Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Kills California Anti-Pretexting Bill
IAmTheDave writes "A California anti-pretexting bill that got unanimous support in the state senate with a vote of 30-0 was struck down after heavy last-minute lobbying by the MPAA. The bill aimed to make deceptive 'pretexting' (lying) to gain personal information on another person illegal. The MPAA told legislators 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,' and thus killed the bill when it came up for a final vote. California passed a much narrower bill that 'bans the use of deceit to obtain telephone calling records, and nothing else.' In a final 'think of the children' bid, the Califonia Association of Licensed Investigators also opposed the bill, saying it needed to be able to use pretexting to help find missing children, among other things."
To paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie, History of Violence, "...how come the MPAA is so good at killing bills?"
The answer is that succesful politicians are not developed, they're bought.
I never realized the MPAA was a law enforcement organization.
I wonder what else they need in order to enforce laws. Prisons? Armed agents? The power to arrest and seize property?
It's the only way to make sure the Legislators even PRETEND TO TRY to give a shit about us.
We're fucked.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Seems odd when a committee (in this case, an entire senate) deems a law pragmatic enough it goes up for vote with a unanimous (30-0) sendoff and subsequently because of special interest (MPAA allegedly) the final vote skews not only away from unanimous but actually flips the sentiment (bill loses 27-33).
Consider the gist of the bill (from the article):
This means the MPAA and others argued for the right to make "false, fictitious or fraudulent" statements...! Amazing!
There are legitimate ways for the entertainment industry to obtain data when prosecuting alleged piracy activity. This isn't one of them. So, the practice (pretexting) remains legal and the MPAA prevails in yet another seamy side of big business buying milquetoast government.
I've lost the ability to record FM on my Creative Zen with my last firmware update... ostensibly, though I can't confirm it because of industry pressure on Creative -- it was one of the features I bought it for.
The threat continues to loom for providers of excellent technology like TiVo to rein in their features, also ostensibly under pressure.
The better the technology gets, the less they want us to use it.
But now companies and PIs can too? Can the average guy 'pretext' as well, or will he get punished? I can't really tell from the article.
Makes me want to break more laws....let's see...what can I do that has a low chance of getting caught...
Blar.
Either fraud is illegal or it is not. I am sick of the government carving out exceptions for things for itself and its cronies.
I don't see a problem with pretending to be someone else, as long as you have the appropriate licenses/credentials.
i.e.:
Pretending to be a everyday/normal person - fine
Pretending to be a Police Officer without being in the employ of a police agency, or a CPA without the actual degrees and licenses: bad
I do not agree with falsifying data either:
"I downloaded these files from the user's hard drive"
if you did this and have absolute proof - fine
if you didn't do this and/or "fudged" the numbers, you need jail time.
what parts of these, with respect to other laws, are impacted by this bill and the changes made?
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Evidence that is obtained by any party that does not follow this rule should be inadmissible!
If you need to stop something illegal, it shouldn't be necessary to lie and impersonate someone to prevent the activity. Why is it necessary to impersonate another to "think of the children" or to stop illegal downloads? If you have proof of a wrong doing, you take it to a judge, get a warrant, and put an end to it. If you don't have proof, then lets end all the witch hunts.
Isn't it already a crime to pass yourself off as someone else? I thought it was fraud.
I could never figure out which was worse:
-Someone lying to a third party and social engineering their way into position of trust.
-Or that third parties seem to be more than willing to believe someone on the other side of the phone is whoever they claim to be.
I guess they can make laws to outlaw pretexting (so only criminals do it), or they can let civil lawsuits award large damages to corps that readily believe anyone on the other side of the phone.
sadly I can imaging who's side the lawmakers are on.
...they are state's Orwellian "Mincopy". This is just wrong.
Anyone else curious about what Kevin Mitnick has to say concerning this?
Living With a Nerd
...is more foolish than expecting parasites to make sucking illegal.
As we've seen, it's been proven to be not broad enough for our needs.
How about this:
Amendment $NEXT_AMMENDMENT_NUM
The right of The People to Personal Privacy and Security and Control of any information or data directly created by them, or by their indirect acts shall not be infringed by either any Governmental Body, Federal, State, or Local,, OR ANY ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITY created by any act of any Governmental Body.
