offenders are unlikely to modify their behavior. So we pick a number that seems fair, and go with it. If you've got a better process, please, do share.

      • I assume it is more that someone assumed 3 was a fair number, and they associated it with a common existing phrase. If they had decided you went to jail for life on your fourth offense, they could have called it four downs and referenced football.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by h00manist (800926)

      nail individuals to specific IPs.

      That's the main achilles heel of online free speech. Too bad nobody's figured out a solution that scales to everyone. Using other people's IP only goes so far. You can run all you want within Tor, but nobody wants to run the exit nodes. Plus, it brings the problem of anonymity for real crime with real victims, and therefore real investigations, right into the anonymity network. I run a cybercafe, it's a constant legal preocupation. I think of just closing all the time, many around here did...

      • Nobody? There are plenty of Tor exit nodes. I'd run one if I had more than 64KBps of upstream.

        • People are afraid to run them, for for quite obvious reason. You risk having the FBI (Or your country's equivilent) smash your door down and arrest you after tracking some child-porn/cybercrime/other to your IP address. You could probably prove you were unaware of what's going over the link, but law enforcement are infamously eager to prosecute when high-profile crimes are involved, so the legal fees can be crippling even if you win. Anyone who runs a Tor exit node needs to be either stupid enough to not wo
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by icebraining (1313345)

            I've never heard anyone here even go to court, unless they were part of a full network producing and selling content, and even that is not common.

            For actually perpetrating acts of pedophilia with real children, sure, we have plenty. In fact we had a huge scandal [wikipedia.org] a few years ago, and the trial has ended just now (our justice system is sloooooow). But for downloading? Never heard of it.

            • Usually doesn't make the news, but most things don't. Search around for it, you'll find some news on it.

              • I did. Plenty of news about other countries, no news about any Portuguese being arrested purely for downloading.

                I don't think our investigation cops waste time phishing people, nor do the ISPs have filters for it. Even for downloading and sharing copyrightten content (which *everyone* does), only one guy has been sentenced, to 90 days in prison!

          • by sjames (1099)

            Even if a grand jury won't indict, the equipment they confiscate will almost inevitably be returned broken with police swearing it was that way when they took it.

            And, as you say, the legal fees and debt from lost work will follow you for years to come.

          • Re:Online gaming (Score:5, Interesting)

            by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @07:27PM (#34032374)

            Anyone who runs a Tor exit node needs to be either stupid enough to not worry, or sufficiently idealistic they are willing to take the risk of such an event in the name of free speech activism.

            *raising hand*

            Sufficiently Idealistic. Right here. Being disabled at birth meant I could not honor the family tradition of entering the military and fighting for my country. Probably a good thing, since I would have just ended up killing women and children in Iraq or Afghanistan.

            Going to court to provide a litigation vehicle to strengthen the principles of Anonymity Through Reasonable Doubt? I'll throw myself on the grenade all day long and die with pride and honor. It's the least I can do for my fellow citizens and the cause of true freedom.

      • by hoggoth (414195)

        > Tor, but nobody wants to run the exit nodes

        I know plenty of organizations that run exit nodes. The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, ATF, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EdIII (1114411)

      I hope it's huge. Really HUGE. Godzilla huge. Yes I know that is Japan.....

      Hopefully, they kick off a few thousand people a day. Seriously.

      If there is one place to get a really good Darknet going, it would South Korea at that point. Anything to finally give the impetus for society at large to move from the Internet, to a darknet layered on top of it. Ultimately better for society anyways.

      • by melikamp (631205)

        Effective darknets—the ones that give you actual privacy—will remain illegal on Internet, and it should not be fixed by technical means, since Internet can be either anonymous or fast, but hardly both. It may be within the law to run something like Tor, but that won't matter for liability purposes when someone is using your node for an illegal activity. At the very best, you will get your node taken in for questioning, and, IMHO, it is supposed to work this way. The only legit way to create anon

        • by EdIII (1114411)

          Effective darknets—the ones that give you actual privacy—will remain illegal on Internet, and it should not be fixed by technical means, since Internet can be either anonymous or fast, but hardly both. It may be within the law to run something like Tor, but that won't matter for liability purposes when someone is using your node for an illegal activity. At the very best, you will get your node taken in for questioning, and, IMHO, it is supposed to work this way. The only legit way to create anonymity on Internet is by legal means: individual access points have to be given the safe harbor reserved today for big ISPs.

