Goodbye github and KFN?

[GreyGeek]

An EU proposed law which Facebook, Google and Twitter have already begun implementing...

[oldgeek]

Now that is a scary proposal! If the effects the author predicts are true, it would certainly put an end to internet. Isn't that what governments want? The need for control of many by a few will do us all in eventually. And of course MS would not be unhappy to see Linux forums disappear, would they.

[oshunluvr]

I haven't watched the video and I won't - I hate watching videos unless the content actually requires visual imagery. IMO it's continuing the dumbing down of the American populous. Anyway, to continue...

...I have read a summary or two about this. Can you explain your opinion as to why this would "end" KFN? First of all, it's an EU law not enforceable here per se, but also why is the user regaining control of some of their info somehow damaging to KFN? This has been put forward as an example of what would meet the compliance standard:

Ir reallt doesn't look all that difficult to adapt to a website.

[GreyGeek]

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltech...ng-privacy-law

What is GDPR?
It's a new law that protects residents of the EU — people living there, including Americans. (If you're a European and live in the U.S., you're not protected.) Under GDPR, all companies that have an Internet presence — including large American companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook — have to comply.


At the most basic level, GDPR expands what counts as personal data and your rights over that data. Your data is, for example, what you post on social media, your electronic medical records and your mailing address. It's also your IP address (a string of numbers that's unique to your smartphone or laptop), as well as GPS location.

This isn't about the GDPR, or some silly "opt-in" button to protect your own private data, but about EU Copyright "reforms" that are are going to be piled onto the GDPR that may, if not opposed, come into affect in about 30 days two years. That's something the NPR link isn't telling you.

It is important for those of us in the USA because control of the Internet was given away by Obama and is no longer in US hands or corporations, when push comes to shove. And, the US and many countries in the EU are in mutually binding legal reciprocity agreements, i.e., we enforce your laws if you enforce ours.

FB, Google and Twitter policies are already politically aligned with the EU and their "rules" have been unilaterally changed, and arbitrarily enforced, to meet EU GDPR political standards, even for American users, the dog and pony show about "cutting off 500 million EU Internet users" not withstanding.

Here is why the EU Copyright reform to be triggered in two years is bad:
https://juliareda.eu/2018/05/censors...x-finish-line/

On the topic of copyright, you NOW have the chance to have an influence – a chance that will be long lost in two years, when we’ll all be “suddenly” faced with the challenge of having to implement upload filters and the “link tax” – or running into new limits on what we can do using the web services we rely on.

and
https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/#criticism

After the reform becomes law IF you link to ANY article about Linux on any website in the EU you will be required to pay a link tax, AND, KFN will be required to filter uploads and/or pay link tax to meet EU demands, or face prosecution via EU courts or American courts if EU pushes reciprocity.





Here are a couple EU opposition videos:

[NickStone]

here are some facts about GDPR
https://martechtoday.com/guide/gdpr-the-general-data-protection-regulation

Actually this might be a source
https://www.eugdpr.org/the-regulation.html

[GreyGeek]

Interesting reads.
They point out certain facts. In the "Privacy Shield Program" is a TimeLine document which states that on October 24, 1995,

1995 – October 24th, Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC created to regulate the processing of personal data

What's important about that? Their own documents state that this "protection shield" has been in development for 23 years.

What else happened just before DPD 95/46/EC was created? On October 1, 2016, Pres. Obama gave away US control of ICANN and, more importantly, IANA. Before that date the integrity of every IP Address for every domain name on the Internet was under U.S. control and stewardship.

President Obama has agreed to let the Department of Commerce hand full control over the IANA functions to ICANN, effectively ceding the last control that the U.S. has over the Internet to an ambitious non-profit organization that will have no ties to the U.S. Government.
......

