It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seeking the advice and input of ATS members on an important issue...

page: 15
241
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


I feel that an exception should be to the rule only as far as this subject is concerned and should be contained to this thread. The future of not only ATS but many other small businesses are at stake with this legislation. If the self imposed rules are not worth bending on a subject that directly relates to the survival of the business when there is a chance that the legislation can be stopped through legal and moral channels then is it even worth having ATS around?

I like ATS maybe disagree with some people that are here, but we all have the right to freedom of expression. One thing that I will also add is that I don't think what ever plan of action is taken up if any that it should be limited to just ATS. I believe that it should be a coordinated effort between not just this business, but also other business that will be harmed due to this legislation.

When taking into the stereotypes that get thrown around on this board about Americans being lazy and not caring, are we going to allow those stereotypes to be proven right, or are we actually going to practice what we preach.

If the rules are allowed to be bent for this subject because the survival of this board depends on it, then it should not be just this board that acts alone, as I mentioned earlier, it should be a coordinated effort between other businesses and boards that will be directly affected because of the legislation. Their should also be rules imposed and disclaimers and legal ends tied up before proceeding any further to relive ATS of all liability in case anybody decides to commit any illegal acts.

That is my position at least.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I'm in. Leave the internet alone. This will just open the door for more censorship.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Hmmm that sounds rather nasty.

While i dont believe I can sign this petition or help effect any solution since I am not American, and from what i gather this is a primarily American thing? (I apologise if im wrong, and would definitely sign if its internationally open).

Instead heres an apt quote from one of the best PC games I have, and still on occasions play/played.

Sid Meirs Alpha Centauri




As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal "U.N. Declaration of Rights"


The neat thing is I think its the quote they use for the 'Interplanetary Datalinks' secret project


Edit:- And while I hate on-line advertising and the like... just like TV ads its a necessity for its overall function for the most part, and as such I live with it. If it means the sites I use get to remain open, even more so.

Also its rather easy to stop sites from data gathering all together, just takes a little effort on the users part to do so... and in my mind if you arent willing to put forward that effort or learn how to protect yourself, you deserve to loose the right to any data you might loose or give out.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by TonyClifton
 


That is the issue though.
ATS is a free site, and always has been and if we have any thing to do about it, always will be.

The advertisements are here because those companies pay to use our board space. This form of financial income supports ATS servers, so that members don't have to pay.

ATSers should not have to pay, that is not how we came about and it is not where we want to go.

That is my understanding of this.


If this whole thing doesn't work, will ATS become a subscription based website?

Murdoch is trying to start a trend to pay for content. After all it's free market capitalism, maybe someone above starts this whole process precisely for that reason.

I don't think it's necessarily though, the subscription based ATS I mean, just ask ATSers to opt-in. Unless there's simply not enough revenue coming in, do what wikipedia always do, set up a target donation.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I have doubts about how much good it will do, but give me a petition against this thing and I'll put my name on it.



TA



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
it should be a coordinated effort between other businesses and boards that will be directly affected because of the legislation.

That will be the case, and is in progress at the moment.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
If this whole thing doesn't work, will ATS become a subscription based website?


It's a much bigger issue than what might happen to ATS.



Make no mistake, this is a big-media-backed effort (read lobbyists) to squeeze the life out of small independent websites by cutting off their only means of support, advertising. Small sites (those under 1 million monthly unique users) account for nearly 75% of all web traffic. That's huge... it's important... and it's a massive amount of content out of the control of big media.


If the politicians are really and truly concerned about the potential impact on personal privacy posed by "tracking cookies," more logical approaches would be:

Legislation restricting what data the ad networks can collect -- such as what is in place for credit card companies.

Legislation restricting what data the ad networks can use for marketing -- such as what is in place for retail stores.

Legislation to punish ad fraud and malfeasance -- such as what is in place for advertising targeted at children... and computer hacking crimes in general.

But... wait... why do we need legislation for a problem that does not exist? Not even the EFF can point to a singular privacy intrusion as a result of ad cookie misuse.


