Gun Community Communication

[shdwfx]

The High Road outage made me ponder the critical role message boards play in the gun community.

Ten years ago, a BATAF raid such as the one in Arizona last week would have gone un-noticed by all but the local community. Drives to lobby for support or opposition to legislation were limited in effectiveness due to limited communication channels. The internet changes much of that.

Some here write there will never be another AWB because we as a community are greater in number than in '86/'94 and well connected through sights such as THR, ARFCOM, and others. But, what if those resources were taken from us?

What if a political hack in the FCC swooped in and shut down THR like BATF shut down Calvary Arms? Do we have a backup plan for that? How could we re-group and restore communication channels? Even if another board were set up in its place, how would you know about it in a timely fashion?

Don't think the antis won't try to do this if they can under the auspices of an anti-friendly administration.

Possible solutions: email lists, phone trees, and mass mailings are all inefficient and rife with privacy conners.

What about a peer-to-peer message-board system where there is no centralized server to shut down. Could that be effective?

 

[Soybomb]

I think its important to remember that the number of firearm enthusiasts who are drawn to participate in online firearm communities is still quite low compared to the number of firearm owners. I think the greater benefit to widespread internet usage is that the general public can poke around and check the work of the brady group. They can easily go to the Texas DPS site and look at the conviction rates of permit holders, or they can easily look at a copy of the FBI's UCR and see just how many people are being killed by rifles.

What if a political hack in the FCC swooped in and shut down THR like BATF shut down Calvary Arms?

What if the mayor of chicago wants to close down THR? Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they're entitled to, and if they were entitled to, it doesn't mean its possible.

 

[JWarren]

I think its important to remember that the number of firearm enthusiasts who are drawn to participate in online firearm communities is still quite low compared to the number of firearm owners.

Agreed. I can think off the top of my head of at least 30 avid gun owners that I know well who do not participate in any forums.

Of these, a good percentage rely on me for information as to what political landscape surrounding RKBA.

I DO believe the strength of our community is greater now than in '94. But it is because of the communication of boards such as this-- and our willingness to share that communication with the rest of the firearms community.


-- John

 

[shdwfx]

Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they're entitled to, and if they were entitled to, it doesn't mean its possible.

Internet usage in the USA under Clinton and Bush has been largely uninhibited, and we take that for granted even though there have been multiple bills presented that would take away these freedoms (net neutrality, etc.). Don't think that China-esque restrictions couldn't be put in place by a future administration for "security" purposes.

It more than possible to shut down access to a single site or group of sites - it has been done before. It is much more difficult to shut down a distributed system.

 

[Zak Smith]

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore

 

[Soybomb]

Internet usage in the USA under Clinton and Bush has been largely uninhibited, and we take that for granted even though there have been multiple bills presented that would take away these freedoms (net neutrality, etc.). Don't think that China-esque restrictions couldn't be put in place by a future administration for "security" purposes.

It more than possible to shut down access to a single site or group of sites - it has been done before. It is much more difficult to shut down a distributed system.

For whatever its worth this is the sort of thing I do for a living at a telephone company and feel pretty comfortable saying that legislation isn't what I mean when I talk of it being possible. If your concern is the creation of a great firewall of china popping up in the US I don't think you'd be worried about the ammo serialization bill in your state. You and countless other americans would be rioting, possibly with your guns, over the violation of your 1st amendment rights to free speech. But even then we come back to the problem that the great firewall of china doesn't work there either. You can't control the internet short of taking it away entirely. More importantly this isn't the type of thing that just happens because someone at the FCC decides they don't want a website around anymore, no matter how anti gun the administration is.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

It's quite a shame that there is only one gun discussion board on the internet and the FCC could shut it down on a whim.

 

[230RN]

shdwfx

Internet usage in the USA under Clinton and Bush has been largely uninhibited, and we take that for granted even though there have been multiple bills presented that would take away these freedoms (net neutrality, etc.). Don't think that China-esque restrictions couldn't be put in place by a future administration for "security" purposes.

I've wisecracked before and I'll wisecrack again:

"That's why we need a bunch of silversmiths who can ride horses real fast."

After all, that's one of the first things a General goes for: his opponent's communications.

 

[Spyvie]

There are current events relevent to this discussion:

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_court_attacks_web_freedom

US court attacks web freedom
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search
US court attacks web freedom; enjoins Wikileaks.org out of existence
Date
Monday February 18, 2008
By
Stephen Soldz
One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.

Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. Today I received a message explaining that a California court has granted an injunction written and requested by Cayman Island’s Bank Julius Baer lawyers. It seems that the bank is trying to keep the public from accessing documents that may reveal shady dealings. Wikileaks was only given a couple of hours notice “by email” and was not even represented at the hearing where a U.S. judge took such a drastic step attempting to totally shut down an important information outlet. The result was this totally unprecedented attempt to totally wipe out the existence of Wikileaks:

“Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.”
There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response.

