backtop


Print 245 comment(s) - last by MisterModder.. on Jun 25 at 3:20 PM


Under the new ACTA deal, iPods and other electronic devices will be subject to searches. It will be at border agents' discretion what material is infringing. The searches can be conducted without lawyers present and those found in violation will be fined and have their devices destroyed.  (Source: Canada.com)
Under the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) at Canadian border crossings laptops, discs, and iPods will be subject to search, destruction, and fines if infringed copyright material is found

Wikileaks, known for stirring up controversy, leaked secret plans by the U.S. government to enter into a far-reaching new internet monitoring and regulation act known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with Japan, the European Commission, and Switzerland.  The new act was known in some circles as a "Pirate Bay killer", referring to the Swedish torrent site The Pirate Bay, as the new act criminalized nonprofit "facilitation of copyright infringement".  However, the bill also included provisions which would make many commonly used privacy tools illegal and would demand that ISPs provide the government with complete user histories.

Amid public outcry in the U.S. and Europe, a new country is looking to get into the fray.  News site Canada.com reports on details of the act's effects on another partner nation, Canada. International Trade Minister David Emerson announced in October that Canada will participate in ACTA.  Canadian officials view the act as a new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of sorts, this time focusing on copyright instead of trade.

Additional ramifications of the deal of interest to American and Canadian citizens are the new restrictions on travel.  The new act will make border agents essentially "copyright regulators".  They will be authorized under current provisions to search those crossing for illegal copyright materials.  Laptops, iPods and even cellular phones are among the devices that would be searched for illegal content. 

If they found infringed content such as ripped copies of DVDs or CDs they could detain the person.  The penalties are still being ironed out, but a fine for any materials found is planned.  It would be at the discretion of the border agents to determine what infringement is and what isn't.  Under the new act, even legally copied DVDs or CDs would be open to scrutiny.

David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is very alarmed at this development.  He states, "If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close.  The process on ACTA so far has been cloak and dagger. This certainly raises concerns."

The leaked ACTA documents indicate that the new agreement marks a dramatic departure from previous anti-infringement efforts in that it authorizes government action against suspected infringers without any request from the copyright holders.  In the past the copyright holders, or organizations that represented them such as the RIAA or IFPI took action again infringers.  The new act gives government officials "authority to take action against infringers", essentially making them a government RIAA of sorts.

For some users the new act may be "bye bye" to their iPod or laptop.  Under the new act the border agents could destroy any devices found to hold copyright content that is deemed infringed.

The new agreement states that it’s oriented towards increased "civil enforcement" measures.  And don't plan on having a lawyer present; the act includes "authority to order ex parte searches" (searches without a lawyer present) and "and other preliminary measures".

At Canada's borders, agents already search for child pornography.  The new act would expand the frequency of these searches and put iPods, computer discs, and laptops under the search auspices of the border patrol.

Fewer takes issue to the secrecy in the international community surrounding the act.  He states, "We knew this existed, we filed an Access to Information request for this but all it provided us with was the title. All the rest of it was blacked out.  Those negotiations can take place behind closed doors. At the end of the day we may be provided with something that has been negotiated which is a `fait accompli' in which civil society gets no opportunity to critique it."

The new act has also been criticized as it operates outside other international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.  Under the agreement a governing council consisting of representatives from member nations would be created and make policy decisions.

Michael Geist, Canada research chair of Internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa and expert on Canadian copyright law says that the government's behind doors behavior is quite ominous.  He states, "That's what happens when you conduct all of this behind closed doors.  The lack of consultation, the secrecy behind it and the speculation that this will be concluded within a matter of months without any real public input is deeply troubling"

Fewer and Geist both agree though, that once the act is adopted it will be difficult to back out.  If Canada does not comply, it may face big financial penalties as well, similar to those imposed during the Softwood Lumber trade dispute. 

The final decision on the acts adoption is believed to be made at the upcoming G-8 international summit in July 2008.  The agreement marks the most dramatic piece of international law enforcement and copyright to date.  If adopted it will truly transform the electronics world and touch the lives of many citizens.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 10:02:23 AM , Rating: 5
They can look at your iPod, laptop, etc. to see if the content on it is legit or not? Thats BS.

And people say we here in the US are invading people's privacy.




RE: Are you kidding me?
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/27/2008 10:18:09 AM , Rating: 5
Ummm....the U.S. government wrote and is championing this agreement. Our trade representative planned/wrote a large portion of it. Unfortunately this is a multinational effort...lots of countries are aboard, which makes it scarier.

And they don't just get to look at it. They can destroy it, if they think there's copyrighted material on it.

Want a lawyer? To bad, you don't get one.

Welcome to the brave new world of ACTA and the joys of ex parte searches.

(ps this really reminds me of Harold And Kumar: Escape From Guatanemo Bay)


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 10:31:22 AM , Rating: 5
I don't get it though... it would be practically un-enforceable. How would they determine whether my ipod music was illegally downloaded or imported from a CD I own but didn't bring with me (hence the point of an ipod)?


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Nihility on 5/27/2008 10:38:34 AM , Rating: 5
Well, if the burden of proof is on you, they can just destroy it and go on with their day. Destroy first, ask questions later.

What could you possibly do about it?


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 11:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly: they do have this power, but its like assessing import duties on items -- often enough it's simply not exercised because it's impractical to enforce.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By othercents on 5/27/2008 12:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Make sure to take a disposable MP3 player with you on trips.

Other


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Adonlude on 5/27/2008 4:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
What a total joke. There is no way to fairly enforce this law. As an electrical engineer you can be sure that my electronic devices will be "broken and in need of repairs" whenever I cross a border.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
That would cause suspicion, seizure, and destruction. Non-working electronics have always raised a red flag, but in the past it was more often considered a bomb threat.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By RjBass on 5/27/2008 11:57:42 PM , Rating: 5
So I think now is a good time for those little MicroSD meory cards.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By imperator3733 on 5/28/2008 11:33:57 AM , Rating: 2
lol


RE: Are you kidding me?
By fonzdaman on 5/30/2008 12:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
As Peter Griffin would say "Canada Sux"


RE: Are you kidding me?
By imperator3733 on 5/28/2008 11:34:08 AM , Rating: 1
Never go to Canada again. Let's see how they like the decrease in tourism.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By michael67 on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Are you kidding me?
By imperator3733 on 6/2/2008 3:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Since I live in the US, the only thing that I can do to protest a Canadian decision, like the border "guards", would be to not go there, and thereby not give the country and their economy my money. If enough people were to boycott Canada, they might realize that people do not like their judge-jury-executioner border guards and change their policy.

What I can do (and I have already done this) is send letters to my senators and my representative to express my extreme displeasure about ACTA, and tell them that if they vote for ACTA, they will not get my vote. (Yes, I said that, and I will do that.)

Hopefully, people in Canada will protest this border guard plan and get their representatives to stop it. Same with in Europe. I have done what I can already, so the only thing left for me to do is to not go to any of the countries that wish to enact ACTA and deny their economy of my money.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Simply put: Sue the government and have this law overturned in court. It infringes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too far on the "No search and seizure without a warrant" clause in the Constitution of the United States.
This would not even get ONE USE before it was overturned and stricken from the law books.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By bigjaicher on 6/2/2008 1:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
But this isn't a law of the United States, it's a law of Canada regarding citizens of other countries voluntarily entering their land. And if its against their constitution, they'll just refer to how we treat 'enemy combatants.' and call us hypocrites. I don't like the power that is being given out, but assuming that the people are even somewhat ethical (not schadenfreude sociopaths), only obvious acts of piracy will be punished (i.e. an unlabeled CD filled with keygens and such)


RE: Are you kidding me?
By arazok on 5/27/2008 10:46:01 AM , Rating: 5
It's very enforceable, as customs is under no obligation to prove their claims. They are judge, jury, and executioner. If they even suspect content is illegal, they will just take your iPod. Done, have a nice day.

There are many cases of people caught carrying $10,000+ in cash across the border, which by law must be declared. If you are caught by customs, they just take your money, even if there is no evidence of criminal intent.

Reverse onus - it should be unconstitutional.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mmntech on 5/27/2008 11:00:47 AM , Rating: 5
It is unconstitutional according to several recent supreme court rulings, notably the changes in adult sentencing of youth. I really don't know if this would stand up in the supreme court if you brought it up as unreasonable search and seizure.

Customs officers are just glorified tax collectors in this country. I'm curious how they would know whether it was illegal or not. Would they cross reference your song list with iTunes? This is just ridiculous and a huge waste of tax payers' dollars. Under this agreement, everyone is a pirate. It just shows how out of control copyright law has gotten. We're slowly loosing the rights we had back in the analogue age. There must be a lot of big bucks passing between Hollywood and national governments. At one point in time that was called corruption but now it's business as usual. More worrying is that the opposition does not seem concerned about these kinds of undemocratic backroom deals. I encourage every Canadian here to write to your MP about this. We should be outraged.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you're seeing the forrest for the trees. The whole point is it legitimizes it as a reasonable search and seizure where it wouldn't necessarily be otherwise.

They'd probably determine whether the content was legal based upon whether you had any proof of use rights or *ownership*, keeping in mind that according to the music industry you don't necessarily even have a right to rip your legally purchased music collection from CD to a portable player.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By djkrypplephite on 5/28/2008 12:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
Proof of ownership . . . I think we'll soon be getting stopped and asked for our papers. Best not to be seen with headphones around these parts.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 11:40:11 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
There are many cases of people caught carrying $10,000+ in cash across the border, which by law must be declared. If you are caught by customs, they just take your money, even if there is no evidence of criminal intent.
Theres a diffence though, this is a clear cut rule, either you have under or over 10k, there is no in between. Anything over 9999.99$ is illegal, theres your proof. With MP3's there is no possible way of setting a rule in stone, as they can't prove with 100% certainty that your content is illegal. Sure 90% of the time the signatures probably don't lie, but that 10% is enough to make this law unconstitutional in my mind.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Strunf on 5/27/2008 12:59:28 PM , Rating: 5
If you have 10000$ and you get caught but in the same moment you eat up one of the bills would it still be illegal ? :D


RE: Are you kidding me?
By lennylim on 5/27/2008 6:44:28 PM , Rating: 4
Destruction of currency notes is illegal.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By arazok on 5/27/2008 1:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
Correct, but the point is the same. Customs enforces the rules, rightly or wrongly, at it's discretion. Your money, or your iPod may be taken, not if they can prove it contains illegal content, but if you can't prove it's legal. Hell, even if you CAN prove it, some zealous agent could still seize it, and then force you to jump through hoops to try and get it back.