(That should take care of the damned Corporations. )
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
I'm not a lawyer, so please explain this stuff to me.
Also it is perfectly legal to have an alias that you are well known for. You can even sign documents under that alias... (At least in Canada... You don't need to officially change your name to go with your "married name" for example)
So perhaps pretexting law deserved to be killed based on the fact that there is little to no harm in it...
www.jmagar.com
-
So if a private investigator uses pretexting to get my medical records, can I sue both the PI and the MPAA? The argument would be that the MPAA directly created the conditions under which the PI was able to access my private medical records, hence they should be liable in a civil case.
And people say the European Commission is corrupt...
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Wouldnt' any bill allow for exceptions like the use of pretexting for criminal investigations? Seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for downgrading the bill.
So it all just comes down to who has the biggest pockets.
Current breakdown of the California State Senate - 25 DNCers, 15 GOPers. But I thought only GOPers who bow to big business?
Wake up people, no party is free of Big Business.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
It's not a bill, but a party. The Libertarian Party is all about the government leaving us alone as much as possible. If that's what you believe, then you should vote Libertarian.
Shouldn't we be thanking the MPAA for this? Do we really need one more law that will eventually be used to bite someone in the ass in some unexpected and novel way?
after heavy last-minute lobbying by the MPAA
How did state senators know that they were really MPAA lobbyists?
[Insert pithy quote here]
You can also leverage the information you got illegally to find a legal path for how you knew it. A private investigator may illegally tap your phone, which is inadmissible. When he hears where your illicit rendezvous is, he'll take perfectly admissible pictures of you there.
It's not legal, but unless you catch them at it, you can't do much about it. And they've still got the pictures, which are still admissible evidence.
"At least there, they've managed to retain some semblence of socialism"
You complain about the rulers having too much power, and then you express desire for socialism (which is all about empowering the rulers). That is not consistent.
Where were you when the voynix came?
The only problem with that is that it will never happen for the same reasons that this bill was killed: it requires politicians to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, instead of what is in the best interests of their reelection campaign (read getting money).
"Need a "Right to be Left The Fuck Alone" Amendment"
.....
We have those rights. Only that most people are against one or more of them on the grounds of "Protecting the children" or "Minorities" or "Public Safety" or
Next time the government says you can't have This or That kind of gun, nor carry one without permission of the government, stand up and say "LEAVE ME ALONE" along with the few remaining gun toting wackos. See where your "rights" are.
Live Free or Die!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
After reading this article, I am less inclined to trust a stranger or someone I don't know well. I will assume they are lying to me and I will not help them for fear of being taken advantage of.
Shit like this degrades society...smells like 'ends justify the means' to me and I don't like it.
Blar.
In a final 'think of the children' bid, the California Association of Licensed Investigators also opposed the bill, saying it needed to be able to use pretexting to help find missing children, among other things."
Riiiight. Because a carve-out for protecting kids would just have been impossible to write in.
It couldn't be that the real money in PI work might be in divorce/adultery, paparazzi-ing, or industrial disputes.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
On the one hand we have the RIAA trying entrap media pirates under false pretenses. On the other, we have Universal trying to extort royalties for mp3 player manufacturers because they are "repositories for stolen music": http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/ 2328222. So I'm supposed to pay a tax on my mp3 player to keep the RIAA at bay, and then go home and not download free music? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
Last I checked, this was called the fruit of a poisoned tree/vine (or something along those lines). Anything legally gained from an illegal event is not admissable in the courts. Proving that they started off illegally will be the problem though.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
*SIGH* Back to Intro Poli Sci 101. The Constitution and its Ammendments apply ONLY to the regulation of the behavior of the US Federal Government and the actions of the States. Individuals (including corporations) are held to a much looser set of rules. And with the actions of the SOCTUS relating to so-called "poison fruit" testamony and evidence, the 4th Ammendment is on its way out too.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Last I checked, this was called the fruit of a poisoned tree/vine (or something along those lines). Anything legally gained from an illegal event is not admissable in the courts. Proving that they started off illegally will be the problem though.
The fruit of poisoned tree and rules of evidence generally only apply to law enforcement or people acting on their behalf (i.e: informants). If I break into your house to rob you and in the course of doing so discover evidence that implicates you in a murder then turn myself into the authorities, odds are that they will be able to use the evidence that I discovered at trial, whereas if they had broken into the house themselves it would generally not be admissible.