          I have to disagree. Anonymity can be both present and fast. Very fast. What it requires though, is a very high level of participation, in addition to more advanced intelligence in making route decisions. If over half of all Internet users in a given city participated in an advanced darknet, I believe that the speed would be largely indistinguishable from a regular connection. To my knowledge the only network that has come close to showing this level of performance was Perfect Dark in Japan. I could be

          • by melikamp (631205)

            You also mention criminal organizations locating themselves on darknets hosted on botnets. Well, that is a price we have to pay.

            Oh, no, I understand that. I think may we agree here: I am saying, without a legal public darknet, there will be a sound business sense in herding botnets and selling them to whoever needs privacy, for whatever reason. So instead of a metered, voluntary, secure darknet infrastructure, we will still have one just as robust, but unmetered, involuntary, and by very definition insecure. And it's only available to criminals. This is a worse outcome, no matter how we look at it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jmauro (32523)

      Except in Korea you must register for all accounts using your Resident registration number [wikipedia.org]. I mean everything: ISPs, bank sites, WoW, blog comments, etc. As such it's fairly easy to track people down since there is no concept of anonymity on the South Korean Internet. As such all they need to do to block you is put your RRN on the black list and you won't be able to get access again.

      The Korean authorities also been known [wired.com] to track people down who say critical things about them using this ID as well a

      • Just enter a fake number, and you're done.
        • It's difficult to guess other people's resident numbers, and if you get caught using someone else's ID you will suffer consequences.

      • You don't need to enter an ID card just to use the internet at an internet cafe. Go to one of the many warez sites, download onto your USB and away you go.

  • ACTA again (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:20PM (#34029462)

    Dear USA,

    if your corporate leaders had not sent all your manufacturing jobs to China and India, your whole future economy would not depend on media production.

    Fuck ACTA, and fuck the RIAA and MPAA.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Dear USA Consumer,

      If you had not shopped at Walmart, big box and huge brand retailers and insisted on cheap vats of everything, you wouldn't have driven all the businesses that tried to keep manufacturing jobs in the US out of business or into the hands of private equity firms (who promptly shipped the jobs to China and India).

      Don't blame the corporate leaders. In most cases, they are responding to the absolute force of market pressure. The death of independent retail has sharpened market pressures to the

      • Re:ACTA again (Score:4, Interesting)

        by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:54PM (#34030096)

        You can't honestly be blaming individuals for trying to strecth their meager dollars by shopping at walmart, while at the same time giving a pardon to corporate leaders who are trying to maximize their millions by cutting jobs.

        I would never eat food from a Costco or Walmart knowing what their buying practices are like.

        I think I speak for the whole internet when I say we are in awe of you, good sir. [slow clap]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by erroneus (253617)

        I think that's a chicken or egg situation.

        I'll admit that typical American consumerism is pretty much out of hand. But it couldn't have happened without the businesses themselves offering these as a way to win over the competition. After all, if they can't make something "better" they will make more of it available at the same price. Competition has to occur for the free market to operate.

        That said, I am not a proponent of the free market. I am, instead, a proponent of a regulated market. Individuals a

      • Mod this parent up!

        I visited a small town on the east coast. It used to be a prosperous steel production town. Very poor now, the mines are closed, everything has gone to flip. This I do not believe was because of consumer pressure, I believe the shipping of steel production overseas happened long before Wal-Marts relative status.

        But the parent here is correct. Fools who shop at Wal-Mart. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. My wife sometimes wants to go to Wal-Mart because she thinks things there are "cheap

        • by c0d3g33k (102699)

          Nice post. But what is the alternative? Where can I shop that directly counteracts the WalMart behemoth? Is there even such a place?

        • by c6gunner (950153)

          Wal-Mart rocks. I shop there every chance I get. Even get my oil-change and basic car maintenance there, and they do a better job than the privately-owned shop I used to go to. Wal-Mart is one American export that I'm glad to have!

          • by Mysteray (713473)

            Not really sure what this has to do with Wal-Mart, but (IMHO) I'm very disinclined to go back any time soon because:

            The place was grungy. Not dirty, just the kind of grungy you get if you clean precisely the surfaces on some fixed list and nothing else, for years and years.

            I stood around for 10 minutes and no staff made eye contact, much less offer to allow me to purchase the item in the locked glass cabinet that I went there to buy.

            I find the nearest register in Electronics and ask. The guy gets the item,

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rale, the (659351)

        I would never eat food from a Costco or Walmart knowing what their buying practices are like.

        I wont question the statement about Walmart, but is Costco really that bad? I can't remember reading horror stories about them the way I have Walmart, so do you have some examples, or are you just lumping them in because they seem similar?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Stregano (1285764)
        All I have to say, is that Kroger individually sliced American cheese sucks ass. Kraft cheese went down to $1 and it was well worth it (it was a sale and not the standard price). How is this not off topic? I got a buttload of cheese for dirt cheap because it was cheap, but the quality was horrible and hurt companies like Kraft.