Currently, the U.S. Government vets and approves every domain name and IP Address on the Internet. When the A server is replicated nightly, it is done following U.S. Government oversight and authority to post the new IP Addresses. Now, think about if the U.S. was engaged in cyberwar -- a situation surely to occur. Under this new arrangement, the U.S. may not know if all of the IP Addresses for domain names are legitimate or if they have been manipulated or compromised in some fashion. Moreover, the Government's -- and the private sector's -- ability to get new sites accessible on the Internet would be dependent upon the actions of a non-profit organization which is increasingly multinational. It is also possible that ICANN may fall under the influence of powerful corporations or nation states who do not have U.S. national security interests at the forefront.
...

Once the contract expires and NTIA hands authority to ICANN, this cannot be reversed by Congress or a new Administration. Once it is given away, it is gone, just like when you sell your car, you can't take it back. The U.S. loses control over IANA functions.

The FTC Website is here. They state quite clearly that the FTC will be enforcing the EU Privacy Shield Framework. So, reciprocity was worked out in 2015 and the EU GPDR will be enforced in this country from May 1, 2018 onward.

Currently, there are more than 2,000 companies that have signed on to Privacy Shield, including Google, Microsoft and Facebook. However, it is being legally challenged by privacy advocates in European courts as inadequate.

Inadequate? Of course. The camel's nose inside the tent is not enough. You didn't think that they'd stop there did you? NONE of these links inform the readers of the additional measures which will be voted upon this June.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...PC0593&from=EN

Linking:

(33)For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public.


(38) ... service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies.
(translation: upload filters, i.e., what YT & FB & TW are doing right now if they don't like your POV.)

(40) corporations have to share user info to maintain rights holders equities.

As Reda points out in the link I posted in a previous post:

The law has two major problems according to Reda:

• Link tax: The law would require permission and potentially licensing fees to embed links in a piece of digital content, unless there’s a copyright exception. Europe does not really have a formal fair use doctrine. This essentially operates as a “link tax.”
• Aggressive copyright takedown rules: Platforms would be liable for infringements by users, with some exceptions. Accordingly, content sites (e.g., music and video) would likely be compelled to proactively scan uploaded content before publishing to make sure it didn’t violate copyright rules — resulting in potential censorship.

Earlier this year, European governments issued guidelines requiring “illegal content” to be rapidly removed (within one hour). While that was primarily directed at “terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material and counterfeit products,” it also extended to copyright infringement.


A mix of motivations is playing out behind the scenes. One, as mentioned, is creating a uniform set of copyright laws across Europe. But equally, traditional media publishers are seeking what might be described as a subsidy from Google, Facebook and others who index links and snippets from news stories. The EU wants to “level the playing field” between big Internet companies (which are mostly US-based) and traditional publishers. The publishers and their agents have been lobbying for these copyright changes and claim it’s about basic fairness.

If the law as proposed passes, Google would likely be required to pay whenever it shows even snippets of copyrighted content in News or search results. But similar laws in Spain and Germany did not result in the anticipated benefits for traditional news publishers — and caused damage to both users and publisher interests.

In the US the effect of GDPR and its copyright extension depends entirely on the FTC and its enforcement policy.

This and my other posts in this thread would be entirely illegal beginning in July, IF the FTC adheres to the copyright and link tax guidelines.

News sites that are not identified with the MNM would be hamstrung out of existence. Don't think so? Ask yourself how free speech is fairing in Sweden, Britain, and the EU, to say nothing of the US.

[woodsmoke]

There is probably nobody here who remembers two things that I posted over several fora starting about ten years ago.

A) How many people have even heard of "Blackmask Online".

Probably nobody...

Blackmask Online was a volunteer organization, of which I was one, who transcripted the old...OUT OF COPYRIGHT "pulp thrillers" into Epub etc. so that ANYBODY...that means YOU could read the "old pupp fiction"...like The Shadow.

Well, the U.S. changed it's copyright laws to make any publication which was "in print" within the past twenty years was owned by that company. Well,... yeah...The Shadow was REALLY kept in publication and the company really did adhear to the copyright law and that was all ok.

However, there are a LOT of old pulp fiction stories that were immediately DROPPED after publication and had NEVER been "kept in publication"...well guess what...and guess which President... all of a sudden the big paper publishers who were going to get into e-documents suddenly developed "great interest" in these things for one and only one reason...