Of course if the cops put me up to breaking into your house to begin with then it's also not admissible -- I was acting as an agent of law enforcement and they presumably know better.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
We all need to give up a little of our privacy so that we can secure the interests of our economy. And by our economy, I mean the few people who continue to control our lives for profit while the middle class declines into poverty and debt.
I can still pretend to be your bank to get your information, what a relief, I don't need a real job yet.
I say that "pretexting" should be ILLEGAL. They can work through the legal system to "protect" their "property".
If your car was stolen, the cops would take a very unfavourable view of you impersonating a cop in order to retrieve it.
Deceit in these cases is practiced to obtain information disclosures. It is an imposition of the deciever's wishes over those of the deceived. The question should, then be this: does the deciever have a fundamental right to the information he is seeking?
So, outlaw pretexting except where it is used to obtain information that, if it were in the posession of an officer of the law, that officer would have a duty to disclose.
For example, you are a police officer who finds out Mr. X, who is in a custody dispute with Mrs. X, has kidnapped the children. You would have a duty to disclose to Mrs. X the whereabout of those children.
However suppose you know Mr. X is having an affair with Ms. Y. You have no duty to tell Mrs. X this, and depending on how you found out you may have a duty not to tell.
In the case of the MPAA, if they are seeking evidence that people are illegally sharing materials whose copyright they hold, this is information to which they have a well established legal right. However, they have no right to other kinds of information they could gain by pretexting, such as who your friends are.
By creating exceptions to a law against preteting, we are in a sense deputizing private parties to conduct searches by force. This entails some invasion of privacy. An officer of the law may obtain sensitive private information while executing a warrant, but if the information is not relevant to some sort of crime he may not disclose it. Neither should a private party acting under an exception to the law against pretexting be allowed to go on a fishing expedition.
Therefore groups using pretexting should be forbidden to use any information they gain as a result unless it is relevant to an exempted purpose.
So, if a record company looks for copyright infringement for its copyrights and finds infringement on another company's copyright, that is disclosable. They can't, however, create a database of music preferences for marketing purposes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"A California anti-assault bill that got unanimous support in the state senate with a vote of 30-0 was struck down after heavy last-minute lobbying by the MPAA. The bill aimed to make causing serious bodily harm to a person illegal. The MPAA told legislators 'We need to break a few kneecaps sometimes to stop illegal downloading,' and thus killed the bill when it came up for a final vote. In a final 'think of the children' bid, the Califonia Association of Licensed Investigators also opposed the bill, saying it needed to be able to beat people senseless to help find missing children, among other things."
Like in the movie "Enemy of the Sate", someone should pretext as the lawmakers and get their phone records. Maybe this will make them understand the gravity of the situation.
Any ideas ?
And shouldn't the wealthy be fairly powerless to affect many people beneath them with an inverse proportion of wealth vs. control over others?
Oh, you mean like... investing in industries and institutions that employ millions of people? I suspect that the high quality nerds that work at, say, Google or Pixar or Red Hat are quite pleased that people who've earned a lot of money have turned around and pumped it into those great projects/enterprises. And all of the people that benefit from doing business with, or providing services to all of those people are probably glad that those investments continue to be made.
I'd head off to the U.K
What's stopping you, really? That you don't do anything that enough people consider valuable enough to command a paycheck that will support your standard of living while also paying the much, much higher taxes? Or, unlike the untold thousands of actually poor people that immigrate to the UK and other western European nations from all over the world, you're actually noble enough to recognize that unless you do do something particularly valuable or are willing to work two or three jobs, you're just going to be living off of the more industrious work of the smaller minority that actually breath some life into the economy and subsidize the socialized niceties you're lusting after?
You say "If I could only make enough money..." without even a hint of what makes you think that, once transplanted in the UK, you'd make more money there (to pay the higher taxes, and more still, to get over how unhappy you are that you're not making enough now). So, really, you just want to go somewhere that will give you more of someone else's money than you're getting here. I do love, though, that you're not apologetic about it: that's the real cure for it - the first step is admitting that you want me to feed you. That you're proud of that is a little baffling, but at least you're saying it out loud.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We're fucked.