You may not even get charged with anything. They just take your stuff and send you on your way.

What's to stop some agent from jerking you around because you looked at him funny? He'll just pull you over, take all your electronics, and laugh at you knowing that it will take you years of navigating through the bureaucracy trying to get it back.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 1:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
And my point is the same, custom agents only enforce rules that are deemed as laws. They can not just make up rules as they please and enforce them, they follow the rules set in place by the government. As for agents, I have a friend who works at the border, and its no laughing matter, if they are caught stealing from someone not only will they lose their job, but they WILL be charged. Whether or not people stand up for themselves is a different matter, but you are on Video 24/7 when going through such crossings, and believe it or not most of your conversations are monitored too..

Sure if you are a suspected terrorist you may have a hard time with your rights, but copyright infringement? I just don't see agents putting themselves out a limb just to screw a few people over to make a few extra bucks.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, presently and formerly you wouldn't have had to worry about a hassle over potential copyright infringement, THAT is the whole point of it all, to legitimize action.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By afkrotch on 5/29/2008 11:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
You're assuming all border are like this for every country. This simply isn't the case. Mexico has a lot of corrupt border patrol. The EU hardly even has border crossings. You can hop from country to country without even seeing a single police officer.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By PrinceGaz on 5/27/2008 3:26:27 PM , Rating: 3
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It's up to law-enforcement officials to prove you are guilty, not the other way around.

Anyone with a laptop would be wise to keep anything potentially seen as infringing in an encrypted area, or better still on a memory-stick you keep hidden away from them.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By DM0407 on 6/2/2008 3:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
So some 20 year old kid can take my electronics at his discretion? What are they going to do with all these Ipod's that will be "stealing"?

I bet some young Canadian women are 'aboot' to get a nice gift for Boxing Day!

Its only a matter of time before they employ Miss Cleo to start reading peoples minds to see if they retain any memories from watching Metallica play live in 1989.... Who am I kidding, those people have already been punished enough.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 11:46:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
How would they determine whether my ipod music was illegally downloaded or imported from a CD I own but didn't bring with me (hence the point of an ipod)?
Its pretty much well known that the RIAA has a list of blacklisted content. All they have to do is compare the digital signature of the offending mp3 from their list to your copy. If you legally ripped it from your computer, it should not match, if it does, you've been busted. How do you think the RIAA probes colleges and other p2p networks? Randomly download songs from their shares, and compare it to a known illegal copy. If they are close, log the IP, sue.. and repeat..


RE: Are you kidding me?
By KernD on 5/27/2008 12:53:55 PM , Rating: 3
A specific MP3 encoder will always give the same result if you give it the same input, ei same song from a CD with full duration, and the same compression options. So a pirate and an honest owner of a disk could very well produce identical MP3.
Unless the MP3 format has been altered and a GUID as been added.

All the ITune music could probably be identified as such, but not home made MP3.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Hive on 5/27/2008 1:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you compare the actual audio data (which is not usually done), even minimal differences in ID3 tagging would show a completely different hash value.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 1:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Also what are the chances that the mp3 was encoded using the same settings. As VBR (or ABR) is the standard these days, the chances that you used the exact same settings as the file downloaded off limewire are very small.. Not saying it can not happen, but scene rips are usually encoded with custom settings, not out of the box lame settings that come with common MP3 tools like EAC (exact audio copy). If every single one of your mp3s is encoded in 192/128CBR then this might be a different story, but these days, that is just not the case with most pirated media.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By icrf on 5/27/2008 1:49:10 PM , Rating: 3
We're not talking about fingerprints or DNA. There are only so many mp3 encoders and so many settings. Of those, there are some that are much easier to use, which will be more popular, and some settings that give much better balance between size and quality, which will also be more popular. Combine that with the tags automatically grabbed from CDDB, and it's far from trivial odds that a pirate might upload songs with the same settings you used to rip from your CD.

Then again, if ripping from CD is deemed illegal, all this might be a moot argument. Everyone is guilty.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 2:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are only so many mp3 encoders and so many settings.
.. Let me explain something to you, most of these 'illegal' tracks on the blacklists are actually scene rips, not your sister ripping the song from a CD with Itunes.

When I say scene rips, I mean a mp3 group that releases CD's release to some sort of topsite, and it gets filtered down to torrents, limewire etc.. Usually each group or even each ripper uses their own settings when encoding mp3s. There are countless amounts of settings that can be changed, including max bitrate, average bitrate and minimum.

If even one of those numbers are changed by 1 byte, the outcome will produce two different mp3s, as during the encoding process, the encoder tries to stay close to the average, but can dip down or go up depending on if there is say whitespace (low bitrate) or sounds from every frequency at the same time (high bitrate).

Get where I am going with this? 'max, min, avg Bitrates' are only a few of the settings that encoders like lame employ. Its much harder to make an identical MP3 unless you are using the 3 presets that come with the program you used to rip, and thats assuming every ripping program employs the same presets, and use the same encoder. I have friends who still are in the business, and they will not give their settings out to anyone.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Adonlude on 5/27/2008 5:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
So then all a person with illegal songs would have to do to foil this identification method is to run their mp3's through some sort of re-encoding process? Seems like some programmer could easily create some program to scan all your mp3 files and make some arbitrary innocuous changes to the files so that they are different from the known.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 5:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So then all a person with illegal songs would have to do to foil this identification method is to run their mp3's through some sort of re-encoding process?
In short, yes .. but will most people do this? Probably not..


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
... and yet, many people will use the encoder presets, that's why they're there.

We can't actually assume scene releases are the entirety of the blacklisted content, now more than ever with the large movement to P2P, there is a lot of user *generated* content.

Further, what about someone who owns a CD and has the option of either spending the time ripping and encoding from that CD, or opting to just download it via bittorrent? They now have a potentially blacklisted file but the distinction between it and one they ripped themselves is lost, they merely acquired it from a different data stream on their computer.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:23:14 PM , Rating: 1
Well, according to the MPAA and RIAA, you are not supposed to do that. You are not supposed to download a song for a CD that you have off the internet using Bittorrent, you are supposed to use your CD ripper to do that, and considering that it takes a grand total of 5 minutes for most CD ripping software to do that, even on an external drive..... there isn't any justification for that.

Oh, god, I feel so dirty posting this.... I have actually AGREED with the MPAA/RIAA on something.... someone shoot me, I must be going insane!


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 3
Thought lines at airports were slow and long before? We're talking about it taking 20 minutes per person rather than two or three.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and this is EXACTLY why they don't bother searching people's computers for child pornography anymore unless there is a pre-requisite reason there.
That is coming straight from a relative of mine who did these searches for the United States Customs for awhile before he became an FBI agent.
The ONLY time they did those searches was when someone's name was red-flagged in their database.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 3:48:07 PM , Rating: 5
I have 1 word : Insane !

I feel more and more treated like a criminal.

From all cd's i have( and i have bought them legal in a store, still even have the ticket.), i have made MP3 copies for myself to put on my ipod. Would this mean that i am illegal too ? That is just insane. I bought and therefore i own the music.

I am also getting more and more tired of not been able to skip antipiracy BS on the dvd's i legally bought.

I am also getting even more tired when i buy a game i have to download 5 GB to be able to play it. The entire game was already on the dvd, but had to be decrypted first.

More and more i feel customers have no rights anymore.

More and more i feel the urge to just copy DVD's, CD's and games because when i purchase this content legally i am treated as a criminal anyway. If i am treated like a criminal i guess i have to start behave like one too.

These companies are getting more insane ideas by the day.

Sooner or later i buy a new shirt and i can not give it away to my brother as a present cause that is not allowed according to the eula.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am also getting even more tired when i buy a game i have to download 5 GB to be able to play it. The entire game was already on the dvd, but had to be decrypted first.


What freaking game did you have to do that with? Heck, even games on Steam that I have downloaded, they don't have to download 5GB's to play the game after the actual download of the game..... you are probably thinking of a game that has game UPDATES and fixes.... that is a much more likely situation that you are describing, and I will be honest: that sometimes twerks me off as well!


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 3
What makes you think they won't trash your iPod even if you ripped it from a CD you owned? Remember the RIAA wrote it (for sure) and their opinion is that you need to repurchase music repeatedly for each device you might play it on in order to be legal. I'm surprised one is allowed to move a CD between CD Players.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 10:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry I guess I read it wrong. The title mentions Canada and I saw the list of countries.

So this isn't law yet though. If it becomes it, I just won't ever take a laptop out of the country unless its a business laptop. I don't own an iPod. I wonder if they consider the PSP a device they need to search.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By wordsworm on 5/27/2008 10:48:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry I guess I read it wrong. The title mentions Canada and I saw the list of countries.