        Dear Kraft,

        My Bad. I will buy you from now on.



        Dear Kroger,

        You cheese sucks ass
      • by sjames (1099)

        Walmart used to buy American and provide low prices all the same. The decision to change that was a corporate one (after Sam died).

        If corporate America came up with a store that behaved the way Walmart USED to, it would probably do decently (though at less profit than Walmart for now) but the choice for consumers simply isn't there.

        All made possible by legislators in the pockets of people who needed free trade to line their pockets at the expense of all else including their own country.

    • Absolutely nothing. Well except microprocessors for pretty much every computer out there. Both Intel and AMD have R&D in the US, and Intel has many fabs. If you buy a current 45nm or 32nm chip it comes courtesy of Arizona or Oregon. But that's it! Oh, well except for aircraft. The US also produces those, and is in fact one of only two large commercial airline producers in the world (Boeing is US, Airbus is EU) though Embarer (Brazil) is slowly edging up from small jets. But that's it! Ummm except for To

  • ...in well over 99% of the cases, the ISPs follow the recommendations, and they've never refused to suspend a user's account.

    So...what happens in the other 1%?

  • Hey, it worked back then [wikipedia.org], crime rates were much lower. Come on, just be pragmatic.
    • crime rates were lower (per capita)? ::citation required::

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      Not true. Crime rates where much higher at times when capital punishment was more popular.

      • by h00manist (800926)

        Not true. Crime rates where much higher at times when capital punishment was more popular.

        Yes, but nobody knows that. We need some way to accuse and kill our enemies cleanly. Accuse them of crime, then execute them. They won't ever complain of injustice, therefore -- JUSTICE WAS DONE! **






        ** Any similarity to vengeance or other random violence purely coincidental.

    • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc@@@carpanet...net> on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:51PM (#34030020) Homepage

      I know its a joke, but....

      "More Sex is Safer Sex" by Steven Landsburg presents an interesting case on the severity of punishment not being a deterrent.

      The chapter on LoJack makes the connection that, raising the penalty on car theft has generally resulted in only minor changes in the actual crime rate. I don't remember what he cited there, but the other side... the LoJack case was impressive. What they saw was that if enough LoJacks were sold in an area to raise the overall chance of being caught by about 1%, it correlated with a 20% decrease in car thefts!

      It makes sense. With all but the worst prison gangs, most people don't want to get caught. Getting caught means public records, it means trouble finding jobs, it means having to explain to friends and family, etc. There are lots of reasons to not want to get caught, in fact, the entirety of the penalty (whether its decapitation or a slap on the wrist) is modified by the chance of being caught.

      So even if the penalty is decapitation, thats only the penalty of getting caught. If I can reasonably expect to do something and not get caught, then why would the penalty even come into the picture? Its like driving a car with your kid in the back seat. If you get in an accident, your child could be killed. There is a chance of this any and every time that you drive a car for any real distance.

      However, few people would say that this horrible and unlikely outcome is reason enough to never put their child in a car and drive. In fact, I have never heard the argument made. In fact, I have never even heard the argument made that one should limit or try to avoid that situation.... even though the "worst outcome" is clearly quite severe... the chances of that outcome happening are considered widely acceptable risk.

      -Steve

      • by definate (876684)

        While this works well for clear cut offenses, such as theft/murder/rape/etc, it will not work well for those offenses which aren't so clear cut, such as piracy/drugs/tax evasion/etc. Because while it could mean jail time, the other drivers of this change (having to explain it to friends and family, public records, finding a job later) are all greatly reduced, or non-existent (depending on how the sample is defined). As such, you will find that a greater percentage of the population will have a lower "cost"

  • Darn (Score:4, Funny)

    by orphiuchus (1146483) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:28PM (#34029602)
    I thought this was an article about the Koreans finding a way to make baseball watchable.
  • Isn't it odd (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:30PM (#34029636)
    Isn't it odd that "free trade" agreements are never that? The more and more countries stop making their own laws with their elected officials and start offshoring lawmaking to para-governmental organizations with no oversight, the more and more countries slip into tyranny.
    • by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:00PM (#34030190)
      I think you hit the nail on the head. They keep tossing this "free" word around as if it provided some kind of freedom. The only people getting anything for "free" or getting any "freedom" out of this are megacorps and the people who run them.