Look on the bright side. They just made sure social engineering to obtain personal information on politicians perfectly legal. I think it's time to show them what legal advantages they have given their people. Anyone care to open a public database online in California with government officials personal information? Start with judges, city councel, and the like. Think of the children. Listing all the children's DOB, SSN, school, home address, IM username, ISP, IP address, and such should be a good wake up call to the error they just enabled.
The truth shall set you free!
Funny...i remember back in the days of H/P/A/V/C (or however it went) that things like this were an open secret. Oh, and also assumed illegal. The old-school 'call up someone and pretend to be from the credit card company to get their credit card number/password/etc.' scam. Apparantly this is legal?
... they're trying to make a law to stop people from lying. My parents, despite threats of beatings (and the occasional follow-through), couldn't manage to stop me from lying. How exactly is a law going to do the same? Hell, I can just LIE about LYING. The law would have been good in theory but ... it's incredible stupid when you look at how far it could go.
Accoding to this I can't pretend to be john smith to get his phone records any more. Ok. But I can still lie and get his bank statement?
When it comes down to it though
Somehow I don't think it can be easily or casually justified to collect evidence of a crime and/or infringement through deceptive or inappropriate measures. Somehow HP and the parties involved are in serious hot water over their use of pretexting (and by that I mean lying to acquire information to which they are not legally entitled) among other things. I think that if the MPAA were to use the same tactics, it should be equally illegal. So at the very least, if they were to present evidence in court or even as part of a plea or settlement, they should have to disclose the techniques they used to gather the information as proof that they did so legally, ethically and morally.
... IF the judges in cases involving the MPAA remember that, in order to get this proposed law defeated in California, the MPAA essentially admitted that it lies and falsifies information in the course of a piracy investigation >:)
I can see the court transcript now: Judge: And how, exactly, were you able to obtain this evidence? **AA: Your honor, we lied and falsified information, but everything we tell you is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...honest. Judge: Riiiiiiiiight.....
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
This will only hurt the poor. The rich will have the money necessary to setup "blinds" so that they can say, "I got this information from informant X, who I can only contact via e-mail. I'm legally entitled to have it, although I don't know how X got it or where in the world X is."
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
Yet another case where a corporation has illegally (IMHO) lobbied against a bill that would had been good for the citizens. A bill like this should clear committees then if it fails in house/senate go a voter ballot item. The bill was written for the good of the citizens - it should be voted on by the citizens if it passes legal checks (such as that it does not violate state/federal constitutions).
"Corporations have been enthroned...an era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people...until wealth is aggregated in a few hands...and the Republic is destroyed" - Abraham Lincoln
1. I think businesses do far more evil than good
2. I think that anyone who is in a lesser situation than I am deserves my help and support if they ask me for it
3. I think that anyone in a better situation than mine should help me if asked
It's just the polite thing to do. Sadly most people are greedy and selfish and will take more than they deserve. This cuts through from the wealthiest to the poorest people on the entire planet. Therefore it's not something that people can self-regulate. They need control. Prefereably by a system that doesn't benefit from giving preferential treatment to the rich and powerful. So let's see... that knocks out both business and government.
Regarding the reasons I can't currently afford to leave the U.S. I like how you assume that I can't do it because I'm somehow unskilled or stupid. That's the implication in your words. However, you are wrong. I can't because I prefer to work for something I consider to be a civic responsibility. I work in IT at a major metropolitan library system. We are non-profit. This means I make less than I would in the private sector for the same work. But I also know that the level of IT support I provide and the systems I work on (server end mostly) give less priveleged people access to tons of resources they wouldn't otherwise have access to. We have bearly 30 branches in the inner city that serve poor black communities. This is the RIGHT thing to do. I don't care that I'm making less than I would in the corporate world because at least I know I'm doing good for people in lesser positions than mine. I couldn't live with myself working for a big business that I know is doing things to hurt the poor. That is what most businesses do. Any clearer now?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
... I am an everyday/normal person.
And even if I'm not, it's OK for me to pretend to be one, apparantly.
"was struck down"--I thought that phrase was generally used when a court invalidates or rules against passage of some particular legislation.
It sounds like what happened here was that a draft version of the legislation was initially agreed upon was pared down to make it more limited.
