Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Restricts Anti-Cop Videogames
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to this CNN report mentioning that Washington state is the first in the US to regulate the sale of videogames to minors. The bill, passed Monday, "..forbids selling minors any video or computer game depicting violence against law enforcement officials.". Interestingly, the law (as mentioned at Slashdot a while back) seems to ignore the fairly well-respected voluntary ESRB ratings for games, with the article suggesting that Enter The Matrix might be banned for purchase by those under 17, due to the player battling cops, despite EtM only being rated 'Teen' by the ESRB.
Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other. Interactions over networks will be untraceable, via extensive re-routing of encrypted packets and tamper-proof boxes which implement cryptographic protocols with nearly perfect assurance against any tampering. Reputations will be of central importance, far more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today. These developments will alter completely the nature of government regulation, the ability to tax and control economic interactions, the ability to keep information secret, and will even alter the nature of trust and reputation.
The technology for this revolution--and it surely will be both a social and economic revolution--has existed in theory for the past decade. The methods are based upon public-key encryption, zero-knowledge interactive proof systems, and various software protocols for interaction, authentication, and verification. The focus has until now been on academic conferences in Europe and the U.S., conferences monitored closely by the National Security Agency. But only recently have computer networks and personal computers attained sufficient speed to make the ideas practically realizable. And the next ten years will bring enough additional speed to make the ideas economically feasible and essentially unstoppable. High-speed networks, ISDN, tamper-proof boxes, smart cards, satellites, Ku-band transmitters, multi-MIPS personal computers, and encryption chips now under development will be some of the enabling technologies.
The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders, and fears of societal disintegration. Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto anarchy will allow national secrets to be trade freely and will allow illicit and stolen materials to be traded. An anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements will be active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of crypto anarchy.
Just as the technology of printing altered and reduced the power of medieval guilds and the social power structure, so too will cryptologic methods fundamentally alter the nature of corporations and of government interference in economic transactions. Combined with emerging information markets, crypto anarchy will create a liquid market for any and all material which can be put into words and pictures. And just as a seemingly minor invention like barbed wire made possible the fencing- off of vast ranches and farms, thus altering forever the concepts of land and property rights in the frontier West, so too will the seemingly minor discovery out of an arcane branch of mathematics come to be the wire clippers which dismantle the barbed wire around intellectual property.
Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!
Troll 126 of 211 from the annals of the Troll Library .
Here we go again! Another misleading headline gracing the Slashdot.org page! According to the headline, we get the assumption that these games are banned across the board (minors, adults, and everybody else) instead of what the story is about: sales to people under the age of 17.
This rule of thumb has existed for many years now in regard to sales to minors for most stores have NOT allowed M rated games to be sold to children unless there was parental consent.
Once again, Slashdot chooses to not read the entire article for which it is about and once again looks like another half assed attempt at a news site.
Poop! Seriously, like poop in my pants!
So suckit!
No, but it does mean that your breath smells of hot penis and your lips taste of sperm.
Reminds me of a conversation I had this monring.
"What the hell is that noise!" (mom)
"We'uns blowed up a gasoline motor out back, ma." (joey F)
"Well fuck, did anyone get hurt?"
"Yes'm. We killed a dog and a nigger."
"Shame, I always did like that dog."
More to the point, guns, be they a fundamental American right or not, kill vastly greater numbers of innocents each year than video games.
Ok, three HUGE problems with the above statement.
First off, guns DO NOT kill anyone. Whatever belligerant little shit that claims a gun killed anyone is an idiot. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. A gun is an INANIMATE OBJECT, that does not move, fire, hunt people down, or make decisions on its own.
Second, guns are tools used to SAVE thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives a year (perhaps not all from imenent death, but also from rape, beatings, etc) when used for defense.
The other problem being the assertion that they may not be fundamental rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it does not bestow rights that someone at the time thinks we should have. Instead, it enumerates rights that ALL people have ALWAYS had and ALWAYS will have. I simply fail to see how someone could say "be they a fundamental American right or not" and still insist that the 1st amendment is rock-solid no-debate, 100% a right that all American citizens have. You either acknowldge that we all have the inherant rights listed in the Bill of Rights, or not. There really isn't picking and choosing without invalidating them all.
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.