Chretien would have laughed at the bill and used it for toilet paper. Harper, on the other hand, is just a puppet. Let's hope the Reds give us someone worth voting for. In the meantime, the Marijuana Party gets my vote.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By rogard on 5/27/2008 10:27:45 AM , Rating: 5
So what happens if the suspected copyright infringer had been clever enough to encrypt all hard disk data? Public whipping until they are willing to share their password? Or do the customs dudes just calculate the size of all the hard disks etc. instead, let's say 200GB, that would be.....space for 40.000 mp3 files...hmm...1000 CAD per song...That's a quadrillion Canadian dollars, payable instantly. Nice!
What's next? Drilling a hole into everyone's skull and have a look inside the brains? There might be a recall of a copyrighted movie once watched, or a book once read. You never know....there's a lot of money coming their way.
Although it's almost the end of May, please tell me that all this is a belated April Fool's joke.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By AlvinCool on 5/27/2008 10:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think thats gonna be the catch. Actually it isn't going to be who is clever enough to encrypt their entire drive, it's going to be who is clever enough to encrypt a container on part of their drive. They may be able, under this new law, to take your laptop if you can't let them in.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Dark Legion on 5/27/2008 11:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
Or you can remove the hard drive with all the content that they may deem illegal, hide it somewhere else, and replace it with a clean hard drive. I know its a bit much to do, but isn't it better than possibly getting your laptop taken away? And are they really going to check everything you bring just for something like this? Of course this law isn't completely enforceable; there are too many laptops and ipods for them to get them all. And who expects border security to be tech savvy enough to find your illegal music and movies anyway, especially on an encrypted drive? And as many people already wrote, how are they supposed to differentiate between the music and movies you downloaded and what was bought legally? All this law will accomplish is better computer security, more encryptions, and longer waits whenever you enter or leave any country.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 12:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I'll just mail my ipod to the hotel I'm staying at if I go to Canada.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 12:16:23 PM , Rating: 5
Or just don't declare it and hide it in your seat?

Custom agent: Do you have an ipod?
Me: No
C/A: I don't believe you.
Me: I swear..
C/A: Ok please pull over, we are going to have to search your car and please procede to the bathroom over there for a full body cavity search!
Me: ahh crap..

All that this is going to do is slow down already long lines, and probably let people in who should actually be stopped from entering, without trouble of course because the agents are too busy searching for illegal movies and songs


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 12:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they'll stop fire trucks crossing the border to respond to emergencies to see if they are carrying pirated material.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 3:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
BAH,

That's disgusting.

I would never be in that situation tho :)

I have an ipod classic with a speck protection case that looks like a monster truck tire.

It is huge.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By 16nm on 5/27/2008 11:09:52 AM , Rating: 5
Create a hidden volume using TrueCrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org/). If asked then give the password for the encrypted volume where you can keep your resume and a few other documents. The hidden volume they'll never know about. Keep all your incriminating data in the hidden volume. I have a hard time seeing how this could be circumvented.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By gramboh on 5/27/2008 12:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
It couldn't, at least not by the boarder guards that are paid what, $15 an hour and have ZERO technical knowledge? This is not practically enforcable. Maybe the industry is going to pony up a few billion for training up boarder inspection people?

What a joke.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By allometry on 5/27/2008 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
I hadn't heard about TrueCrypt until you posted the link. This looks like it's a really great piece of software.

Furthermore, TrueCrypt's data storage mechanism gives you plausible deniability, so in cases where you're put up on blocks by <em> the man </em> , you can thwart them with this application without breaking a sweat.

Just wanted to say thanks!


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Hive on 5/27/2008 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad it won't work for an iPod though...


RE: Are you kidding me?
By herrdoktor330 on 5/27/2008 10:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Good show, man! Good show! +1 ro you.

Here's my thought: If you had Linux PC and your "illicit data" was on a non-mounted partition, how would they go about finding it if you didn't provide information that it was there. Especially if you didn't have a n00b friendly disk management app to make revealing that information easy... and if you removed any way to get to a CLI from your "main user account". ;)

Unless they're going to pay the premium to give every border partol agent a CS degree with a dual major in PC forensics, there's not much they can do. I think the whole process is counter productive and would force additional government overhead just to service one business sector.

Maybe if they'd attack the root of the piracy issue, a stagnant global economy where consumer free-spending money is nonexistant, then maybe piracy would subside?


RE: Are you kidding me?
By MatthiasF on 5/27/2008 2:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
If customs can look in your luggage or car, I don't see how this act is any different than what is in-place now.

Products like iPods, laptops, flash drives, external hard drives, are just another form of container.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:52:24 PM , Rating: 1
Yes they can look in your luggage or car, and see an MP3 player perhaps. Did they previously then demand to search it for identification of the data thereon, with potential seizure, destruction, and a fine? no


RE: Are you kidding me?
By rudolphna on 5/28/2008 9:56:47 AM , Rating: 1
This is total BS. I dont want to go into canada to go to Montreal, and have my ipod destroyed because i have stuff downloaded from youtube on it. Or be detained because many of my CDs were bought from itunes, and burned to CD. Totally F'ing ridiculous. They arent laying their hands on my $2000 laptop, they try, and ill be sueing their ass. will try at any rate. I also, despise the idea of my ISP giving my entire web history over to the Government. That is totally unconstitutional, a total breach of privacy. This bill needs to be stopped. Now.


What is the West Coming to?
By jhb116 on 5/27/2008 10:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
What is going on here? The Patriot Act is evil but this is ok? If this kind of effort was used against the terrorists, the war on terror would be over....




RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Gul Westfale on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 10:41:37 AM , Rating: 5
I would really like you to back up your assertion that the US has stolen oil during the war on terror. In fact, I would LOVE to see some prove on that. With the rising oil prices, with fault due to speculators, there is no stealing oil going on. If anything, we're lowering our demand, and pay more for it.

You really are an extremely far left @$$wipe.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Gul Westfale on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 10:53:51 AM , Rating: 4
You're "certain people" comment directly implies the United States.

Besides that, your argument is an extreme false assertion. The US Goverment, along with many other countries out there, sell weapons to allies for trade & alliances. No one is stealing any oil - in the fact, I believe the price speculators and OPEC are the thieves right now.

And "overcharging for support services"? Let's see, what exactly do YOU think the pay should be for private firm employees to risk their lives doing various tasks on a battlefield? Minimum wage? Or perhaps, the national average of about $35k/yr? Please.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, do you not KNOW that Bush is an oil man, and that the companies he has stock in are raking in MEGA-bucks right now because off all this price-gouging BS?


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/2008 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 1
You don't call invading a country, setting up a government favorable to your own, and then having that company award lucrative contracts to drill and refine oil to your own country's companies a form of theft? They may not be stealing oil itself, but they're definitely stealing a lot of profit relating to oil production that once belonged to Iraq (since oil was becoming a nationalized resource at the time).

I suppose you also don't consider the the forced relocation and slaughter of Native Americans in the name of American expansion a form of theft either (if not a form of genocide in the very least).

Just because you're not stealing the commodity itself doesn't mean some form of theft isn't happening.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By spluurfg on 5/28/2008 7:40:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
LOGCAP, a contract the US Army signed with KBR in 2001 included orders to repair oil facilities in Iraq. This was almost TWO YEARS prior to the invasion. This contract was signed way before the decision to invade Iraq was final, before an invasion strategy was even laid out. This was even before Powell got up before the UN and started preaching about WMD in Iraq.


The contract itself (as in, the Pentagon's requirement for a contractor) had been in existance on and off since 1988. The contract involves not just oil facilities, but a significant amount of military logistics.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/logcap.h...

I think the issue is more of a conflict of interest between Halliburton's contract win and the Vice President's former position as CEO.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/27/2008 12:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously so naive to think that your government went to war out of the goodness of their hearts to protect the poor Iraqi people and spread the joyous gift of democracy and freedom???

Whoever did your brainwashing... they're good.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/2008 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 1
It's ok, it's representative of the attitude in this country. I presented solid facts about how oil was previously governed, and how it's being governed now, and they can't handle it. They'd rather ignore those facts than address them directly. It shows a severe lack of understanding of the whole situation on their part, and the inability to coherently argue.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mindless1 on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/28/2008 12:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
True rating = (rating - 2)^2

;)


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/28/2008 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, correction:

True_rating = (rating - 2)^2 + number_of_rating_changes


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By rudolphna on 5/28/2008 10:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
No, they did it because Saddam and Al Quaeda represented a tanginble national security threat. Remember 9/11? Do you know how many simaliar plots have been stopped by this? I think its time to get out, but i support the anti-terrorism stuff.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
By plinkplonk on 6/2/2008 6:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
i have no idea how you got rated down for that but you're exactly right...just because the government says something it does not mean it is true, remember those in government are all human and it seems to be human nature to skew things to get a more beneficial situation for yourself.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Denigrate on 5/27/2008 1:30:41 PM , Rating: 3
You mean like the French, German, and Russian governments were doing before Saddam and his child rapist kids got the boot? Not saying that I agree with the Iraq invasion, but they are much better off now than they were under Saddam.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 2:33:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That remains to be seen. There is no conclusiveness among Iraqis whether or not they are better off- which I think is shown by the daily occurrences of violence.

You do realize, dont you, that the majoriy of people being killed and caught in the fight against Al-Sadr and the Shiites and Al-Quaeda are not even Iraqi citizens?!?! They are from Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon. The violence is hardly carried out voluntarily by the Iraqi people, but rather people from other countries forcing them at gunpoint to do it.
quote:
Stability is one area where Iraq benefited under Saddam.

Stability? Are you insane. The only reason that country did not erupt on its own were becuase there were two types of people: 1 - those who benefitted from Sadam's regime and were able to make money for themselves and family by voluntarily doing his bidding and killing for him, and 2- those who feared Sadam and his henchmen, and were forced to do his bidding or die. But then again, I'm sure you dont want to think about what the mass graves are, and why those people are there do you? And Stability - what about gassing the Kurds?
quote:
There is very little confidence in the leadership or the forces that put them into place. And who knows how many human rights violations have occurred under the CPA? Saddam and his child rapist kids may be gone, but this only made way for atrocities by American/Coalition forces.