MPAA influence or not, the version that went forward was more prudent and less likely to be actually struck down, indicative of how the legislative process is actually SUPPOSED to work.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
"You misspelled "some state". Hope this helps, corn boy."
I'd better get back to husking the ears, then, my erstwhile foe.
Where were you when the voynix came?
If you gather information like this on a politician or government employee, just the act of doing so is considered a threat. The rest of us subjects are fair game, apparently.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
The MPAA told legislators 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,' and thus killed the bill when it came up for a final vote.
To be more accurate, one would say:
"The MPAA told legislators that it needed this bill killed, presumeably either threatening to pull their financial contributions to said legislators, or offering contributions if the legislator agreed to vote the way they wanted. The MPAA approached sufficient legislators to find enough of them that a sufficient percentage were willing to sell their vote to kill the bill. Like well-paid prostitutes, they did exactly what was asked and thereby prevented the bill from passing."
The MPAA can't kill any bills. It takes whores in the legislature to do that.
-Styopa
"Racism is soaring to new levels"
Because a comedian said "Nigger", racism is soaring to new levels? You are truly (and I mean this most sincerely) an f'ing idiot.
That's like saying antisemitism is at an all-time high because Jessie Jackson calls NYC "Hymietown". Please.
The only people who think racism is at an all-time high generally hope to get favors or money out of this so-called racism. It's just stupid, transparent and shallow to say such a thing. Really. Just go away for spouting such drively nonsense.
Clearly, we don't want people calling up our phone or credit card companies, pretending to be us, and getting private information. That's bad.
But, we also don't want to prevent law enforcement from pretending to be a drug dealer in order to bust drug dealers, or pretending to be a kiddie porn trader in order to bust kiddie porn producers. On a more germaine front, we probably don't want it to be illegal for you to register at the hotel as John Smith when your real name is Ed Johnson.
It sounds like this is a case of a law with a very popular goal that was written in way, way, way too broad a manner, and caught up a lot of things that shouldn't have been included. This shouldn't be a concept that's so hard to understand for Slashdotters, who are quick to point out when laws proposed by groups we don't like have broad, nasty consequences.
Just because the MPAA was the most organized party pushing for the law to be changed doesn't mean that (necessarily) the law didn't need to be changed.
paintball
Well, I'm so glad you are here to save us, with rambling 1000-word rants without a point or a press of the enter key.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
That last minute heavy lobbying is the worst kind. I was over in Ottawa and the lobbyists were doing their heavy lobbying. It's almost like watching a plague of locusts consume a corn field except in this case it's a huge swarm of businessmen cramming money wherever it fits. About 30 people were killed due to what doctors described as 'obtuse consumption'. I tell you, there's something really off putting about seeing a dead homeless man with hundred dollar bills crammed down his throat.
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
"As a businessman..."
Ah, according to other postings under this news item, you are one of those who controls the legislature and gets government to do your every bidding. So, how does it feel to control the country?
Where were you when the voynix came?
big business that I know is doing things to hurt the poor
If you think that big businesses (such as the ones that manufacture the equipment and provide that technology that you're deploying at the library) wake up each morning and decide how they will go about "hurting the poor" that day, then you really, really need to get to know some actual working human beings who make up those large companies. The standard of living in this country is higher than it ever has been. Ever. The poorest people in his country have more opportunity than they've ever had. The "middle class" of 100 years ago lived very poorly by today's standards.
Businesses do more evil than good? Great! Be sure to stop using antibiotics, refridgeration, high-tech transportation engines, fiber optic data lines, etc. Those computers that you put out in front of "less priviledged" people? Let me guess... you make sure that the components are only made by small mom-and-pop integrated circuit craftspeople that live in rustic villages with socialized witch doctoring for quality health care?
