SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-never-have-too-many-offsite-backups-eh dept.
The Internet Archive plans to create a backup of its data in Canada in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States:
The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that saves copies of old web pages, is creating a backup of its database in Canada, in response to the election of Donald Trump. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," the organization wrote in a blogpost explaining the move. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change."
[...] The move will cost millions, according to the Internet Archive, which is soliciting donations. In their post, the Internet Archive justified its decision to backup its data in Canada, claiming that Trump could threaten an open internet. "For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:32PM
1a. I have seen no reports of him walking back anything he's said about clamping down on free speech.
1b. It shouldn't matter if he did walk it back as far as precautionary measures by organizations like the internet archive are concerned.
2. Never count on institutions to save you from a determined person placed into power. The 4th and 8th amendments did nothing to stop us from torturing people for years. The damage that can be done in the mean-time is tremendous.
3. If he successfully knocks criticism off the internet(again, I understand how this is supposed to not happen) archive copies of that criticism would be a natural next target even if he didn't understand it now, he might later.
And in response to your summary: things he said he will do are never and will never be hollow reasons to be concerned. Believe the autocrat when he says what he wants to do. [nybooks.com]
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:53PM
1. I don't expect him to individually walk back every statement he's ever made. But he has a clear and well documented history of saying one thing and then changing his mind. There's no reason to believe that his libel law thing is any different.
2. Free Speech/1st amendment is a bigger deal to most people/organizations than torturing of terrorism prisoners in foreign black sites. Many that would look away for the latter would be up in arms for the former.
3. Let's go with your assumption. Even though I think it's crazy. So he suspends the First Amendment and before the Supreme Court shuts him down, he tells the Internet Archive to delete everything he dislikes. I assume they'll say no and sue him for First Amendment violations. And then what? He sends troops to destroy their servers? Huh? How exactly does he carry out his order? And more importantly, why? I get you don't like him, but thinking he's that unhinged to sacrifice his Presidential term to go nuclear on a non-profit archive site is tinfoil hat territory.
And yeah, hollow arguments are bad. They're easily picked apart and bring down the rest of your arguments and your own credibility. It's a weak link. Ever notice how people seem to focus on that one incorrect point in a sea of valid arguments? You're not doing your position any favors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:59PM
Why bother with the courts when you have the NSA/CIA/FBI to do your bidding?
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM
Then by that measure any private citizen or nation-state is a potential danger. Why single out Trump?
IA should've done this years ago when the Snowden revelations came out that showed the breadth of technical capability that the NSA has.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:05PM
Agreed that the Internet Archive should have started working toward an off-site backup years ago.
Given the response to Trump by many people, this could be a very good time to raise funds for the backup site. With the long reach of the three letter agencies, I wonder if Canada is the best choice...but then I'm having trouble thinking of a better country.
** New contraction, invented at breakfast today -- lies by Trump = lumps.
usage: "I guess I'll read the headlines and see if there are anymore lumps today."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:00PM
I don't want to debate Trump's positions or whatever in detail, but I'd just note something here:
Free Speech/1st amendment is a bigger deal to most people/organizations than torturing of terrorism prisoners in foreign black sites. Many that would look away for the latter would be up in arms for the former.
Free speech has been curtailed many times in U.S. history. We had the Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org] within a decade of the adoption of the Constitution. Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus [wikipedia.org] during the Civil War and threw protesters, journalists, legislators, and even judges in military prison -- for indefinite periods -- who disagreed with the war effort. Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918 [wikipedia.org] with intent to jail war protesters and those who criticized the government; there was little public opposition to this. The Smith Act [wikipedia.org] was used to prosecute declared Communists, Socialists, union members, racist organizations, etc. -- and many prosecutions under the act were widely supported by the U.S. public. In more recent decades we have seen measures like expansion of Free speech zones [wikipedia.org] to limit where free speech and protest is allowed.
I could go on, since this just lists some of the most well-known and wide-ranging cases in U.S. history of suppression of free speech. Just yesterday we had the President-elect calling for jailing and revoking citizenship for flag burners. (And yeah, I'm well aware that Clinton too co-sponsored a bill that would have tried to jail them too a decade ago; I don't agree with her either.)
It's nice and all to say that people would be "up in arms" when restrictions on free speech are created, but historical precedent shows otherwise. When people are SCARED or believe there is a THREAT, the public is mostly happy to support restrictions on speech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:44PM
Apt examples, Athanasius. Depressing in their veracity, but apt.
It's why America is a process and not a destination, and nobody gets to call the game when the score moves in his direction.
In the wake of the election poor dears on DailyKos and HuffingtonPost were raising their fists, proclaiming it's now time to "fucking fight." They should have been fighting all along, no matter who was in DC, because every single one of those fuckers works 24/7 to fuck over the American people no matter what the party label next to their name says. Instead, they laid down and said nothing while Obama and his cronies continued the same abuses that Bush and his cronies continued from Clinton and his cronies...
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:02AM
You're contradicting yourself... on one hand you're saying believe what he says, but on another you're not acting (by your online posts) what you're preaching.
Go read his book "The Art of the Deal". He is a businessman, he mentions that the best way to negotiate is to open high so you can then negotiate down. This means he will always start with an extreme statement so when you get down to negotiating with folks on the other side, you got room to move. You start from a position of strength.
.. so you claim that one should believe what the autocrat says.. do you believe what he says in his own book about how he behaves?