Of course theres not, especially when other countries like Iran and funneling money into the country to get the people of Iraq to lash out against the government.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 3:20:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So you mean to tell me that every Iraqi is happy with the US invasion and occupation, and all these "terrorists" are coming from other countries to force Iraqi's to commit violence?

As a majority - yes, the average Iraqi is happy now that Sadam is out and they are going to start over with their own (hopefully peaceful) government. There are still a decent sized group rebelling against this (Al-Sadr for example), because they prospered under Sadam's regime of corrupt killings, and now have nothing to fall back on.
quote:
you ignore the fact that 30 years of American involvement in Iraq produced Saddam AND the current situation. You also ignore that George H.W., Cheney and Rumsfield supported Saddam and his actions in the 80's.

I didn't ignore it, I didnt think it was pertinent when talking about whether the ongoing solution is a viable one, and if its beneficial. However, the decision to back Sadam at that time was considered the lesser of two Evils. Now, we still have Iran to deal with, but imagine how much more dangerous they would have been had they taken over Iraq. Now, with Iran publicly backing the militants inside of Iraq, when the Iraqi government and own military police get stablized, who do you think is going to want to help us take out Iran (starring special guest Israel). Ahh yes, and not to mention another ally for Israel - potentially.
quote:
can you acknowledge that Cheney and George W. don't have Iraq's interests at heart?

I dont expect them to have Iraqs best interests at heart. I expect them to have OUR best interests at heart. That means another ally to protect us from Iran and Al-queda, and help protect Israel and keep Pakistan on its toes. I see it as a win win situation - although certain decisions made as part of the strategic goal I see as quite questionable.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 5:16:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ah, but you're forgetting a major issue, it seems that:

Please, MSNBC is just about as Anti-Military a network as they come. Anything that comes from that website, New York Times, or Moveon.org is not substancial data or facts.
quote:
The point is, most Iraqi's do not want the U.S. there, it WAS more stable under Saddam, and they are not being pressured to rebel due to outside pressures.

They dont want us there anymore post military because we've done the dirty work for them. Its like a poor liberal who wants to benefit from hard workign tax dollars, but wants the benefit in the form of cash.
quote:
With over 4 million Iraqi's displaced, and refugees still fleeing the country, you cannot say they are happy

They left because they were told to leave because of war. Note that they did not stay to fight against the opposition. That should tell you something about how happy they were pre-war.
quote:
Besides, you can't blame Iran for supporting some of the groups engaged in violence against the Coalition.

Yes I can, and I do. Iran could care less about its neighbors, so dont be so blind. They dont want the US in the Middle East, because we won't allow them to take over Israel and turn the entire middle east into a rogue Islamic state. Their ties to Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas should be enough evidence of that.
quote:
Which was exactly the point of the whole discussion of where oil profits were going and whether things are better for Iraqi's.

Oil profits are not going to the US Government, so its a stupid argument. If the oil exports were only going to the US at a discount rate, then'd Id agree with you. But since they are not, there nothing going on there.
quote:
On a policy level, the US is taking control over Iraqi resources.
NO they arent. We are taking or using any of their resources for ourselves. You need to lay off the liberal conspiracy websites.
quote:
And obviously, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that the administration had resource and strategic issues that concerned them more than freedom and democracy.

Do you think we went to war for freedom of Iraq? No, its just part of the outcome of what needed to happen. When you oust a corrupt and murderous regime, setting up a new government in your view and as an ally is part of the rebuilding phase. The middle east is a very questionable area right now, and having more allies in that part of the world will be better for the US and Israel.

As far as Iran, they have theirs coming to them and fast. Israel will strike them before Bush leaves office. And I personally cannot wait.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I suppose you also don't consider the the forced relocation and slaughter of Native Americans in the name of American expansion a form of theft either (if not a form of genocide in the very least).


Ok he played the Indian card dude. Just abort argument. Your not dealing with a rational person.

Keep tugging on those heartstrings Rogue...


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 2:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the backup Reclaimer, I thought I was the only one seeing that lol


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 3:27:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Thanks for the backup Reclaimer, I thought I was the only one seeing that lol


No prob. I hate the Indian argument and anyone who uses it when it comes to a debate on modern day happenings. Its the most gutless,immature, emotionally based liberal argument one can make. Anyone who seriously uses it is someone not worth debating with any further.

Person 1 - " We had to respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor "

Person 2 - " Yeah but, you came and killed all the Indians and invaded all their land so your no better ! "

Can you spot the retard in this debate ? Its not hard.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 4:22:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The comparison is valid- part of the reason why Iraq was invaded was control over resources- this was the same reason why native Americans were displaced, control over land/resources. This is not some random argument, it is a valid comparison.


Oh excuse me. I wasn't aware that our goal was to COLONIZE Iraq !! Iraq, The New World !! Brilliant comparison !!

You know exactly why you used the Indian card you idiot. The same reason people like you always use it. To try and make us feel bad, and look bad, over something that happened before ANY of us were born.

quote:
The only reason why you're not debating the other substantive points


The same regurgitated Bush-bashing crap thats been debated and investigated. Those are not substantive points. Face facts, there is no smoking gun. There is no massive corruption. And no laws were broken.

I would be more than happy to debate you on a " point by point " basis, but you pulled the Indian card. Your a moron, because all Indian card pullers are morons. Aka. Liberals. And trying to reason with an Indian card pulling liberal moron only makes you look like one.

We're done. Reply if you want, but we're done.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mindless1 on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 8:58:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you can't just reject a large part and claim it didn't influence what came thereafter.

In this case, yes you can. Trying to justify the indians as a comprable comparison is not only stupid, its totally negates anything else that would have come out of his mouth afterwards. Once you start down the stupid-road, there is no turning back.
quote:
It's all relevant, you just don't understand how or choose to selectively ignore that

Its not all relevant. Comparing apples to cars isn't relevant, and comparing the indians to iraq isn't relevant either.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mindless1 on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RallyMaster on 5/27/2008 10:41:42 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately I think this is actually true. The US is not fighting because a certain Osama bin Laden is supposedly leading the terrorists. It's fighting for economic gain even though there is nothing to be gained through this type of war.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 11:00:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because we've gained so much since the war in Iraq started. International hatred. Higher oil prices. Higher food prices. Billions spent to rebuild what gets destroyed while Iraq rakes in oil profits selling to China.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By omnicronx on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 1:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
The fact thats it is legal to award a company that you were CEO of for a certain amount of years with probably the biggest contracts in Iraq should be of concern. As far as laws, well see about that after they leave office, just because everyone is afraid to do anything about it while they are in power, does not mean it is legal in any way shape or form, its just impossible to prove it at this juncture.

I would not be surprised one bit if some type of investigation will be made into the bush administration if the democrats win office.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 1:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
Its already going on, dont fool yourself. The Democrats are trying to push the attention to the failed Bush policies and questionable decisions by the administration to try and cover up their own 17% approval rating.

You really think the Democratic controlled congress is going to have a good approval rating by showing the American people that they opposed domestic oil drilling and refineries, lover higher taxes, love $4 gas, and want to pour more and more money is to the false man-made GW hypothesis?

No, take the attention of what their doing with a "illegal activities" investigation into Bush administration.

pffft.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 2:39:33 PM , Rating: 3
Newt didnt lie under oath, committing perjury. Therefore its not even remotely close to what Bill did.

You may be having an affiar, as many people do....but doing so in the tax paying citizens home (white house), on the tax payers time, and then lying to their faces about it in a court of law - in a country that gives you the most power in the world? Hardly the same.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By nolisi on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 3:06:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But, if you're truly concerned about a president lying- why not focus on George W. and his lies about Iraq? Those are more serious than lies about a BJ. He lied to everyone's faces, but it's perfectly legal because he wasn't under oath. Wow, that's one hell of a moral compensation on your part

Whoa whoa. First off, the President (repub or dem) does not create their own intelligence. He didn't lie, he just choosed to believe incorrect intelligence that was given to him. However, this is the same intel that was given to the democrats in 1998 (Clinton didnt act, but he was a Tree Hugger anyway, so go figure), and Im going to try to find you a video of all these dem's back in 98 - Kennedy, Dean, Rangel, Clinton, etc all saying how Iraq was trying to obtain, or had already obtained, WMD's. This all before GWB was even in office. The entire Democrat senate thought the same exact thing as GWB - before he was even in Office!

quote:
And, if you're truly concerned about wasted tax payer time and money, you should be concerned about the wasted effort in prosecuting Clinton over a blow job.

No, an example needs to be made for someone who breaks the law - especially for someone who holds the highest seat in the entire world.

quote:
But no, you're just more interested in your party being better than the other rather than a consistent opinion.

Sorry to misinform you, but I am not a GWB follower, nor am I a John McCain follower at all. I am not a Republican, I consider myself a Reagan Conservative. Mostly aligning myself with Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 5:20:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You seem to be defending GWB an awful lot for someone who doesn't follow him.

Blaming one person when the decision to go to war was a near unanimous vote by bypartisan congres and for the intel that was given to him is a partisan cop out. Its a way to bash the republican party, while not takign responsibily when your own actions (democrats) helped promote the war to begin with.

"i was for it before i was against it" ring a bell?


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 5:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blaming one person when the decision to go to war was a near unanimous vote by bypartisan congres and for the intel that was given to him is a partisan cop out. Its a way to bash the republican party, while not takign responsibily when your own actions (democrats) helped promote the war to begin with.


The government people demanded vengeance as well. The Democrats, never ones to do anything that appears to be unpopular, went with it.

quote:
"i was for it before i was against it" ring a bell?


LOL oh god don't remind me ! Almost as classic as " vote for me, and Christopher Reeves will walk !! "


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By nolisi on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 2:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're saying that having a less competent company do the task at a slower rate is a good idea as to avoid the possibility of something inappropriate?

Bush was governor of Texas and Clinton governor of Arkansas that I recall. Should ALL federal government contracts have been banned from going to any company doing business in those states while those guys were president? Why not? Basically the same thing.