Instead of logical solutions for a supposed problem, we get an overt effort -- proposed by someone who clearly doesn't even understand the draft legislation -- that removes advertising from the small sites while giving advantage to the big sites.

The proposed legislation is government-supported conspiracy created in collusion with big media.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I don't have any problem with ATS or any other site getting some income from their efforts. I appreciate all of the time spent by the people running these sites, but the "cookies" are not necessary.

I think this legislation is a decent idea. Why can't we have the advertisements without the cookies? I thoroughly believe that ATS has the best intentions, but cookies can be abused. If a bad one were to get onto my work computer, I could lose my job, or worse yet, I could compromise confidential data!!

There should be some type of warning when sites are using cookies, and there should be some type of repercussion when a site doesn't take every possible precaution to protect its users!

At my job, I have had to fire people, and take emergency precautionary actions when employees of mine have inadvertently let cookies or software add-ons infiltrate their computer. They think they are getting a game, or a free trial, or an upgrade to some software, but they are getting much more!

As with all government action, it is a slippery slope to give any extra oversight to a bureaucracy, but some measure of control is probably needed!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Hello Memory Shock,
It’s a great pleasure to meet you.
I’ve noticed you around here and I must admit, despite your loquaciousness, I quite like the cut of your jib. (If I may...)
The subtle overture of your comments is not lost on me and in response I can only suggest that we drop the question of how aware of the situation the other person is.

Everyone here can have anyone’s ear.

Schrodingers dog, I’m just pleased to have caught your attention, I don’t actually believe that you believe the rules are not everything.

What’s to stop me from doing good or bad once the rules don’t count?

What, indeed, could be done to stop me from merely suggesting something that blossoms into movements fantastic or terrifying?

Whimsy, of course is the answer. But alas, here within the confines of our subject matter, we are not discussing UFO’s or Sasquatch.

Do as thou will ATS, but beware of what you will become.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


That is the only way I could see this working. You have my support with whatever ya'll decide to do.

reply to post by getreadyalready
 


That is precisely the problem. You as a business owner are responsible for your employees and the security of your network. Computers are here to stay. Either we can let the government take control and "protect" us from what stupid people do, or we can start showing personal responsibility and learn how to protect ourselves.

Sure things happen, but the behavior of your employee's when they are on the clock is your responsibility and not the governments. Either we can start learning how to protect ourselves against malicious intent or we can continue through life having somebody doing it for us effectively lowering the bar. The only way we are going to be able to compete globally is through education and betterment of ourselves lowering the bar is only going to further hinder us.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Why can't we have the advertisements without the cookies?

The cookies used by ad companies contain a random unique number/identifier that signifies you as a unique user. This way they can ensure you see a reasonable variety of ads, and make an attempt to target more relevant ads to you, based on the sites you hit.




I thoroughly believe that ATS has the best intentions, but cookies can be abused. If a bad one were to get onto my work computer, I could lose my job, or worse yet, I could compromise confidential data!

Do you have an example of an abused cookie? They can only be written by the sites you visit -- or by the ads on those sites.




At my job, I have had to fire people, and take emergency precautionary actions when employees of mine have inadvertently let cookies or software add-ons infiltrate their computer. They think they are getting a game, or a free trial, or an upgrade to some software, but they are getting much more!

I think your mistaking cookies -- simple text files -- with something else.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I'd support a petition movement on this. Its disgusting to imagine a world without free speech and press. . . . let's take it to'em SO

CW gots your back



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Dude,

Ccleaner.

Gets rid of all cookies collected while browsing, use it every time you get on the net, there should be no problem at all. Cookies are not a danger. This bill IS.


TA



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by briantaylor

Schrodingers dog, I’m just pleased to have caught your attention, I don’t actually believe that you believe the rules are not everything.


You are actually correct about me in this regard. Not so much about rules per se, but about the virtue of principle ... I thank you both for noticing and expressing that.

