PirateBay Ban Rockets Pirate Party Website Into The Big Time

[aramoro]

The governers aren't responsible for decisions such as this.

I didn't say he was responsible for it, just that he might well know what's going on, or what's supposed to happen.

If someone is not responsible for something, why does or should their personal opinion on that thing (especially when it's labelled as such when given!) hold any more gravitas than anyone else who is not responsible for it's opinion?



(I apologise for such a hideously constructed sentence in advance...)

Well, because he's an Elected official of the party. If someone with Party Governor next to their name says , the pirate party proxy should do X. As a reader am I to simply know that a Governor has no authority? How do I know this exactly?

[scottishduck]

Expressing an opinion and legislating are two different things. Whether or not the person has authority is irrelevant.

[Duke]

Well, because he's an Elected official of the party. If someone with Party Governor next to their name says , the pirate party proxy should do X. As a reader am I to simply know that a Governor has no authority? How do I know this exactly?

Ah, I see a bit of ambiguous phrasing on my part has caused a page of arguments. Perhaps it should have said "will" rather than "should"; the usage rules of will/shall still confuse me, something to do with first person vs second or third person. Plus I use the passive voice too much. Anyway, the intended meaning of my statement could be clarified as so:

I think the tech people are currently working on a generic proxy, that will work on any website. So I think the child/violent porn and bestiality stuff, and even BNP-related materials shouldwill be available through that if it works the way I think it will, if the executive decide to set it up, and if they exist on the web already.

As for the authority of Governors, you could have a look at the Constitution or the Board's wiki page, which make it fairly clear that the Board is "responsible for proposing amendments to the Party's constitution and is also the final body of arbitration, appeal, and discipline for the Party", neither of which have a direct role in executive function of the Party unless some sort of complaint is lodged.

I don't know about other people here but, personally, I prefer the idea that certain types of information should be available and uncensored until there is a reasonable level of evidence indicating it is harmful enough (in some way) that censoring it is proportionate. That's also pretty much what Article 10 ECHR says, for anyone interested.

I'm glad to see that no one managed to mistake *this* part for an official Party line... perhaps I should add this level of qualification to everything I say.

As for the terror of circumventing the IWF blocklist, aside from the easy way of circumventing them (such as using Google Translate), bear in mind that it is an entirely voluntary list (at the ISP level), and doesn't cover about 5% of commercial internet connections in the country, nor any number of academic or other non-commercial connections. Due to it being more of a political stunt than a sensible tool, my impression is that even the IWF aren't that keen on it, and they do seem to push the idea that they see their reporting role as far more important.

Given that, I think, personally, in my own opinion, as just a random person, not in any official capacity as a Governor, policy advisor, former press officer etc., that setting up a generic proxy that was not subject to the IWF list (or any other ISP-level filtering) would send a clear message that this Party is serious about opposing web-blocking, in more than just a press-releasing way. It might open up the debate on the IWF blocklist again, which is something that, personally, in my own opinion, I think is needed.

[lhsi]

This is a forum, not a field. Please construct your straw-men elsewhere.

It''s more a wicker than straw I feel, the article below the proxy doesn't seem to relate to the story about why it exists at all. You're linking to a website which is almost exclusively for the purpose of violating copyright and say you're trying to protect freedom of expression. That's pretty much exactly what it says infact. Just trying to workout what freedom of expression you're protecting when torrenting The Killing.

As far as I'm aware, no one has mentioned the killing apart from you (and now me. What is the killing anyway? Some pop band or something?)

As you mentioned, the site is not exclusively for violating copyright, so a block to the entire website is therefore unjust; at least to those who added something there that does not violate copyright - why must their expression be curtailed?

Also, everyone prioritises things differently, so it would be foolish to try and define what someone counts as expression and how free they feel it should be. I recall somewhat recently that someone was complaining about what they saw as silly Freedom of Information requests (like for a councils contingency plan in the event of a zombie attack, for example), but the council replied nonetheless because they should not judge what people see as important (in this example, zombie defence) as everyone has different priorities about what they consider important.

[HuwOS]

I believe The Killing was a Danish slow moving thriller that was very popular in the UK when broadcast on the BBC in Spring 2011.

The complaints and arguments being used against various services and indexes on the internet today are disturbingly similar to the arguments and complaints made about the VCR back in the 70's. The biggest threat to the profits of the industries pushing for bans, blocks, takedowns etc., would be if they succeeded in getting their way.

Today the movie business makes more than half of it's profits from the previous technologies that it fought and insisted would destroy the movie business.
Whether its from cable, broadcast tv or home media, if it had won those arguments it would be an immensely smaller and less profitable business than it is and has been for the last 30 years.

Opposing the methods employed by those industries that are supposedly to preserve their business interests is not only in the interests of privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression as well as advancing technological developments and improving services to the average person but if we learn anything from history it will likely improve their own profits too, the problem is they refuse to learn from the past and as such continue to attempt to repeat the same mistakes.

[arioch]

First off, may I say that I am pleased that the PPUK's proxy has drawn attention to the party.

And in response to the obvious troll who pulled the "child pornography" label out, get a life and check your facts before spouting your puerile gibberish.
Did you even check it first? It takes you to TPB, were you disappointed that you could not use it to bypass IWF filters?

But seriously, on the same note, is it not bizarre that a full SWAT team can be put in place to take down such notorious criminals such as Megaupload, get extradition orders for Richard O'Dwyer in order to keep us and our children safe, but you never hear of any cases where these (apparently rampant) child pornography sites are taken down and their owners arrested and charged.
Maybe it's because they are not in direct competition with the US media industries, who after all gave us such stunning role models like Jonathon King, Gary Glitter, Michael Jackson, actually the deeper you look, the longer the list gets
And we all know without a shadow of a doubt that the "casting couch" is an urban myth.
Bill Clinton was a devout and faithful husband, the Kennedy's were practically celibate and Richard Nixon never ever told a lie
UK politicians never fiddled their expenses

So we can all be reassured that these people can be trusted to choose what we can and cannot see, hear, read or view. As our moral guardians we are safe in their hands

I think I would be safer trying to french kiss a cobra

[aramoro]

And in response to the obvious troll who pulled the "child pornography" label out, get a life and check your facts before spouting your puerile gibberish.
Did you even check it first? It takes you to TPB, were you disappointed that you could not use it to bypass IWF filters?

You're suggesting I check my facts? Oh dear. You might want to re-read the thread and have another stab at that one. Don't worry I've got all week, take a good run up.