"If I, my company, does not own that...then I don't own that and i "might" lose money because somebody is reading something i do not have!".

Blackmask was basically harrased out of existence, it was a "one person" operation and guess where the books all ended up...?

Project Gutenberg...my my my...

even the supposedly "open people" want...THAT... "I don't have it and I WANT it".

Now, does Project Gutenberg do a good job...yes... but that is not the point...

A "consortium" basically destroyed a small group because they...wanted to...

So...if a "open thing" will willingly DESTROY another "open thing"... what will people with MONEY do?

A good example of what has been happening for several years...that people in the U.S. are clueless about is that YouTube has "certain VERSIONS of content" that are viewable in the "EU" and not in the U.s.

But...wait... the argument is that everybody is supposed to be "equal"...right...

One of the things about the Patriot Act, that Obama reauthorized is that "an entity" can go to JAIL if it can be proved that the "entity"...is causing THE POSSIBILITY of harm to a U.S. company.

Ok...we think of the evil Chinese causing "possible" harm to...for instance a military manufacturer...

But...no...

think large...

When ALL of this goes into effect...

MICROSHAFT ... WILL...SUE...Kubuntu and all other Linux "et al"...because the Kubuntu OS can be shown to POSSIBLY harming Microshaft financially.

PART TWO...

for years I said that sometime that "the media companies" would get some kind of law enabled somewhere to GEOGAPHICALLY cordon off the U.S from having music that is produced say in Haiti that is FREE from coming into the U.S. .

And guess what...I was sneered at and shouted down because ...an oh I love this...that "the people will find a way"...

Ok...so just how big is a Kubuntu ISO?

Right now...

YouTube has a popup when watching a video about "experiencing problems? - find out why". And the video suddenly freezes...

And the linky shows a bunch of gobbeldy gook about whatever when it is YOU TUBE ...that is THROTTELING the video to force people to finally "give up" and subscribe to You Tube Red...

What is the extension of this..? You Tube will eventually work with Comcast, et. al. to "throttle" everything if you are not a "paying member"...

and...a Kubuntu .iso is a LOT larger than a MP4... so...

oh those people out there in those houses are possibly harming Microsoft so if they are downloading an .iso then they need to pay extra!!

So then it comes down to...

How many people download Kubu isos multiplied by an increased fee as opposed to the possibility of being sued by Microshaft and the "secondary fees" that are provided to Comcast by an third party involved with Microshaft...

Anybody remember the sudden availability of "FREE" music stations for the Iphone...they were "approved" stations from... Shoutcast just run through Iphone and no mention of Shoutcast on the phone...

How do I know this.?

I showed the Shoutcast site to my students a year or so ago after Iphone was so MAGNANIMOUS to provide those "free' stations...before class started...and when we took a break a student came back in and asked if she could show the students the stations on her phone and I showed the Shoutcast station.

Guess what...

the rest of the students didn't care...

it is all about jumping up and down to the music and twirling the hair...

What I predicted ten years ago is coming to pass only from a different direction.

People should pay CLOSE attention to what GG is posting...

unfortnately I fear that things are quite beyond Kubu control..

And...JUST LIKE THE U.S. FREE INTERNET RADIO STATIONS...

WHICH WERE ENABLED BY GEORGE BUSH...HE...INCEASED liscences for short range F.M. which then gave rise to the plethora of Hispanic stations and loosened the regs on internet radio...

YES there were real pirates in the U.S. who really were playing copyrighted music and SHOULD have been shut down...but no...

Under Obama they were ALL shut down...except...

SOMA FM...which is in a unique situation in that the owner actually TESTIFIED before congress about "subscription" radio and has a local audience in California which keeps them running...

and what was he testifying about?

The media companies asked congress to "compare" a "paid" model in Europe which was apples and oranges.

the paid subscription station was charging the normal high european charges and had very few listeners but... the media companies then argued that ANY free subscription station in the U.S. should pay THAT amount in the form of a tax which would be transferred to the media companies as...