I'm not wealthy, but I'm not poor, either. I didn't get anyone to pay my way through higher education (but neither did I make taxpayers do it through handouts). I went to middle-of-the-road public schools where plenty of my classmates were drug-using idiots or thought that actually learning anything was un-cool. The only thing that separates successful people from unsuccessful ones (though you seem to equate being a success with being 'privileged,' as if someone just hands that sort of thing out as a door prize) is the culture in which they're raised. Meaning, it's not some movie-villain characiture of a mean ol' Big Business that keeps someone from deciding that being articulate, thoughtful, and hard-working will help them earn their keep - it's socializing with people that tell you that being articulate, thoughtful, and hard-working is somehow un-cool. Do you really help some poor schmoe sit down in front of a computer in the library and think to yourself, "the only reason this person can't earn another $10 more per hour is that employers are trying to hurt him"? Or do you ever say to yourself, "the only thing in between this person and double his income, great health insurance, and more opportunities is a shift away from a sense of entitlement and towards the same sense of opportunity that makes successes out of immigrant families that work three jobs for a few years so that they can be the people the locals hate for being a success?"
I like how you assume that I can't do it because I'm somehow unskilled or stupid. That's the implication in your words.
No, you're the one that said you can't make enough money to leave. Read your own comment. So, it's not that you can't, it's that despite what you're whining about, you don't want to. Why? Aren't there poor people in the UK that would also benefit from your selflessness? So, take all of your skills, spend a year making a real salary, save half of it in the bank (maybe even invest a little bit of it a small business that one of your poor patrons wants to start - ever think of how much that would help that person? no?), and then move to the place you say is better, and help people there so that you can stop complaining about how horrible it is here.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's called a paragraph jackass. If you can't read more than four or five sentences per paragraph you're an idiot. A decent paragraph contains no less than eight to ten sentences.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
If you gather information like this on a politician or government employee, just the act of doing so is considered a threat.
Just as long as they realise that it's perfectly legal now to threaten them that way due to their decision. Maybe they will change their mind which is the whole point.
The truth shall set you free!
It is all about definitions .. how does one define what/who is good .. what/who is evil .. what/who is god .. what/who is satan ..
.. there is no such thing .. it is an oxymoron ..
.. but it might be a good idea .. particularly if it is done with out the power authority and influence of the priesthood ..
.. "the way to hell is paved with GOOD intentions" .. ever wonder why .. how .. that might be true more often than naught ..
..
.. when we partook of the fruit of the tree .. of the knowledge of good and evil .. now how and why is it .. that something that on the surface you would think would be a good thing .. to know good from evil .. turn out to be the source of ALL mankind's difficulties and problems ..
.. and keep it simple .. lest we get all fracked up .. like things are now ..
.. linear conceptual languages ..as spoken by humankind today on earth(tower of babel) .. ie. good vs evil .. right vs wrong .. to make a mistake vs to not make a mistake .. etc.
.. with two points in space ..
.. no reference point .. with the except of one the points .. which will always see the other as the opposite .. no opportunity for relativity or outside reference ..
.. ah! the answer maybe ..
.. so back to definitions .. let's define ..
.. is that being agency or entity that is the giver of all life .. power .. and authority .. including the power and authority to do evil ..
.. good even when it might seem relatively bad ..
.. is that being agency or entity that seeks power over others .. who's power and authority to do so comes from the absolute .. from god ..
.. evil even when it might seem good ..
.. then ..
.. is the act of empowerment and cooperation ..
..
.. an act of fundamental evil can be seen and or believed to be relatively good ..
..
.. the authorities taking away my liberty to prevent me or from me because of my taking away or attempting to take away someone else's liberty ..
we often hear the term "a necessary evil"
i know most people are not interested in religion or the bible
another common cliché is
probably not
in Genesis the bible says that all of mans difficulties began
let use simple logic
let's make the fruit of the tree
now what is the ONLY thing that you can do
the only thing you can do is too draw a straight line in space
it requires a third point for a planer reference and a fourth point for a dimensional reference
OK
God
the absolute
Satan
the relative
so
fundamental Good
fundamental Evil is the act of seeking power over and control
it is by this that
ie. seeking power over someone or something to prevent their evil over others
for example
one of the big problems with this is that most of our good intentions are usually after the fac
** MPAA guy **
I'm a police officer! You're going to jail for violating copyright laws!
** 133t hax0r with dvd rips **
I'm NSA! You're compromising a mission of vital importance to our national security! You're going to Guantanamo!
"2. I think that anyone who is in a lesser situation than I am deserves my help and support if they ask me for it"
;)
[eyeing job description]
Excellent! You probably make 2-3 times what I do. Please hand over the difference.
.
.
.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This is exactly the problem.