      Freedom to write laws and have them rubberstamped by congress.
      Freedom to destroy the livelihood of any citizen caught listening to music they weren't allowed to hear.
      Freedom to never, ever change their business model and continue selling their products at ever-higher prices and have those prices protected by the government.
    • by camperslo (704715)

      It would probably puzzle some in other countries if a bunch of people from the U.S. wrote saying they were going to boycott for their adopting canned laws from the U.S. Of course even the U.S. is a victim of some canned laws. The lobbies write them then start funneling in the cash.

      The situation is only worse now that corporations have "free speech" cash funneling rights.
      How about we ask the F.C.C. to change the regulation of broadcasters to make all political broadcasts public service time (they can and s

      • The concept of broadcasters operating as trustees of the public interest is an important one that we've drifted far from. Let's correct that.

        This is an antiquated view and a laughable one at that. Before cable TV and before the internet, you might have a valid point, but today? If you want news you can get it from whatever slant you feel like it thanks to the internet, you can get your news from a republican, democrat, libertarian, green, anarchist, asian, european, mexican, christian, jewish, islamic, etc. slant. Similarly, the decrease in publishing costs mean that paper newspapers are also more affordable than ever to start up and print.

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      That's because most 'free trade' agreements are some form of protected trade, as you pointed out not any form of free trade. NAFTA for example is a fair trade agreement. If it was truly a free trade agreement I wouldn't get shafted with duties when I buy from the US.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DragonWriter (970822)

      Isn't it odd that "free trade" agreements are never that?

      No, its not odd that corporate products are deceptively labeled.

    • by c6gunner (950153)

      Garbage. You clearly have no clue what the phrase "free trade" means. Here, educate yourself [wikipedia.org].

  • I know personally I have no idea, so I'll simply pose the question:

    How much piracy is it estimated there is in South Korea?
    How much effect do they think the law has?

    It's very hard to judge a law based on only how many people are affected by it. If they estimate that there are millions of people using pirated software, then 30k banned isn't that much. If they think it's in the hundreds-of-thousands, it is.

    How much a law is applied is only half the story; what's important is who it's applied against. If they'

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      It doesn't matter how many people are affected by it when the law itself is corrupt. Using that logic you can make every law seem reasonable. Lynching blacks isn't bad because out of the million of blacks only a few hundred to a few thousands got lynched. Same logic.

      First off, the idea of "piracy" is laughable. Our entire property system is based on the notion of physical property. If we could duplicate anything, cars, food, clean water, gold, etc. we wouldn't need laws to protect our property because w
      • Our entire property system is based on the notion of physical property.

        No it's not. This is demonstrably false. Indeed, copyright was introduced to American law by the United States Constitution.

      • Piracy is a crime and has been for hundreds of years.

        Just because something has no physical form and can be duplicated for free doesn't mean it didn't take effort. Fuck you. I worked hard to make my products. If I want to be payed for my labor and time then I should be allowed to charge for it.

        I'm not saying that the current penalties aren't obscene and probably unconstitutional. But the notion that people shouldn't pay for things simply because they can be duplicated for free is equally offensive. No i

    • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:46PM (#34030950) Homepage Journal

      I can't answer your question but I will say that the Koreans do things differently. Once I needed to download a .deb to install uucp on my laptop. I got a line and an IP address but all I got was a text file telling me I wasn't allowed to access that file. So I gave the URL and a USB key to a guy with a windows box. Still he got the same message. He removed the USB key and the file downloaded okay to local storage. Then he mounted the usb key and passed the .deb to me.

      You see everybody runs IE. The web proxies install a component (ActiveX I suppose) which checks for mounted devices which could be used for piracy or to upload malware. Its stupid and easy to work around but people just seem at accept it as the way things work.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:31PM (#34029656) Homepage

    Not only did I read the article, I read the comments as well. The first one I read was a rather interesting quesiton: "Did sales of copyrighted materials go up as a result?" After all, in theory, with "reduced piracy" there should be an increase in sales.

    But we all know that's not why they are doing this. There are no real losses. Fact is, like all other IP, there is an element of enforce it or forget it. While copyright doesn't actually "go away" when it is not enforced as in the case of trade marks, the more freely the infringement occurs, the less likely people are to respect it.

    It would be nice if there were some middle ground, some safe area for file sharers. But there's not just yet. I am a file sharer of content that I don't fear sharing. But where U.S. content of any sort is concerned, I simply don't share. I might download and then disconnect on occasion, but rarely even that. Got too much to lose.

    • by mellon (7048) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:37PM (#34029754) Homepage

      The thing that I found interesting about TFA was that a total of 31 people in all of Korea were disconnected over the course of a year. Hardly headline news..

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        The problem isn't how many people, its the fact that the law is on the books and is being enforced.