A copyright fee...

The people in the U.S. ALREADY cannot see stuff that is seen in Europe...this will only make things worse...

the people in the U.S. have ONLY ONE "free subscription" radio station IN THE U.S... it will be the "token'...won't say what...

and SHOUTCAST...?

There are already stations on there that do not stream to the U.S...

and it will SOO BE MUCH FEWER...

So you say...

what do I care I don't listen anyway...

that will be the TEST cases...

to stop other stuff "going across borders"...like Kubuntu .isos...

and if people within the U.S. start hosting the .isos...

they will be "throtteled" by the likes of Comcast out of existence by ...INCREASED FEES ...

If...it is even allowed to be sent ...

when Microshaft FOLLOWS MY COMPUTER IN MY LAB... and the SCHOOL allows it... that the "media player" which played an MP4 from my GoPro LAST YEAR is now..."not recognized" by the Microshaft media player...and it is blocked because it "may be dangerous".

Please note this about media player...

Windows Media Player does not support the playback of the .mp4 file format. You can play back .mp4 media files in Windows Media Player when you install DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs. DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs include the Ligos LSX-MPEG Player and the EnvivioTV.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...s-media-player

BUT...WAIT...forsooth and forthwith...all one needs to do is install "Directshow"...

ok so what is Direct show...

Microsoft plans to completely replace DirectShow gradually with Media Foundation in future Windows versions. One reason cited by Microsoft is to provide "much more robust support for content protection systems"[4] (see digital rights management)

And what is digital rights management? A way to monetize anything and everything...

and it is OWNED by Microshaft...
[quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectShow

And...just consider this. if you will...

Microshaft literally checks my computer at school...

My AND YOUR internet provider has a cache of where you go and what you have downloaded...

THINK ON THIS...THINK ON THIS...

many times when you want to download something like " driver" or whatever...

THE SITE RECOGNIZES that you are using such and such machine and the Ubuntu OS...

that is going through "the cloud"...and just who...is getting majorly into "running the cloud"...
Microshaft...

If Microsaft can see the computer which you are using when downloading a "driver"...

It can see that...OH MY...YOU are using an operating system which...

ACCORDING to the PATRIOT ACT..."might cause me LOST REVENUE"...

and you are just shut off from the net...

keep your OS... but you won't get through me...

or...PAY A FEE...

Wood people should pay attention to what the GG is saying smoke

[NickStone]

INews sites that are not identified with the MNM would be hamstrung out of existence. Don't think so? Ask yourself how free speech is fairing in Sweden, Britain, and the EU, to say nothing of the US.

We do not have laws regarding freedom of speech in Britain (UK). People are generally allowed to say anything they want except that if someone feels offended by what was said or written about then the person who made the comment can be prosecuted.

[chimak111]

We do not have laws regarding freedom of speech in Britain (UK). People are generally allowed to say anything they want except that if someone feels offended by what was said or written about then the person who made the comment can be prosecuted.

And that's the law

[GreyGeek]

We do not have laws regarding freedom of speech in Britain (UK). People are generally allowed to say anything they want except that if someone feels offended by what was said or written about then the person who made the comment can be prosecuted.

Tell me that someone being “offended” is purely objective and not based on subjective feelings or a political agenda.

Basing law on subjective feelings opens Pandora’s box on political manipulation. While someone’s feelings may get hurt, the prosecution of the “offender” boils down to the political bias of those charged with “upholding” the law. The lowest common denominator is the loudest whiner.

[GreyGeek]

This explains the dangers in Article 13

http://www.alphr.com/politics/100947...s-it-copyright

Critics of the proposed directive claim that Article 13 violates the fundamental rights of internet users, contradicts rules previously established by the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, and misunderstands the way people engage with material on the internet. Memes, remixes and other types of user-generated content would all be put at risk, they claim, as these could technically be seen as breaches of copyright.


Public domain organisation, the COMMUNIA International Association, says the EU’s measures “stem from an unbalanced vision of copyright as an issue between rightsholders and infringers”, and that the proposal “chooses to ignore limitations and exceptions to copyright, fundamental freedoms, and existing users’ practices”.