Outlawing pretexting and other fraudulent activity is a workaround.
The solution is as you propose; better information security.
Unfortunately, sometimes better information security will impede the customer, making life more difficult for them because inevitably some of them will lack one of the various necessary credentials for good information security. So, I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to outlaw pretexting and implement better security practices with phone/bank/etc records.
:(){
You make the mistake of thinking of a business as the individuals who work throughout. I don't see it that way. I see the owners and captains of the business as VERY distinct from the employees. The employees are of a completely different order in that they have little to no control over the direction of the business. So even if they wanted to do something as ridiculous as you suggest (dream up new ways to screw people over) they couldn't. However, the people who run the businesses can. Witness Enron. The people at the top fucked up the lives of a LOT of people. Can't blame that on the lower rung employees. A business is VERY distinct from the less powerful employees when it comes to how the business affects others.
As much as you try to paint me as totally anti-business, you will fail. I'm not anti-business. I'm anti-screwing people over. I think business can and in some cases do do good things. It's just become more of a rarity these days than it was in the past. That's because the businesses are more concerned with ever increasing profits to the detriment of their lower rung employees and their customers. This is the imperative above all else. Business isn't inherently evil. It's simply become that way because of the endless push to profit instead of a reasonable expectation of breaking even.
As far as my own financial situation, I don't think of myself as poor and I'm certainly not rich. But, I'd say that I'm a lot closer to falling out of middle class than I was in the past. And that's through no fault of my own. I refuse to play into the mantra of supporting capitalism at all costs. I don't see capitalism as any more evil than communism. In my mind they're merely opposite sides of the same coin (even though one is political and the other economic). They both fail as soon as you have some pigs being more equal than others. Right now there are a powerful handful of equal capitalist pigs. Just as there were equal communist pigs in Soviet Russia.
I'll put it out on the line though because I'm that kind of person. I make about $65,000 a year which I think is a fair low-end middle class salary for someone living in a mid-sized metropolitan area (I hate the country). I'm fortunate in that the cost of living here allows me to live at the bottom of middle class. I pay for everything in cash. I have no credit cards. My only dept at the moment is my mortgage. I don't invest because I can't control the destiny of that money and I don't want my money supporting things I don't believe in. I do believe that everyone should be able to live on cash alone. There should be no need for credit or loans unless you're talking a house, a car or some other huge expense that is necessary to living a normal life. To some, my income would be considered paltry and I'm "poor". To others, I should be happy I'm making as much as I do (and believe me I am). But this amount of income is not enough to support me, my wife and my child while saving up for a move to another country with unsure employment prospects. I'm not an aggressive or competitive person, so I'm not the "world beater" type. Unless I can get to a point where I could move up to maybe $75,000 or $80,000 a year and my wife started working again (the kid's too young and we don't trust dayscare) I don't see much prospect of moving out of the U.S. Canada... maybe. But I'd have to find a good position in IT in a non-profit job to be able to live with myself. Again, does this make it any clearer for you?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
NAMBLA also protested the bill, saying that they, too, needed pretexting to find both missing and non-missing children.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
It seems that not supporting the anti-pretexting laws in California is actually helping terrorists steal our identities. I think that we should be focusing more on these "Media Rights" groups it seems they are supporting and or killing laws that might actually help safe guard our children and citizens. I hope the politicians see through the smoke screen that is going on here and pass the full bill, help stop terrorism, and help save American lives. Stop Pretexting.
That sounds like the best approach to getting around the bought assembly.
Fraud.
Already illegal and actionable in most places.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
Fortunately, or unfortunately if your the MPAA or a PI, California does have the Initiative Process. An initiative for this ought to pass easily. The special interests opposing it are too narrow in scope for the average Californian -- i.e. the person screwed-over by pre-texting in its current form -- to identify and sympathize with.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Isn't "pretexting" the same as "identity theft" and therefore illegal?"
Why don't they just legalize phishing while they are at it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Absolutely unbelievable.
They were able to convince our legislators to shut down a bill that had unanimous support because it would not allow the MPAA to spy on us?
Since when do the MPAA = NSA, and downloaders = foreign nationals? This should not be legal at *all*...by any organization, agency, corporation, or otherwise.
Regardless of the children.
Regardless of the Pirates.
