Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeB1972
Yes, just like people would make sure that the police can't hold you without charging you with a crime - Hang on anti terrorist laws beat that one.
Or how about the public wouldn't stand for being randomly searched on a whim - ahh, no, sorry, airports have that one covered.
It's amazing what the public will accept if they have been convinced it's in their best interest
|
The issue isn't whether the public will agree to laws that restrict and monitor the internet--it's whether those laws will actually be effective in stopping unauthorized data transfers.
They won't, because laws aren't what controls activity on the internet. The legal system gave up on the internet when it
refused to stop spam and email spoofing; demanding individual users be identified and their data be monitored would require the same of bulk-mailing companies. There are several precedents that boil down to "meh, whatcha gonna do?" that would need to be overturned or at least addressed before removing individual anonymity (and thus, lack of accountability) online.
Laws are occasionally used to go after people who use the internet when their harm is judged egregious enough. However, the current laws are ill-suited for this, and there is no attempt to adjust the technology to make breaking those laws more difficult--because that would mean making business transactions much harder.
There are laws, sort of, against spamming. They're not enforced. Too many source-points, too hard to define, too diverse in methodology, too many jurisdictional problems. The same exact issues will face any attempt to end filesharing.
OTOH, there's a bright side: if they figure out how to end spam email
first, the same methods should work very nicely against illegal filesharing, and the public will cheer while they do it.