Perhaps the safest president or vice-president is one that has been un-employed their entire lives that way there will be no conflicts to make fuss about. Great idea?


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 2:41:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're saying that having a less competent company do the task at a slower rate is a good idea as to avoid the possibility of something inappropriate?
Wow, you americans will justify the means in any way possible. He awarded contracts to his own company! Where do you think he is going to end up after his regime is over? Probably back to being the CEO..

Bush can give all the contracts he wants to people in Texas for all I care, as long as he is not the CEO of any of them. Sometimes people like you make me wonder how the human race has lasted this long...


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 3:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sometimes people like you make me wonder how the human race has lasted this long...


We sure as hell haven't got to where we are by second guessing good decisions and playing partisan politics no matter what the cost and damn the results.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 3:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
You think the current CEO who presumably has had the job for going on eight years now is just going to step aside?

I think you're working pretty hard at justifying your anti-American biases by making wild assumptions then using those to prove your point.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 3:52:04 PM , Rating: 1
I really would not be surprised if he got some high up position in the company.
quote:
Cheney earned forty-four million dollars during his tenure at Halliburton. Although he has said that he “severed all my ties with the company,” he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, and he retains stock options worth more than eighteen million dollars.
Its not like he cut off all ties with the company, he still has a large amount of stock. I would call it insider trading but it seems it goes far beyond that.. Its not like they were the biggest company of its kind in the world either for the business they are in.. 24th or 25th last time I checked.. I find it very strange that no other company could outbid them, it is at least worth an investigation into the matter.. something that has yet to be done. So by all means close your eyes, stick your head in the sand, and avoid the 'coincidence after coincidence', if you want to call it that..

P.S I am far from anti American, both my parents are from the States, I just don't like the views of 65% of you. I should not have generalized.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 2:55:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes because we've gained so much since the war in Iraq started. International hatred. Higher oil prices. Higher food prices. Billions spent to rebuild what gets destroyed while Iraq rakes in oil profits selling to China.


I don't know. I have noticed a severe drop in airliners being flown into buildings since we went on the offensive. /shrug.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2008 5:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There was ONE (multiple) attack on US soil.


And that was one too many.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 4:17:44 PM , Rating: 1
You and most people in USA have not gained much i guess,but i would not have been surprised who in the USA has:

Carlyle group ?, I am sure there are more investments banks who have made a lot of money.
Your current government has many ties in these kinds of investments banks.

Even to the point where military equipment that are totally useless are pushed through and later on improved for a small extra price.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 4:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
Eisenhower...


By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 4:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Halliburton group...


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mal1 on 5/27/2008 10:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
When are people going to wake up? This isn't about money, it's about control. The people that are enacting these treasonous laws are already filthy rich, money is only a means of extending their control over society. Checking citizens' personal electronics is just the next incremental step in the control grid that is being created/extended throughout most of Europe, North America and Asia. It won't be long before permanent police checkpoints are common in all major cities. When "anti-terror" squads come knocking on your door, take your guns and haul you off to a FEMA camp don't say no one warned you.

Stand up for your freedom or get ready to bend over and spread your cheeks for Homeland inSecurity.


A war...
By RallyMaster on 5/27/2008 10:39:37 AM , Rating: 5
is obviously brewing. The people should not fear their government. They should not be subject to search and seizure for having music going across the border. This is by far the most ridiculous thing that has happened since the Cultural Revolution in China.




RE: A war...
By Nihility on 5/27/2008 10:48:15 AM , Rating: 3
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." -The Declaration of Independence

Oh, wait... did you say Canada? nm


RE: A war...
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 11:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well here in Charleston they say the Civil War never ended. Just histories longest cease fire. I don't doubt that it'll be broken eventually.


RE: A war...
By Dark Legion on 5/27/2008 12:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, they say it in Charleston, so it must be true. Sarcasm aside, this is not about the civil war and North vs. South, this is about the violation of freedoms of all Americans and the gross misuse of government power.
Rather than talk about division, why not talk about unity against these ridiculous laws. In union there is strength.


RE: A war...
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
Yes and what does that create? A division from the government. Hence a civil war. Like it or not its going to happen. I don't see a vast majority of the surveillance legislation as a problem but this one definitely is.

I just think there needs to be a Civil War to get rid of the elements of our government that are destroying this country. In short the belief that the government needs to take care of people(Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, mortgage bailouts, etc), the government should stifling industries based off ridiculous environmental claim, and other legislations that only make our economy weaker and our people more dependent.

I'm tired of tax dollars that the 50% of us who actually pay taxes pay getting spent so that the other roughly 50% of the country has an easier, better life. I had to work for what I have. They should too. And also that money being spent on foreign aid when we have enough problems here at home. The world has made it abundantly clear that they do not like us so why should we give them anything? Let the EU and worthless UN (without our participation) handle the rest of the world for a while. We'll see how long before the next World War breaks out.

You can talk all you want. Talk is cheap. Actions actually make a difference. I've no desire to have a Civil War in this country any more than anyone else. But its pretty clear that the majority of the government only cares to appease those who contribute nothing while making life ever more difficult for those of us who do.

And no I am not one that believes that the Civil War didn't end. I'm not from here. Was just making a joke that they say on the tours here.


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: A war...
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 2:10:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And why shouldn't it? Believe it or not, there are people that, for one reason or another, can't take care of themselves as well as we would hope. And no, neither can their family, if they even have one. Surely we should just leave them to suffer and die, those pathetic useless parasites, no?

Why shouldn't it? Because the majority of social policies are there to benefit people who do not pay Federal Income Tax. So let me get this right - I should work 40 hrs per week....26 of them for me, 14 of them for the people dont work. Yeah, sounds about fair doesn't it? Dont give me this whole "people cannot take care of themselves" b.s - i hope you realize that the amount of people on welfare & umemployment have no physical reason NOT to be working. Its pure laziness and lack of motivation. "Why should I start at a minimum wage job and go to college, when I can make $200 a day selling smack on the streets..." is what this is more like.
quote:
Doesn't matter if you paid for them, other people also had to work for what you have,

Whoa whoa. Wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

Those people do not also work for what I have, they are working for the money I am paying them. Its a cycle, and it works well. I work, I make money, I spend the money. The money I spend, goes to the people who work, in turn they make it, and then spend it, and so on and so on...
quote:
you think the people/kids that made your shiny Nike shoes got paid fairly for their work?

In terms of US dollars and a US standard of living, no. But thats not even a comprable ideal. Take a look at what that money is worth in their societies, and what other opportunities they have. Then go ahead and take away that shoe plan all together, and remove that money out of the system that they could have been paid for that work. Now tell, when are they better off?
quote:
If everyone in your country were as charming as you are, nobody should be surprised they don't like you.

As much as I get worked up over idiotic posts like yours, my mind tells me to settle down and that only the freeloaders (like you) think they have a sense of 'entitlement' in this country. Thank god, that is in the minority.


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: A war...
By StupidMonkey on 5/27/2008 7:46:58 PM , Rating: 5
Not gonna lie, you're a douchebag. And your circular logic is amazing. Run little man, run!


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: A war...
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 7:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
No there will not be a civil war, we'll just keep increasing the prison population, make chemical implants an acceptible way of controlling (neutering) people's minds, and reducing freedoms/privacy so more who are opposed are caught expediently.

Also, your disagreement seems to be centered around greed. You don't want to support the very government which maintains a level of stability that lets you have enough money to be taxed so much and yet still have more luxuries by far than the average person on earth. So you want even more, I can't fault that, who doesn't, and it seems unfair but there never really is anything fair about anyone's lot in life, there are plenty of smart hard working people with worse lives than some slothful morons.

The money isn't the important part of life, that's just what you hear because of the good ole TV set, advertising that tricks people into thinking they "need" more than they have then these programmed zombies go around thinking they are better for having some trivial thing and defending their way of life, or actually I mean projecting their way of life as the proper way against which others are measured.

If you think you work too hard, don't work so hard. Civil war isn't exactly a vacation in the Bahamas either.


RE: A war...
By Klober on 5/28/2008 3:21:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In short the belief that the government needs to take care of people(Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, mortgage bailouts, etc), the government should stifling industries based off ridiculous environmental claim, and other legislations that only make our economy weaker and our people more dependent.

I'm tired of tax dollars that the 50% of us who actually pay taxes pay getting spent so that the other roughly 50% of the country has an easier, better life. I had to work for what I have. They should too. And also that money being spent on foreign aid when we have enough problems here at home. The world has made it abundantly clear that they do not like us so why should we give them anything? Let the EU and worthless UN (without our participation) handle the rest of the world for a while. We'll see how long before the next World War breaks out.

You can talk all you want. Talk is cheap. Actions actually make a difference. I've no desire to have a Civil War in this country any more than anyone else. But its pretty clear that the majority of the government only cares to appease those who contribute nothing while making life ever more difficult for those of us who do.


QFT. Hats off to you FITCamaro, and also to mdogs444. I've been of the belief for several years now that our country needs a revolution, and unfortunately I'm not sure a peaceful one will cut it.

Like you I'm sick of my money going to those who refuse (yes, refuse, because 95% of the people on welfare are capable of working) to take care of themselves. Why should we have to pay 30%+ of our salaries to take care of those lazy SOBs?

I also agree with FIT's assessment of our aid to the rest of the world. Why do we give the rest of the world billions USD for free when I worked damn hard for that money? They don't like us, and no matter what we do they're NOT GOING TO LIKE US . It's not because of the Iraqi war, or any other war. Much of the reason is because they're jealous of what we've accomplished and our standard of living because of our accomplishments. We've been a country for just over 200 years and we're the most well-off country in the world. Were we given this status on a silver platter? Hell no, we got it the hard way. Also, something that continues to drive me insane - stop forgiving our foreign debts!! "Uh, yeah, we know you owe us umpteen billion USD. But you know what? We'll just call it even." WTF? Am I the only one that thinks our leaders were on something when they made that decision? As for the UN, I'm not even going to get started, except to say without the US it would be a bark with zero bite.