IMO, Article 13 is a veiled attempt to impose content filtering on any content that TPTB decide shouldn't appear on the Internet, and uses reciprocity to force even non EU platforms to abide or face prosecution. Article 13 will be rammed through next month and become EU law.

Want to make a post using a graphic cartoon, a YT video, or snippet of any article that you wish to criticize or support? You'll need written approval from those sources and pay a link tax, IF your post is approved by some bureaucrat. Such content filtering is already taking place on MS, FB, YT, and TW platforms if your content isn't in line with the thinking of Gates, Zukerberg, or Google's CEO, IOW, if you content doesn't support or is critical of Leftist positions.

[TWPonKubuntu]

Hmmmm... Coming soon to a country near you?

This has been a worry of mine for some time now.

It will likely be quickly implemented but even if enough complaints are registered, it will take years to be reversed.

Are we to be reduced to simple content?: "Hi, How Are You?, Weather Is Good/Bad Here<smile>/<frown>. How About You?"

Of course if the appropriate amount of money were to transfer to those behind this, the penalties will simply not be applied to the bribe payer consumer.

[GreyGeek]

Or, if you are of the "correct" political persuasion you get a pass, otherwise you get the boot:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/martha/

Women are being told they have violated Twitter rules against hateful conduct by simply stating biological and legal facts. Women must not be shamed or silenced for speaking the reality.

Here are some examples of the tweets that have resulted in a suspension:
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlterEgO_...15368232488960

In Canada and Britain it has been ruled by the courts that the truth is no defense against accusations of "hate" speech. Roseanne has lost her show but Samantha Bee hasn't been booted from her hate filled account. Nice double standard.

[Bings]

What has Canada or Britain got to do with Twitter's house rules or Roseanne Barr?

[GreyGeek]

What has Canada or Britain got to do with Twitter's house rules or Roseanne Barr?

I'm no fan of Barr but she has a right to express her opinions, even "Ambien" induced ones, and I believe her about Ambien because of my wife's experience with it in rehab after her heart operation.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p-2_Weber.html

Truth is No Defense

Amazingly, "truth is no defense" in this bizarre proceeding. Neither the truthfulness (factuality) of a "complained of" writing, nor the motive of the writer, may be considered in determining if it is "likely" to expose persons to "hatred or contempt." As Chairman Pensa bluntly put it:
"It is the finding of this Tribunal that truth is not an issue before us. Parliament has spoken. The use of telephone messages for purposes prohibited by section 13 of the Act cannot be justified by asserting that such messages are truthful. The sole issue is whether such communications are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."


Observes CAFE director Fromm: "This mad hatter's tea party has decided that 'truth is no defense,' that truth doesn't matter. It's only the feelings of the aggrieved minority that determines whether a statement is 'likely' to expose them to hatred or contempt'."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi...ch_controversy

Challenge to Section 13(1)

In the case of Warman v. Lemire,[45] the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that s. 13(1) infringed the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression and could not be saved by s. 1 of the Charter. Since the Tribunal did not have the authority to declare sections of the Act which created it invalid, the Tribunal simply declined to apply s. 13(1) in that case. The prohibition of genocide advocacy (s. 318) and the anti-hate speech provision of the Criminal Code (s. 319) are unaffected by this ruling and remain in force.

On October 1, 2009, the Commission appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal [46] and in February 2014 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled section 13 to be constitutionally valid. The Court reinstated the penalty and the CHRT's cease and desist order against Lemire for violating section 13 even though the section had been repealed by parliament

So, even after Parliament repealed Sec 13(1) in 2014, the Court simply re-instated the penalty against Lemire.

https://www.metafilter.com/99536/Tru...ate-Speech-Law

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8270631.html

https://odinia.org/truth-no-defense-...-video-banned/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1...ssent-silenced



Fortunately, in the US, truth is still a defense, unless we allow the 1A to be infringed or repealed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1293_1o13.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.144341752166

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.