|
Top-level
 @ariadne @eff EFF: "To put it even more simply: When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off the light and heat to the entire house..." We do, in fact, do exactly that. We also seize the house, cars, bank accounts, children, and any other property related. Then we require the person, who had their property seized, prove their innocence - by litigation without any resources - to get their wealth back. 23 comments
@ariadne @eff And just in case it isn't obvious to the EFF: we also do that for children seeking abortions, anyone who helps them, and for parents who refuse to abuse their trans children. When choosing who should get hurt, the EFF decided to support the terrorists instead of their victims. Al Qaeda would have been a more sympathetic client; at least AQ didn't receive material support from US state governments.  @ariadne @opendna @eff I'm taking the EFF at their word here, but IIUC they argue that Hurricane is so large that if they refuse your traffic you are effectively denied internet access. They singled out 'Tier 1' providers in that regard. Taking them at their word, I do not believe we should allow them to make contract terms of the sort KF would be in breach of. I have no problem kicking them off the internet, it just scares the shit out of me that we might let a corporation make the choice. @mattb @ariadne @opendna @eff there’s no good faith argument for KF specifically to be given internet service, there’s only abstract free speech arguments which rely on an assumption that any denial of speech invariably and unalterably leads to totalitarianism. @mattb @cmsj @ariadne @eff We are already well down that path: refusing service to LGBT+ is protected, as evidenced by multiple SCOTUS rulings. As is refusing service for partisan membership or political beliefs. In that context, the argument here is that violently hateful anti-LGBT+ speech is uniquely privileged. The decision has already been made about who should not be protected: the people KF is dedicated to terrorizing.  @mattb @opendna @eff by the way, HE is not a tier 1 ISP — they purchase transit from Telia to reach Cogent, for example. IncogNET (the hosting provider used by KF) was also previously multihomed, but their other transit got terminated for the same reason — they refuse to follow industry standard practices, like enforcing a real AUP.  @ariadne Then I think HE should have threatened to do the same, and block IncogNET entirely if it didn't comply. I think the eff position only about filtering in the middle of the chain, therefore blocking your direct customer is the correct action here. It also ensures the correct parties get involved in the fight. KF (or any other customer that could be involved in this type of filtering as no one here gives damn about KF) has no mutual contact or obligations with HE... @ariadne I’m curious: say IncogNET was multihomed, HE dropped the announce for KF and I was a single homed HE customer trying to access KF. Would I still be able to reach KF via HE-bought transit or would there be a situation like with IPv6 where HE cannot reach Cogent at all because they buy no v6 transit? @ariadne I ask this because in my view the only bad outcome from this scenario would be HE filtering the full IPv4 internet for their non-IncogNET customers. But if all they are doing is refusing to announce a single homed customer’s range, it’s a complete nothingburger (and even in the former case it’d just make me avoid HE as a single homed upstream (which is an awful idea to begin with, case in point Cogent over IPv6), not really look at it as an attack on the constitution) @mattb @ariadne @eff If not corporations, who? The US and Canadian governments? Then there are clear First Amendment issues. Look, ISPs were blocking the websites of their own workers unions during strikes. Their right to do so is precedent. Facebook (which has monopoly position) is blocking all Canadian news to retaliate against the government. We're not in danger of sliding down a slippery slope, we're at the bottom watching the worst people demand privileges to stay at the top. @mattb @ariadne @eff I listed seizures and denials of service which have not required a court order in the US or Canada for over 20 years. Most are police or administrative actions, but cutting power service is corporate. And I noted the absurdity of seeking redress when you've been deprived of the resources to seek redress. @mattb @ariadne @eff Power cut-offs are less common in my home regions now that before, but only because the people legalized the illegal activities most associated with them. That didn't deprive the power companies of the authority, it made the breaches of TOS so uneconomical that few do it anymore.  I see you've never had your power, cable, or water cut by the company without having legal action taken first. That shit happens all the time. The courts are rarely involved with utility disconnects... @mattb @opendna @ariadne @eff the problem imo is that the criminal justice system doesn't work in this case, and i don't know why. kiwifarms has been home to serious crimes for a while now and the operators are still free to run it. there isn't even an injunction to close down the site so one service after another has to make the decision to kick them out for criminal activity, like cloudflare did last september. |
Gregory's Server
@opendna @ariadne @eff Which... uncomfy energy tbh.
There's a point to a slippery slope argument, but it becomes fallacious when the slope has already been slid down (it has)
also, children aren't property.