In short - I'm glad to see FITCamaro's and mdogs444's posts. It restores my faith that the entire US population isn't full of socialists. Well, just a smidgeon at least.


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: A war...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2008 5:48:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you were wondering why the rest of the world don't like you,


Actually, we don't.

That argument looks good on the Internet. But adults in politics aren't going around saying " Well the world hates you so there ! Nannna nannaaa booo booo ".

quote:
war-mongering people like YOU


You said you were from Europe, correct ? Bold statement coming from a place that was warmongering before the US was even a country.


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: A war...
By Klober on 5/28/2008 6:05:14 PM , Rating: 5
War-mongering? You're kidding right?

In my personal opinion we should become more isolationist as a country. I'm sure the world wouldn't mind considering how much they hate us. They don't need us to help out. You have a war? It's not our war and we don't want it. Take care of it your damn selves. You have hungry people? Ask your buddy neighbor countries for help. You need help reconstructing? Sucks to be you. In my opinion we should give up helping the majority of the rest of the world, with a few exceptions. Those countries who truly have shown themselves to be our friends stay on the good list - it's going to be a VERY short list. UK, South Korea, Israel off the top of my head. Outside of those, and the (maybe) couple other countries who truly appreciate us, you're all on your own. What have you done to help us? Yup, exactly, pretty much nada. So you go right ahead and keep your self-righteous attitude. If we'd have a government with the cajones to try it out I'd love to see how much the rest of the world is hurting then, and how long it would take them to come back to us crying for help.

Btw, if the world hates us so much for "interfering", do you really think us completely yanking all support is going to make them like us any better? Somehow I doubt doing what they say they want of us is going to help in the least.


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/28/2008 6:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I got the war-mongering part wrong in your particular case. The others stand reaffirmed, though.


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: A war...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2008 12:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your self-importance is staggering!


So is your bitterness and envy.


RE: A war...
By Hive on 5/29/2008 4:27:46 AM , Rating: 1
The haughty are often so blinded by their pride, that they can't conceive they can actually be disliked by anything other than envy...

Bitterness... yeah, there may be a grain of truth there. So much injustice and disdainful selfishness in the world does tend to generate a bit of that in me...


RE: A war...
By 1078feba on 5/29/2008 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
Uuuhhh, Hive?

Let me clue you in: I could not care less, not even remotely, whether you like me, or any other, or all, Americans.

Believe it or not, it just does not, ever, factor into any of the decisions I make on a daily basis. Nor will it ever. Even if I am in a foreign country. And I've lived for years at a time on both sides of each ocean.

Using the term "like" when speaking of international politics/relations reveals far more about you than I think you might otherwise wish to divulge. I grant you, I understand that English may not be your native tongue, but even so, it is patently naive to use such a word in this context.

Now, as to your charges that we Americans, as a people, suffer from what is effectively hubris, perhaps you are correct. But I would submit no more so than the French people do. We, as a nation, take great pride in what we have accomplished in such a short time, by using a formula that is primarily made up of self-reliance. We do not generally understand how the rest of the world can’t understand this. Moreover, it is especially disheartening to see such venomous, spittle-flecked acid from the very European nations who fathered the first generations of Americans. We do not understand how one can live in America and not live life comfortably well-off. It isn’t difficult. America is still the land of opportunity. Anyone, the world over, can come here and with a bit of hard work and perseverance make themselves more than enough money to live at their particular level of comfort. And what’s more, we take great pride in this, as we rightfully should. Come to America and achieve. The only limits are the one’s you place on yourself. This is why much of America is so righteously angered by the nanny-statism that is currently so very en vogue right now. How can an individual still manage to look him/herself in the mirror when they know, deep in their very souls, that they are nothing more than a parasite? How does one take pride in that?

So, tell us, what happened to you all over there? How come Poland is the only country over there that still gets this, understands it?

I tell you what. Worry about your own backyard, we’ll worry about ours, fair enough?


RE: A war...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2008 6:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, tell us, what happened to you all over there? How come Poland is the only country over there that still gets this, understands it?


Probably because they got a first hand taste what the end result of Hive's type of socialist thinking is.


What I want to know is
By isorfir on 5/27/2008 10:19:27 AM , Rating: 5
How exactly are they going to know that the music on my iPod is legal or not? Am I going to have to bring my library of CDs with me to prove I own it?

Hint to Canada: This isn't how music comes to your country illegally.




RE: What I want to know is
By pnyffeler on 5/27/2008 10:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
If I had to guess, if they even bothered to search your laptop, they'd look for file-sharing software first. If they found it, then they'd probably assume that all of your music was illegally downloaded and ask you to prove that you own it.

Then again, maybe not. As I recall, it's illegal in some countries to rip your own CD's. For example, here:

http://www.dailytech.com/Update+British+Music+Indu...

Not sure how this turned out, but to say the least, it was illegal at one time in Britian to rip MP3's from CD's you own because the copyright laws didn't give the owner the right to do such a thing.


RE: What I want to know is
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they found it, then they'd probably assume that all of your music was illegally downloaded and ask you to prove that you own it.
Canada is not the States, it takes a hell of a lot more to prove such illegal activity. I would like to wager that this will never make it past our supreme court, regardless of the penalties Canada will receive. Basically in order to get arrested for such charges in Canada, you need to be running a topsite, or be heavily involved in scene ripping.

Furthmore, they left out one big issue, the Canadian supreme court. When it comes down to it, its not going to matter what current Canadian politicians agree too or not, if it is deemed an unappropriate law by the supreme court, its not going to be implemented. I mean if the supreme court can slam a ruling saying that finding 30 grams of pot in someones pockets as an illegal search because there was no grounds, I can easily see a ruling like this get shutdown in a second.


RE: What I want to know is
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 11:47:50 AM , Rating: 1
I just sure with the Canadian Supreme Court would learn the difference between Persecution and Prosecution - especially in the sense of the former US Draft Dodgers and people who went AWOL.


RE: What I want to know is
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 11:49:14 AM , Rating: 2
"I just sure wish...the"


RE: What I want to know is
By aeroxander on 5/27/2008 10:45:53 AM , Rating: 2
ok ok, before we start the Canada bashing, I believe that this would be on both the US and Canada border crossing similar to NAFTA so its both sides of the fence.

But as has been said by many, how exactly are they going to tell if the music on the ipod is legal?

That and the border crossing is slow enough, now your going to start checking everyones ipods, laptops and every other piece of digital equipment.


RE: What I want to know is
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But as has been said by many, how exactly are they going to tell if the music on the ipod is legal?
The same way the find out now when searching p2p networks, compare the track to a known database of illegal mp3s. If the signature is identical or very close, chances are you do not legally own it. There is one problem though, and thats fair use. I have always wondered if it illegal to own an mp3 or video (i.e illegal downloaded copy) even though you own the actually media.

For example I have most NIN CD's, but I have been far too lazy to rip a new copy so I still have the illegal copies on my computer. As far as I know, this is prefectly legal, but how would a border agent be able to tell the difference? When it comes down to it, they won't be able too, if the mp3s signatures are on a blacklist, and you have not brought the CD, you would be SOL. I just don't see this could ever be implemented without causing more trouble than it would solve.

Also the question is not how are they going to tell if its illegal the question is, how do they chose who to search? Would it be random? Would it be everyone who owns a laptop or ipod? Those who go across the border on a regular basis know it takes enough time as it is, do they really think its going to be plausible to search more than say 1-20 people?


RE: What I want to know is
By Hive on 5/27/2008 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same way the find out now when searching p2p networks, compare the track to a known database of illegal mp3s. If the signature is identical or very close, chances are you do not legally own it.

If that's what they'd do, it'd be a joke to circumvent... Simply retag the files with the comment "Ripped from a legal CD, biatches!" and this will certainly break any kind of hash-based signature. They could try to compare the actual audio data, but at the first indication of that, dozens of utilities to inaudibly alter the stream would crop up in a heartbeat. I somehow doubt that they would actually bother processing the data on the files, though...

Who to search? Well, that's easy. They have all the experience from profiling Middle Eastern looking men for harrassment. Now they would just have to target any student-looking teen or young adult with an iPod larger than 20 GB. Unlike with the previous case though, the chances of at least a couple of songs on it being "stolen" are actually pretty high.


RE: What I want to know is
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They could try to compare the actual audio data, but at the first indication of that, dozens of utilities to inaudibly alter the stream would crop up in a heartbeat.
But they do compare the streams, its not very hard and only takes a few seconds. You are right though simple tools could easily circomvent this, but is the average user (95% of the poeple out there) going to have the know how to do such a thing? If this law prevents 95% of people brining illegal music across the border, than it has already done its job.


RE: What I want to know is
By AstroCreep on 5/27/2008 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, according to the above article:
quote:
Under the new act, even legally copied DVDs or CDs would be open to scrutiny.

Not only would you need to have the CDs, but you'd have to prove that they were copied legally. And remember, the DMCA states breaking/circumventing copyright software is illegal, so copying any CDs that use any type of anti-piracy measures are not (likely) kosher.

This sucks. :(


There's a simple solution to this... really
By HaZaRd2K6 on 5/27/2008 11:26:40 AM , Rating: 2
Just don't cross the border into the US. I'm not going to Buffalo anytime soon without an iPod playing through my car stereo. Hell, I don't even go to work without it playing.

If we as Canadians just stop cross-border traveling and shopping wholesale then we basically nullify the agreement. They can't search us at the border if we aren't at the border.

And this worries me for another reason. What happens if I buy my music from legitimate sites like Beatport or CDJ Shop where that music is licensed to be played on an MP3 player or something? Suppose I get a retarded border guard who doesn't understand that concept? Am I to assume that my legitimately-purchased, non-RIAA music will be deemed infringing material and I'll have my iPod destroyed?