If I am reading SO and the ATS hierarchy correctly, they are struggling with this very same existential issue, hence the impetus behind this very thread. After all, they could have just gone right ahead and just done it ... instead they allow us to weigh in, and at the same time gage our disposition.

But I can guarantee you one thing, EVEN if every single person on this site agreed with the premise, and the thread got 1000 flags, and every one of us was willing to sign the petition, and even if we all agreed to never throw it back at them next time one of us thought of a worthy cause to petition for, even then it will not make this decision an easy one for the owners and staff of this site. It may actually be one of the most defining ones they have made to date.

Easy for all of us to agree or disagree, we don't have their mirror, though in the end I'm sure they appreciate both our honest support and/or our reasoned objections.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Rich sounds like a Dick! (pun INTENDED) Youve got my vote, But, i would have to say that something like this, is going to piss off the wrong internet user(s) i dont expect him to live much longer. I bet someone will take him out. Just a suspicion. But our luck would be that some other douche will take his place and also try to get this passed.

But either way, you have my vote.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 




I think your mistaking cookies -- simple text files -- with something else.


No, I don't have any examples, because I don't know exactly what the agents got into that compromised their computers. I work for Department of Revenue, so we act pretty swiftly when a computer has ANY anomaly.

Admittedly, I am not very adept at html, isp, networking, etc., but I know that we have a lot of complicated filtering systems, and warnings, and good people that work for me have been tricked into getting a bad code somehow. I am not suggesting ATS or any other website would do it on purpose, but if a novice user allows a site to enable cookies, and gets into a habit of it at several sites, then it is a short jaunt to enabling one wrong thing.

Perhaps I am mistaken about cookies, but it seems that a decent, naive website, could allow a fringe advertising company to put questionable ads through to its customers. It seems pretty likely that something bad could happen?

And, I don't understand why the cookies are so important? (Honest question; is it a luxury, or a necessity?) Why not just banner ads, with links to websites. Why do they have to use cookies?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0
Damn sure I will support the petition if I can, while I am not even American


Yeah that goes for me an all, count me in..



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 




Boucher
is proposing legislation that will effectively eliminate third-party ad networks as an option for small to mid-sized websites.


Where is this legislation that is being proposed? I would like to look at it, but I'm not finding it, and according to this interview, no bill has been written, but the intent of the bill he says he plans to write is to require opt-in for sharing user information with third parties.

That, unfortunately, can be interpreted in several ways...but as this article phrases it:



Content from external source
Sites that collect visitor information in order to target advertising on their own pages, for instance, would have to offer consumers a chance to opt out of having their interests tracked. These sites would also be required to prominently disclose what information they collect and provide a detailed description of how that information is used.


This is how some ad networks already handle it. For example, if you visit www.google.com/ads/preferences you can see which categories google thinks you're interested in. You can opt in and out of categories as you please. There's nothing intrusive about this, and this won't affect ATS at all. Again...it's already this way.



Content from external source:
Web sites that deal with sensitive personal information, such as medical and financial data, sexual orientation, Social Security numbers and other ID numbers, would have to ask users to opt in to being tracked.


The "opt-in" requirement doesn't appear to apply to typical web browsing preferences. I don't see how any of this will affect typical websites. And if you are distributing social security numbers, medical data, etc to third parties....well then, yeah...requiring an opt-in doesn't seem unreasonable.

And incidentally...even if you were trafficing in social security numbers, that "opt-in" would simply be tacked onto your existing Terms and Conditions policy. Users would check it once, and that would be the end of it.

What's the concern?


[edit on 25-11-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I agree with you for the most part, Mr. Dog, except I think that SO has accomplished what he set out to do.

I have a great deal more to say on this matter but I'm holding my tongue (fingers?). It's amazing what one can learn about a person in only a few lines.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I spend most of my spare time on ATS. I would be really bored without this site. If you want me to sign a petition then bring on the pen and paper and lets all sign this thing. So, yes I agree to bringing on a petition for this matter.

Hope everyone else here feels the same way as I do.

later on,
Angel One



new topics

top topics



 
241
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join