Slashdot Mirror
CFP 2002 Wrapup
Roger Clarke is an computer scientist who attends many of the CFP conferences, and more importantly for our purposes, takes notes. His notes for this year's conference make good reading and cover a wide variety of issues that Slashdot touches upon. Privacy, biometrics, domain names, the digital divide, intellectual property, it's all here. NTK this week has a nice quip on the conference: "And the more the CFPers confer, the more they seemed to realise that Hollywood is going for the hat-trick: taking away freedom, privacy *and* computers. Pretty impressive. But only if they manage it."
Here is an idea to create "private" identification cards. Using our computers, we often create certificates and awards of merit for people. I propose simply creating our own id cards for ourselves. These are not forgeries and they are not in anyway fraudulent because the identification cards we create are our own totally original works.
I know of someone who is without a valid drivers license because a certain government department requires a "breeder" card to issue a new drivers license. This person applied for the breeder card in the state of their birth where there is currently a strike by the government workers. The person is stuck because the state of their birth won't issue a birth certificate unless the person succumbs to a medical emergency in a foreign country. This person has had a warning and a US$70 fine for driving without a valid driver's license because of bureaucracy in this matter.
This person has decided to leave the State of Fear and take some responsibility and use some imagination and create their own driver's license. Of course, the Dept. of Motor Vehicles of various organizations will still have to approve such a card but in the meantime the "private" drivers license will be shown to interested law enforcement officers.
I invite the "many" lawyers to offer help in this matter.
Does this scare anyone else?
Proponents argue that digitizing the nation's social security card system to resemble a credit card system, and creating one national information database, are needed to protect against terrorism. Critics argue that such a tracking and/or monitoring system would violate the core freedoms of the nation's citizens and that what is needed is better procedures among agencies and standardization of data entry.
Our current system for credit cards is horribly insecure. A 12-15 year old child has no problem acquirring and using stolen credit cards. I know, because I used to be one of those children. Credit card fraud is remarkably easy. Combine this with the dangers of having an international database containing all this sensitive information and we have a serious threat on our hands. The risks involved here are astounding.
Sure, but what they'd say is something to the effect of "the license fee is $0.01 - the other $14.99 is for media and shipping and handling".
But I tend to agree - if I purchase something, it's MINE, regardless of what the "license" says, and I can do what I want with it.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
And don't we already have laws in place crimializing file sharing? Copyright laws? Funny, if they can't adequately prosecute people under the existing laws, that's their own fault, not the law's.
Frankly, it's not their content they're protecting, it's their outmoded business model. Their content is already protected by a myriad of laws. Yes, they need to make money, and yes, the artists need to have their work protected. But the current run of laws which are ostensibly for the latter, are really for the former, and make no mistake.
Allowing me to play DVDs on my system of choice, or copying my CDs to my computer for my personal convenience, while not my right per se, is actually in the best interest of the companies currently trying to outlaw such things, because it makes me more likely to puchase more of their product.
Region encoding and broken audio formats aren't protecting the artist from illegal copying. A bit-wise copy of some media on to other media can't be stopped, it simply has to be caught, which takes money and effort which the MPAA and RIAA aren't prepared to put forth, because laws are cheaper and require less effort to purchase. In any case, these two methods are merely for the protection of a business model. A bad business model, some may argue. The business model is dying, and rather than coming up with something else, the business is alienating it's customers with draconian tactics. Ultimately, these tactics will cut into their revenue far more than copyright infringements will. Selling one copy to an infringer is better than not selling any to people who despise you.
Do not touch -Willie
Not Exactly. They need to come up with an alternative business model that all ows them to take advantage of the medium. This does not mean they need to buy a stack of legislation and turn computers into TV 2.0. It is not our responsibility to make their money. They provide a product, and if we like it , we can buy it.
I worked for 4 years in the movie/tv business, and I guarantee that most of the people in that industry are perfectly capable of crossing over into other fields. Well, maybe not Actors, but the below the line technicians are some of the most resilient problem solvers I have every met.