Sorry, but I'll just stay in Canada, thanks.




By CigarSmokedByClinton on 5/27/2008 12:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I understand where you're coming from, as a fellow Canadian, but I really feel that this is the wrong response. This is a serious degradation of our personal freedoms. Why should we accept this. Why should we feel like we can't cross borders anymore. Why should we feel guilty or concerned though we haven't done anything wrong (assuming your mp3's are legit).


By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 12:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think he also missed the fact that americans will be subject to the exact same rules when entering Canada.


RE: There's a simple solution to this... really
By HaZaRd2K6 on 5/27/2008 12:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
This is true. Thankfully, I don't travel to the US anyway since I'm wholly against everything the current administration is doing and I refuse to help them in any way (be it economical or otherwise).

Most of my MP3s are legit because as a DJ it's pretty hard to play pirated MP3s publicly and the fines are just too large if you get caught ;-)

My issue is that Canadians don't realise that something like this would likely not have happened under a different Canadian government. Stephen Harper might as well be George Bush's lap dog and if I ever see him I'll make sure to tell him so. I pay his damned salary, the least he can do is listen to what I have to say.


RE: There's a simple solution to this... really
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 2:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stephen Harper might as well be George Bush's lap dog and if I ever see him I'll make sure to tell him so. I pay his damned salary, the least he can do is listen to what I have to say.


Whoa whoa. I may not be from Canada, but the people in the US try to use that same "i pay your salary" cop out too.

First off, you couldn't afford to pay his salary if you worked 24/7/365. Second, he doesn't work for you. None of the people in the government do. They REPRESENT you. They are paid to may decisions on your behalf - with out actually asking your opinion. Third, whether you like it or not, Canada always has been and will be a sort of lap dog to the USA. Its not a negative, put down the country type of statement I'm making...but the facts are facts: Canada has not real military to speak of, at least one capable of even slightly trying to defend itself.

Now don't get me wrong, there may not be a short term threat to Canada. But in the future could there be? And how would you feel if the US said to a potential threat - well, hey, we dont need Canada either so feel free to do whatever you want. Just say on THAT SIDE of the Niagara Falls.


RE: There's a simple solution to this... really
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 2:53:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
First off, you couldn't afford to pay his salary if you worked 24/7/365.
The President only makes around 400k a year.. Even I would make that amount of money if I worked 24/7/365...

p.s harper makes even less.. maybe 300k a year.. I don't know where you got off thinking politiciens make tons of money from their salaries.. Its the bookdeals after the fact that rake in the cash.. jk.. (or in bushes and chaney case.. the countless amounts of kickbacks theyve received)


By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 6:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
First off, their daily and living expenses are not paid out of their salaries. So take that 400k, and add on everything else paid for during that year.

Bookdeals? I'll agree to that, just ask the Clintons. However, the bottom line is that major politicians already have money, and most are trust fund babies to begin with. Therefore, the kickbacks and bookdeals are really a moot point as they aren't needed.


RE: There's a simple solution to this... really
By Hive on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: There's a simple solution to this... really
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 6:06:30 PM , Rating: 3
To the previous post of yours: Yes, we're such a major threat! The liberation of Iraq, and helping to keep the French from speaking German show just how right you are. <rolls eyes>

This post: When you choose and vote for a candidate, the ones whos views are most similar to yours are the ones you trust to do what is best in your view. Its not a difficult concept. But they do not work for you. They represent the country/county/local, etc with their own views.

I dont know what exactly you're trying to get at. Unless you're saying democracy needs to force everyone to be tree hugging liberals, who want national healthcare, high taxes, and a socialims reform...then we'd be the true angel of democracy. Then again, you do realize that the US is not a true democracy. We are a representative republic (not true democracy) with a mixed economy (not true capitalism).


RE: There's a simple solution to this... really
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: There's a simple solution to this... really
By mdogs444 on 5/28/2008 1:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
unrequested American activities on other sovereign countries

You must have a very short term memory...we were practically begged to help out against Germany.
quote:
Oh, and FYI, a representative republic IS (supposed to be) a real democracy, just not a direct one.

No its not. The founding fathers did NOT want a true democracy. Which is why they chose a representative government. If you are not sure of the differences, or by some reason think they are the same, you ought to head back to US Government class.


By HaZaRd2K6 on 5/28/2008 2:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You must have a very short term memory...we were practically begged to help out against Germany.


Ain't that the truth. In fact the only reason the US even entered WWII was because of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Although it is a little rich to say the US was the sole saviour of France. There was also Great Britain (and loads of colonies) and the Soviet forces.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 3
Rich coming from a Canadian. You guys should be used to your government taking away freedoms.

I don't believe this article is legitimate anyway. No offense to Wikileaks, but this seems just way too over the top and conspiratorial.


By Ananke on 5/27/2008 7:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe people, you have to understand there are two wings in Hollywood, or to say the American Entertainment Industry. The old one is very very concerned that their sales of CDs and DVDs is declining. The new one is very happy that their sales of digital tracks downloadable from their on-line stores is raising. So, the old guys with strong connections decided to create this thing, to effectively penalize you for having MP3 player. Instead, go and buy regular, colorful and obviously very legitimate CD :)
However, people most likely will not do that, Hollywood shoot itself again in the feet :). Instead, listen to independent musicians, like the Chorus of Chinese Red Army :):) It is still not in ACTA, I guess will never be


We want More Money
By Bender 123 on 5/27/2008 10:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
I guess they are trying to bring the Chocolate Pain...

They are just trying to find new ways to get their money, since the internet money was just gumballs and Bennigans Coupons. Mr Abootman, where have you gone?

Begin: You're not my friend buddy!




RE: We want More Money
By Gul Westfale on 5/27/2008 10:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
you're not my buddy, guy!


RE: We want More Money
By DigitalFreak on 5/27/2008 10:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
You're not my friend, guy!


RE: We want More Money
By idconstruct on 5/27/2008 10:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
You're not my guy, buddy!


RE: We want More Money
By theslug on 5/27/2008 10:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
You're not my buddy, friend!


RE: We want More Money
By stryfe on 5/27/2008 10:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
FAIL!


RE: We want More Money
By BruceLeet on 5/27/2008 10:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
You're not my guy, friend.

All this junk law is starting to get stupid, instead of looking for illegal music at the border why not look for illegal drugs, or immigrants.

Why are record companies still trying to fight the internets, they do not know the powerr of the dark siiide. The dark side can save you, even prevent deathh


RE: We want More Money
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 8:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that if the border agent opened your car trunk and saw a Mexican family with 50 kilos of grass, they'd only ask them if they had any MP3 players?

LOL

My apologies to Mexicans for the above comment, but it was due to the US only having one other country on the border besides Canada and truth be known a fair bit of grass comes north into the US from Mexico, or so I've heard.


What about a cellphones?
By krasnal on 5/27/2008 12:36:48 PM , Rating: 1
would cellphones be searched as well? what if I have a watch with some storage on it? or MP3 playing sunglasses and multimedia jacket?
should I prepare sandwiches and drinks for the time of search?

never heard of more retarded idea! if this somehow passes (hey, all is possible, retard got elected twice as a president of usa), then ALL my devices will be encrypted and I dare anybody to try to destroy my property!

More Power to the Pirates Bay!!!

And you greedy fokers can put ur industry deep up ur anus!




RE: What about a cellphones?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 8:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
You can dare 'em to try to destroy your property all you want, and they'll just taser you until you can't even remember you had an MP3 player. That's what our current climate in the US amounts to.

Yes your cellphone is subject, as would anything else they could identify as capable of holding infringing content. Don't even write "deep up ur anus", some bright spark will wonder how many places a memory card can be hidden and down go the pants.


RE: What about a cellphones?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 8:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they'll just taser you until you can't even remember you had an MP3 player. That's what our current climate in the US amounts to

What a stupid thing to say. The human rights and civil rights activists cry for policing methods that are non-lethal. You only get tazed if you are unruly and either resisting arrest or making antagonistic actions to an officer while trying to arrest. Evidence of the "dont taze me bro" idiot in Florida.


RE: What about a cellphones?
By mindless1 on 5/28/2008 2:47:47 AM , Rating: 1
Pretend you know better all you want, but that won't stop you from being a victim just like others who didn't have nearly the offensive attitude you seem to enjoy.

OH and by the way, what kind of drugs are you on to write about "non-lethal" when that is the whole point of the tasering argument, that it may not kill you but you might twitch funny for awhile and never be the same again... but be alive still so it's non-lethal.


RE: What about a cellphones?
By robinthakur on 5/28/2008 11:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You only get tazed if you are unruly and either resisting arrest or making antagonistic actions


So trying to protest that your ipod/iphone/laptop/phone doesn't contain infringing materials forcefully is perfectly fine? Or does this count as being 'unruly' or 'antagonistic'?? In a sane world, this law would never get passed. Sadly I can actually see it happening thanks to apologists like you who justify lost freedoms with the "comply and you will not be hurt" argument. The future is truly a scary place...


RE: What about a cellphones?
By mdogs444 on 5/28/2008 12:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So trying to protest that your ipod/iphone/laptop/phone doesn't contain infringing materials forcefully is perfectly fine?

Sure its perferctly fine to protest, you have legal rights to do so. But if its made into law, you cannot protest your way out of being guilty and resisting arrest because of it. At that point, the court of law is where you prove your innocense, not protesting to the officer.
quote:
Or does this count as being 'unruly' or 'antagonistic'??

Dont be obtuse.
quote:
In a sane world, this law would never get passed. Sadly I can actually see it happening thanks to apologists like you who justify lost freedoms with the "comply and you will not be hurt" argument. The future is truly a scary place...

I agree that I dont see this becoming law, if it does, you still need to obey it. You can protest the law itself, which is fine, but to not obey it because you do not see it as legit...well, thats another story.