        Would slavery be any more justified if only 31 people died in a year of the slave trade? Would murder be justified if you only killed 31 people?
    • But we all know that's not why they are doing this. There are no real losses.

      Actually, the funny thing is there are losses. Think about it, a serious criminal will just steal/hack/forge ID and get another connection. A normal consumer who just got caught torrenting a song, will be offline forever and UNABLE TO CONSUME DIGITAL MEDIA, lol. The media companies are slowly destroying people's ability to purchase digital goods from them...
  • As my phone requires a data plan, and if that data plan is then cancelled due to a violation like this what happens to my contract? Although I realize you could possible face a lawsuit over the content, I'm more curious about the possibility to escape from cell phone contracts.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jimicus (737525)

      Most of the cell phone contracts I've seen explicitly write it into the contract that if your connection is terminated through your own actions, you're still on the hook for the cash.

  • by magus_melchior (262681) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @04:59PM (#34030162) Journal

    And I don't mean "we looked at the evidence for the defendant and concluded unilaterally that he should be disconnected." I mean the right of the accused to defend oneself in a fair hearing. Due process is a fundamental part of the rule of law, and because it protects the innocent and guilty alike, states absolutely hate its inconvenience and the fact that it lets some of the guilty go free.

    South Korea is remarkably forward-thinking in many ways, but apparently this isn't one of them.

    • by Orga (1720130)
      ISPs are private entities not a state. Like any business they reserve the right to refuse to do business with any individual for whatever reason they feel like. This is what competition is for.
      • by TheSpoom (715771)

        This is what competition is for.

        Ever look at the competition in your local ISP market?

  • OK, more than a slight irony, considering you can buy any media you want on the streets of Korea in convenient optical form, with no hassle, and for $1-2 apiece per disc. (depending on where the won stands vis a vis the dollar).

    Also, while Korea has excellent bandwidth locally, getting streams and downloads in from remote sources (and nearly everything Western is remote, from Korea) can be difficult. Torrenting from the ROK is not pleasant in most cases.

    • by kramulous (977841)

      I just did a aptitude upgrade and downloaded 140MB from an Australian server at an average just over 1Mbps. That's faster than my ISP in Australia (600Kbps). That is from a hotel in Bucheon.

      By no means a thorough test, but still knocks your statement.

  • Transparent Agenda (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazntwich (208070) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:19PM (#34030502)

    Disclaimer: I'm just a paranoid stoner.

    As someone involved with that habit and lifestyle, it's easy to notice the government's quite profitable agenda of socially marginalizing and exploiting parts of the population. Incentivize "proper" social conduct with the various perks of society with tools like credit scores and background checks, using jail as the stick when carrots fail to sufficiently motivate.

    The x-strike laws strike me as a particularly transparent attempt to maintain this status quo. The internet has lead to the creation of online communities for just about every "unsavory" hobby, habit, or problem you could think of. The "wrong" people are no longer socially isolated; Legalization movements are making record progress; Government is losing control.

    Somewhere at the top, someone finally realized the decentralized nature of the internet means standard models of exercising authority fall short. How to reassert control? Convince society of the necessity of elevating the internet to the level of the "gated community home, SUV, and health insurance," you know, out of the hands of those filthy subhumans who live outside the walls.

    Copyright makes sense as the first step. Everyone already agrees on the vital role companies like the RIAA play in our economy, so we must take the privilege of internet from those who dare jeopardize its profits. Then, once it's socially acceptable to deny someone "the internet" for copyright violations, the floodgates are opened to deny it to anyone who displeases the powers that be. Internet privilege denial will become as standard a punishment as revoking a teen's driver's license is for almost any infraction these days.

    "But Spazntwich," you say,"The internet is ubiquitous! You can't possibly prevent someone from getting on the internet!"
    Of course you can't. Just like the government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons. Ineffectiveness of a law has never been a reason to overturn one.

    The internet's universal nature plays right into their hands. Any infraction, intentional or otherwise (remember citizen, ignorance is never an excuse!), will be a violation of probation/parole and place one back at the mercy of the authorities. Right where they want you.

  • One problem with hairtriggers is false positives. I fully expect the aggrieved Korean hackers to take full retaliation against the rich-and-powerful (RAP) in their society.

    How about simple blind spew of trigger packets/seqs with spoofed IPsrc (set to easily guessable RAP home/biz addrs)? Botnet optional. Social DoS. After a few dozen of these, the ISPs might get a clue. Or maybe not, I think a a metric clue-by-four is somewhat larger.

  • You said South Korea, right?

  • by gmuslera (3436) on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @07:36PM (#34032490) Homepage Journal
    Instead of doing a step forward, force all the others do a step backward

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...