If this injunction stands, it will set an incredible precedent for all of us who use the web to unveil misbehavior by the rich and powerful. Fortunately, Wikileaks is fighting this unconstitutional attack on press freedom, aided by six pro bono attorneys in San Francisco. While Wikileaks has so far not issued any particular call for support, all who value freedom should stand ready to offer whatever support they need.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks still exists. Its founders, knowing that governments and institutions will go to extreme lengths to censor the truth, have created an extensive network of cover names from which one can access their materials or continue leaking the secrets of governments and the corrupt rich and powerful. Thus, everything is available at Wikileaks.be, among other names. Let the leaks continue!

The judge reversed his decision:

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3690

So, the Wikileaks.org site is back online, after Federal Judge Jeffrey White dissolved his previous order, ordering the site’s U.S. registrar to pull it off the net. In reversing those orders, the judge focused on the First Amendment implications of taking the site down. But even more to the point, the judge noted with regret that his injunctions were just plain useless.

The record currently before the Court indicates that even the broad injunction issued as to Dynadot had exactly the opposite effect as was intended. The private, stolen material was transmitted over the internet via mirror websites which are maintained in different countries all over the world. Further, the press generated by this Court’s action increased public attention to the fact that such information was readily accessible online. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing that any restraining injunction in this case would serve its intended purpose.

In addition, there is evidence in the record that “the cat is out of the bag” and the issuance of an injunction would therefore be ineffective to protect the professed privacy rights of the bank’s clients.

 

[230RN]

Hm. China must be smarter than we are, then.

Sorry, but I can't help but suspect that it's possible to shut down the whole web except for M & P communications under some Executive Order or another. Bits versus bullets.

I'm sure it's more than just a switch-flip, but I can't imagine a Government not being able to do so. It'd be one of those unwinnable bets, but I'd bet a buck there are already procedures in place for this, ready-to-go.

Call me naive, call me dumb, call me late for dinner.

Or just paranoid.

 

[Soybomb]

Hm. China must be smarter than we are, then.

China's firewall is as effective at stopping undesired internet traffic as our drug laws are at stopping people from smoking pot. Having a solution in place doesn't mean it actually works.

Sorry, but I can't help but suspect that it's possible to shut down the whole web except for M & P communications under some Executive Order or another. Bits versus bullets.

I feel like we're drifting a bit from the idea of a gun related website being taken down to the entire internet being shutdown. I think its possible that the government could severely cripple internet service for a length of time just by leaning on tier 1 provides who are for the most part already in their pocket, but not selectively disable parts or sites. It isn't conceivable for the time being, it would be economically devistating and cripple the country.

 

[Deanimator]

1. I can set up a discontinuous FidoNet network running off of laptops, acoustic couplers and payphones that NOBODY could ever eliminate... at least without eliminating most telecommunications in this country.

2. When the government starts shutting down online fora, I GUARANTEE you that a shooting war is barely seconds away. When that happens, a LOT of people will see that as the imminent warning of an impending police state and won't wait to see what happens next. Rent the movie "Michael Collins" to see exactly what that means.

 

[shdwfx]

When the government starts shutting down online fora, I GUARANTEE you that a shooting war is barely seconds away.

Um, governments are already trying to do this with varying degrees of success.

Yes, the Great Firewall of China is circumventable by the tech-savy but at risk of criminal charges. Yes, the wikileaks shutdown had a happy ending, but the point is OUR government has shown a willingness to violate 1st amendment rights when it's politically expedient (McCain-Feingold, Digital Millennium Copyright Act anyone?)

Soybomb, of course such measures aren't technically fool-proof. Due to my profession, I am aware of this as much as anybody.

But, we of all communities should understand the concept that laws and government action violating rights only violate them for law-abiding citizens.

The point is, if the feds should start targeting gun owners in the next few years, a more robust communication system than centralized message boards might be in order.

 

[junyo]

1. I can set up a discontinuous FidoNet network running off of laptops, acoustic couplers and payphones that NOBODY could ever eliminate... at least without eliminating most telecommunications in this country.

Laptop's and acoustic couplers; that is some old school hacking. I was thinking along the lines of PDAs and wifi or cells; throwaway email or P2P servers that can be left in public libraries and coffehouses. Have fun storming all those Starbuck's guys.

People don't really realize how technology's changed the world. It's shifted power from the group to the individual. You don't need a big operation to have a bulletin board or a chatroom or a webserver. So in a country where you can go to Best Buy and buy a laptop that'll fly the space shuttle and a prepaid cell phone with internet access, for cash, it's going to be real hard to knock down specific sites/movements without them being able to make a ruckus. Don't get me wrong, you could do it, but the other side is so many people would immediately notice it and red flag the actions required to accomplish it, that that would be the balloon going up for an awful lot of folks.

 

[Deanimator]

Um, governments are already trying to do this with varying degrees of success.

Not THIS government. Such an act would be manifestly against the 1st Amendment in ANY current mainstream interpretation. When you take away people's non-violent means of expression, they find alternatives. Try to shut down fora like this one and they'll find them quick and hard. Those who attempted such a blatant attempt at a police state would inevitably start looking like the "Black & Tans" to a lot of people, people unlikely to respond with a peaceful sit-in.