Although I dont really see what kind of "freedoms" this is taking away - after all, if you have no illegal items on your portable device, what are you afraid of?


By SilthDraeth on 5/27/2008 10:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
I need to get the ball rolling myself, and get to Encrypting my laptop.

Speaking of, does anyone know if their is an update to that Canadian border crossing case where the guard claimed the guy had child pornography, but his hard drive was encrypted?




By stepone on 5/27/2008 12:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
Wasn't it previously stated that this bill will also outlaw the use of common encrytion software for use on PC's & the internet...

Turn up with an encrypted HD/directory & that's enough to have your laptop seized regardless of the legality of whatever it is you're protecting.


By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 12:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hahah sure.. asking a home user to not have encryption is one thing, but to make sensitive, possibly secret data accessable to a customs agent is just not going to fly in the business community. The reason we probably have not heard about this law, is because at this current juncture, there is probably no way to implement it in a legal way.


By Hive on 5/27/2008 12:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, given that gimme-your-password-or-lose-your-laptop is already being applied to people who happen to look like they might be from a similar country to a terrorist, I think many companies are sending their employees with pretty much empty laptops and have them retrieve any confidential data over the net.


Corporations own the government
By LyCannon on 5/27/2008 11:47:26 AM , Rating: 3
Laws like this is what comes about when corporations control the future of our country.

For those who have not read the summary of this new 'law', it basically kills fair use. If you purchase a 14 track CD and rip it to your computer, you now can be prosecuted for 14 counts of infringement. Put those songs on your iPOD, 14 more counts.

Education is key. I believe that they reason this bill is all behind closed doors is so that the public cannot raise the alarm. Before we know it, it's law.

Thank the gods for WikiLeaks!




RE: Corporations own the government
By TP715 on 5/27/2008 2:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
Several years ago I went to the RIAA web page and I clearly recall that it specifically stated that they considered ripping a CD you own to place the music on your computer and/or your MP3 player was perfectly fine with them and not considered piracy.

Are they now changing their minds, and the laws, so that if you want a piece of music in your car CD changer, in your iPod, on your computer hard drive, in your home stereo CD changer, and in the kitchen CD player that you are to buy 5 copies of the very same song?


RE: Corporations own the government
By Hive on 5/27/2008 3:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
It depends. If the lost revenue due to outrage is greater overall than the number of extra copies people would actually end up buying, then yes, that's exactly what they want. If not, then no. They have to see what they can get away with, you see?


By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 8:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, their mindset is now that your digital download should only be used and stored on the one intended device, and your CD only be read in realtime on a CD player as it plays the audio.

They want to do away with fair use entirely, because they think it will be more profitable for them. Grasping at straws are they.


ACTA - Against Citizens Terrorism Act
By greylica on 5/27/2008 11:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
What happens if we start to use Music from Creative Commons ?
They will judge them as Illegal ?
Is there a black List of Musics ?
Is there a way to prove that we purchase Music from stores ?
Is there a way to prove that border police used brutal force without asking any questions against citizens ?
And what happens if they crash your Ipod without piracy evidence only because they don't like the way you are looking ?

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE STOP COMPLETELY TO BUY MUSIC FROM THEM ALL,FOR 3 DAYS ON A WEEK AT LEAST, TO MAKE THEM SUFFER EQUIVALENT LOSSES, UNTIL THEY STOP TO ACT LIKE SNAKES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS ?




RE: ACTA - Against Citizens Terrorism Act
By JediJeb on 5/27/2008 4:18:54 PM , Rating: 3
Not buying for 3 days a week would never work, because on the other 4 people would just buy what they didn't buy those 3 days. What need to happen is for every single person in the US and Canada to not buy a single CD, DVD, or download any media of any kind for one year. Let the movie studios and record companies deal with a whole year of no sales and see how they like that.

Sad thing is, there are no people today with the strength to do that, 90% of the people today will bow to the wims of these companies just to have their few minutes of pleasure from listening to that new song or watching that new movie. If the Founding Fathers of America had been pulled from the pool of people from this current time, we would still be paying 50% of our income to the British government.

As someone posted above the Declaration of Independence, even the US founding documents says if the government refuses to listen to the people that put them in power, the people don't just have the right, but also the responsibility to remove them from office, and if it comes to it to completly wipe away the government and replace it. Sadly there are no people left with the guts to even talk about such thing anymore.


By skitlets on 5/27/2008 6:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to stop buying completely, just stop buying from corporations affiliated with the RIAA and MPAA.


By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 8:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
What would happen is they'd make up more numbers about how much piracy is hurting them, same as they're already doing when ignoring that people choose not to buy CDs so much anymore. Lots of people just have less disposible income yet the forms of entertainment are still growing.

We don't have to do anything except oppose a charity tax that would subsidize them, otherwise the industry will decline no matter what they do, even if they could magically wipe out piracy tomorrow.


What about the Blank Media Tax we pay
By Ratinator on 5/27/2008 11:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
This is BS. We here in Canada already pay a tax on all blank media which is supposed to go to support musicians, etc. I see several lawsuits in the future.




RE: What about the Blank Media Tax we pay
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 12:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not all blank media, only blank media that is clearly labelled for audio use.. I can't say in recent years I have seen too much of this kind of media, as they are exactly the same as their 'data' cd counterparts, but more expensive of course.


RE: What about the Blank Media Tax we pay
By Ratinator on 5/27/2008 12:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, I am positive I have been paying that tax on my blank CDs and DVDs as well. Definitely not labelled as audio only, just bulk DVDs and CDs.


By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well you do pay it for all CD's but CD's labelled 'Audio CDs' you pay something like 70 cents per disc. A normal 'data disc' you only pay around 20 cents a disc. As for DVD's you don't pay anything. Its also a levy, not a tax, not that it really makes a difference to the consumer ;)

There are also levys on devices like mp3s with non removable memory. I think I heard its a few bucks per device on devices less than 1GB and can be up to 25$ per device if over 1GB.

You are right though, we already pay our levy's, why should we be searched for something we already get taxed for.


I think we're all missing something...
By elgueroloco on 5/27/2008 11:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
What's to stop the Canadians, or American border patrol for that matter, from just taking ppl's stuff and selling it with impunity? All they have to do is say it's got illegal stuff on it, and it's as good as theirs. They can say they destroyed it, and put it on ebay.




By rogard on 5/28/2008 2:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
Ha! Now we're talking...I've always had a strong suspicion that airlines and airport personnel make a fortune by selling the millions of nail clippers and - scissors, tweezers, shampoo bottles etc. they confiscated since 9/11. The impounding and selling of used notebooks and mp3 players will definitely heal the banged up state finances once and for all. Never mind the enormously increased cost for safety personnel.
I think GWB already opened an account on ebay where you can buy your notebook back. Unharmed, with all the pirated stuff still on 'em, so that "they" can do it all over again as soon as you have it in the mail. LOL.

(Uh.../end irony...?)


By IvanAndreevich on 5/28/2008 6:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
I know someone who works at the airport. They have a freaking huge box of high-quality knives and stuff like that at home. Their instructions say to "dispose" of the confiscated stuff. So don't worry, they'll be disposing of your mp3 player or laptop into their pocket :-\

On another note, the real cash cow is the prohibition of drinks. Inside, a bottle of water is $3-4, so now you can't bring your own. You are forced to buy that crap if you are thirsty.


stop drugs not mp3s
By jax1492 on 5/28/2008 3:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if they moved the man power to stopping drugs from entering the country instead of mp3s then we would win that war on drugs.




RE: stop drugs not mp3s
By maverick85wd on 5/28/2008 4:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
You will never win the war on drugs. Fact is, people love doing them. As long as someone will pay for it, there WILL be some in America. What we need to do is take resources off the war on drugs and put it to good use in education. People will always smoke pot, but at least they can be smart as well.

Seriously though, we waste more money on the war on drugs and keeping pot smokers and dealers in jail when they could be out producing for the economy it amazes me.


RE: stop drugs not mp3s
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
True. This is the EXACT reason why I am for the legalizing of drugs and the regulation of drugs, rather than prohibition on drugs.
Too many people in this country, even our ELECTED OFFICIALS like to get a toke or smoke some crack.... it is simply time to realize that NO ONE has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, and imprison the ones who try to do that.


By jay401 on 5/27/2008 10:12:28 AM , Rating: 5
But... but... Today's not April 1st.




Tell me this is a bad dream....
By GGA1759 on 5/27/2008 11:12:46 AM , Rating: 5
It would be at the discretion of the border agents to determine what infringement is and what isn't.

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one.

And when I opened the article, I had this quote at the bottom of the page:
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser




WTF are they smoking?
By rs2 on 5/27/2008 2:17:35 PM , Rating: 5
Do our elected officials seriously think that bullshit like this is why we put them into office? That it's really what the electorate wants?

I say vote them all out if they are this out of touch with the populace.




Dear God...
By kondor999 on 5/27/2008 10:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
I need to dust off my copy of "1984" and read it again.




RE: Dear God...
By idconstruct on 5/27/2008 10:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
no kidding... thats exactly what i was thinking myself when i read the article


Just stay home?
By Arctucas on 5/27/2008 10:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
Either don't travel , or don't take any recordable medium with you if you travel.

What will this do to the tourism industry if people are afraid to cross international borders for fear of fines or arrest?




RE: Just stay home?
By Pottervilla on 5/31/2008 12:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
don't take any recordable medium with you if you travel


5 1/2" floppies and LP's should be pretty safe--punched tape and phonograph cylinders might get damaged in transit. ;-)

Local tourism should perk up; combine digitally closed borders with rising gas prices, and being a neighborhood farm or dairy is looking better all the time.

I hope that this calamity will do for music what has been done for software. When paid software (Windows, anyone?) became expensive and undesirable, the open source community arose and filled the gap.

Here's to open source music!


Facilitation of copyright infringement
By kelmon on 5/27/08, Rating: 0