SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Lily Hay Newman reports at Slate that Sony is counter-hacking to keep its leaked files from spreading across torrent sites. According to Recode, Sony is using hundreds of computers in Asia to execute a denial of service attack on sites where its pilfered data is available, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. Sony used a similar approach in the early 2000s working with an anti-piracy firm called MediaDefender, when illegal file sharing exploded. The firm populated file-sharing networks with decoy files labelled with the names of such popular movies as “Spider-Man,” to entice users to spend hours downloading an empty file. "Using counter-attacks to contain leaks and deal with malicious hackers has been gaining legitimacy," writes Newman. "Some cyber-security experts even feel that the Second Amendment can be interpreted as applying to 'cyber arms'.”
[Ed's Comment: As I understand it, the Second Amendment only applies in the United States or in its territories overseas — it doesn't give Americans the right to bear arms anywhere else in the world.]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Arik on Friday December 12 2014, @01:49PM
Of course US law only applies *to* the United States - I am not at all sure that it was intended to have affect only *in* the United States however. The US government does act outside of its borders - and at least in some cases it does so legitimately - but surely the Constitution must still apply to it regardless of *where* it is acting?
In the broader sense, the Second Amendment, like the First, only acknowledges an inherent human right and prohibits the US government from violating it. It cannot prohibit another government from violating the rights of its own people (because <force|=jurisdiction>) but neither do human rights go away or change at borders, so if you believe in the Second Amendment as the founders did, you also believe that it is *morally* wrong for any government to disarm its own people, whether it is *legal* or not.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @02:23PM
To your point. I still have all my rights anywhere in the world. HOWEVER, only the US gov is legally obligated to back them up. So if I visit another country I follow their laws unless I like jail.
What most people miss with the constitution is it is a subtractive document. We the people have all the rights (ALL). The government is the one being restricted in the document. It limits the government not the people. It does not grant rights to people. We already have them.
Our supreme court actually screwed up on the distinction that somehow our gov can do whatever it wants outside our boarders. That is not true. No where in that document does it say this is only in effect for our land. It is in effect for our government.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday December 12 2014, @05:21PM
Exactly. The U.S. was truly a Revolutionary government. It's Founding Documents assert that Rights are 'self evident Truths' and that every human who has ever drawn breath possesses those Rights. Most are unlucky enough to live in unfree hellholes with oppressive States that deny some or all of those inherent Rights.
Personally I'm a bit wobbly of late on some of those founding concepts. If these Rights are so damned 'self evident' why did it take thousands of years for anybody to notice their existence? And why did the Republic they created fall into a standard issue Empire within a Century?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday December 12 2014, @05:59PM
because power vacuums attract sociopaths and sociopaths hate freedom for anyone but themselves. the only reason we lost our self-evident rights is because we have power-hungry fucktards actively suppressing them.
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 12 2014, @09:10PM
It's still taking too long for people to notice that I have the inherent right to free computers. How do I know I have such a natural right, you ask? Because I consulted the magical rights fairy, of course!
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday December 13 2014, @05:33AM
You will be waiting a very long time. The American system was designed around negative rights. What the State can't do. This new 'Rights' bullcrap where people are now supposed to be entitled to other people's stuff ain't even close to being American; it is Progressive. Those ideas derive from the French and Russian revolutions and should have no place here. But of course they do.... now.
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday December 13 2014, @02:02PM
The American system doesn't matter. My rights are natural, inalienable rights. Sure, I can't scientifically prove that they exist, and I couldn't prove exactly what rights someone has even if I could prove that natural rights existed, but believe me, my rights are what I say they are.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday December 13 2014, @04:29AM
Indeed. The first US Revolution is sometimes criticized as not a real revolution - unlike the French, it did not aim to tear the social fabric to bits and weave it into a new and better form at the directions of the capital. In some ways it was the opposite of the French Revolution indeed. It aimed instead to reassert,to defend, to secure the traditional rights of free men under common law against a despotic colonialism.
But in its own way it was no less radical than the French Revolution, and in a way they are very similar. After a millenia during which Europe was ruled by kings of 'divine right' these two Revolutions challenged that concept openly.
The detractors may point out that the U.S has failed, from the very first, to live up to its promise. They would be correct, but still, to some degree at least, missing the point. It's better the set high standards and fail than to set your standards lower than our fail point and call that success, no?
"Personally I'm a bit wobbly of late on some of those founding concepts. If these Rights are so damned 'self evident' why did it take thousands of years for anybody to notice their existence?"
The concept of morality itself occupies a rather rarified 'altitude' on the scale of abstractions. It's not surprising that it should take time to arise, and more time to become generally acknowledged. It's not surprising that acceptance of it should have crests and troughs. It's not surprising that brute will-to-power should leave us only very slowly, kicking and screaming, then playing dead before exploding into resistance again.
Unfortunate, but not surprising.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday December 13 2014, @04:37AM
Eh, that sounds right *in theory*.
In practice, you can be executed on the street in the US while well within your rights (having black skin does make this easier but it's not required,) and in many other countries you can more or less openly ignore at least *some* of the laws that violate your rights without much worry, so it's less clearcut than that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday December 13 2014, @06:43AM
That is something that is frequently mis-understood, including deliberate mis-interpretations by our government. The Bill of rights is a set of restrictions on our government. They apply directly to our government. They are not limited to citizens or to any particular place. In addition, where our government is prohibited to do something, it is ALSO prohibited to have some other entity to do it on their behalf.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @05:14PM
The bill of rights (and other amendments to the constitution) is not considered fundamental to humanity, by the founders or any informed american. The constitution was specifically a founding document to govern the specific citizens of the new country. The Declaration of Independence was a separate document that laid out the reasons for the separation from the rule of Britain including what the founders considered to be certain self-evident and unalienable rights. I think when you refer to something *morally* wrong for any government to do, you may be thinking of these. The bill of rights and amendments to the constitution, and the constitution in general, are not included in these self-evident and unalienable rights that the founders would have considered morally wrong for any government to contravene.
The declaration says, we find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
While the second amendment to the constitution is considered to be important to many americans, and some may even consider it to be self-evident and inalienable, it's not generally believed by either the founders or leaders today, or the population in general.
Aside from that, I agree with another post above that notes there is a big difference between bearing arms and acting with them, so the reference to the second amendment is not really applicable.
Regarding the editor's statement, [Ed's Comment: As I understand it, the Second Amendment only applies in the United States or in its territories overseas — it doesn't give Americans the right to bear arms anywhere else in the world.]:
Although I agree with you to some extent in your explanatory post in the comments, I'd prefer that you keep your personal politics out of the news section, even when couched in hesitant and ambiguous language such as this.