
ISP flip-flops: why do they now support "six strikes" plan? - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2011/07/why-did-telcos-flip-flop-and-support-six-strikes-plan.ars
======
nextparadigms
Three points from the article:

1) The ISP's now have content of their own, so they'll gladly try to stop the
illegal sharing of content on their network, because there's now a profit
incentive to do so.

2) The White House acted as a "broker" in this deal, probably forcing their
hand to accept the deals, unless they wanted more regulation for this.

3) The presumption of innocence is gone. You can now be found "guilty" without
any court saying so.

On 3, that's why I think the Big Content industry is by _far_ the most
dangerous entity not only to online freedoms, but other freedoms as well. They
are the ones pushing most of the online censorship regulations, and they are
the ones pushing institutions like ICE, Homeland Security and even FBI to
consider people guilty first and take down their websites or servers, without
due process.

I wouldn't be surprised if 5-10 years from now they'll try to get the Police
to check your iPod or phone for any illegal songs when they pull you over for
exceeding the speed limit.

~~~
pwg
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a
communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I
wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

~~~
tomjen3
And had he spoken out, he would have died.

That is the real problem.

~~~
dspillett
Not if enough people stood with him (even against such an oppressive and
confident force).

The problem there being the in his case "enough people" would have been a
_great_ many people and contrary to what we tell ourselves us humans don't
tend to work so well in large groups especially when you are relying on the
rest of the group to stand firm.

That is the point of the quote: many people didn't take action because of the
risk to themselves if not enough other people took action too. If everyone
speaks out you have some safety in numbers assurance, even if a small
proportion of people meet with reprisals. If only a few speak out with you,
you are guaranteed to be picked off in short order.

That is not a risk we would naturally consider, and as the quote suggests this
locally greedy algorithm for deciding when to act and when to keep shtum falls
easily into the hands of a growing oppressive force.

~~~
tomjen3
The problem is that you have to organize a large enough force at the same
time. Even if you show up a day later, it is too late.

~~~
dspillett
Sometimes things happen at the required scale with more spontaneity than
planning (as with the first uprisings that started the collection of public
shows of discontent in various countries recently) though it is rare. Once
there is enough momentum many people join, but the natural reaction is to
preserve yourself by not joining in until there is that momentum, which may
never happen unless the circumstances are _just right_ at exactly the right
time because everyone else is waiting for other people to get started and
create said momentum.

------
shareme
one big problem..

The agreement violates most current anti-trust laws. I wonder how the
Whitehouse got the ISPs to agree to face such lawsuits over it being illegal?