Damn the MPAA's Bottom Line. They're solvency and business model should not be propped up by legislation. Companies and such should only survive because they adapt and fit the needs of the market...not because they have the power to adapt and change the laws of nations.
Special Interest Groups power in this country in general is beyond reason. It's absurd to even imagine the things they have accomplished, and damned frightening when faced with the truth of their power.
think of the repo men
think of the bill collectors?
how will they reclaim what is theirs if they can't lie?
They're using their grammar skills there.
Although the bill could be written to avoid this loophole, well-thought out bills are not common within our government.
This reminds me of the lebrea tarpit application , which assumes unused IP addresses in a network and intentionally responds to an ACK request, but never responds to anything else, causing virus-infected systems and hacker tools such as nessus to tie up their open ports trying to communicate with systems that don't really exist. This software is illegal in the developer's home state of Illinois because state lawyers argue that viruses (or maybe just the underlying TCP/IP packets) are a "service" , and they have a similar law which prohibits spoofing for the purpose of disrupting network services.
Although the purpose of lebrea is to disrupt a malicious attack, and not to gether information, I can't help but feel that if Code Red is a service, then discovering one's IP address may be considered "information gathering".
Any thoughts?
Among those dancing in California's streets are radio DJs, the jerky boys, and Bart Simpson.
Let's all prank call MPAA, just to thank them for protecting our right to do so.
Evidence that is obtained by any party that does not follow this rule should be inadmissible!
The tricky thing about pretexting is it's not a "search and seizure" because the person being suckered has every right to refuse. They don't, because they take the pretexter at his word that he is who he claims to be. If a guy shows up at the door claiming to be doing a property survey or something and I let him in, he hasn't broken the law. If I deny him access and he forces his way in, he's broken the law and I'm well within my rights to call the police and/or beat the crap out of him. Unless the house in question is in Texas, where it seems to be state law that I'm required to shoot him instead...
Pretexting is dishonest, slimy, bordering on despicable, and I think should be illegal, but it doesn't actually violate the 4th Amendment.
...because if they used deceit to GET the information, then you've got a good case that they used deceit to CREATE the information in the first place. I mean, if they can pretend to be me to get my phone record then who is to say they didn't pretend to be me in order to plant dummy evidence of wrong doing?
And second, if it's ok to lie to obtain private records, why can;t one just lie and pretend to be a copyright holder as well?
Basically, once your enemies start using clearly immoral weapons, they don't have a chance when it comes to a jury.
Since we're talking about the MPAA, detectives from Rockford through Veronica Mars have routinely called people up, put on a false accent and claimed to be someone who might reasonably be expected to be entitled to certain information. It's a staple of the genre.
Gill Bates actually is the name of one of the VIPs in Yoot Tower (basically Sim Tower 2). He comes along after you build an electronics store in tokyo, if your population is high enough.
Well as usual I'm completely disgusted.
So i can pretend to be my girlfriend to obtain her phone records?
Or she can get mine?
Are you scared? You should be.!.
If you say you are not guilty, and in fact you did do the crime, then you are a liar. It is nothing more than a lie, unless, of course, you didn't do it.
It is an abuse and a waste of taxpayer dollars to force the prosecution to prove it and have a long drawn-out trial if you actually did what you are accused of.
This thread of comments shows a tremendous misunderstanding of the legal system.
"Guilt," as in the phrase "not guilty" has absolutely nothing to do with the moral or philosophical grounds you seem to think it refers to. Guilt is a legal term that determines whether or not you are held liable for your crime.
"Doing" a crime does not make you "guilty" of it. I can shoot someone, but it does not make me "guilty" of murder: perhaps I was acting in self defense, perhaps I am a police officer, stopping a felon. In either scenario, I am not "guilty." If I plead "not guilty" in court, I am not lying... as the proceedings will soon show, I am in fact not guilty of any crime. To suggest that prosecution is a waste of federal resources profoundly mistakes the purpose of those precautions: what world would we live in if we held that simply doing an act unmistakeably demonstrated your guilt?
Lying, cheating and stealing are OK as long as it is the government, police, private investigators, . . or anyone with a plastic badge doing it.
Their theory, "the evil we do is less than the evil the perpetrators are doing" -- or -- "the end justifies the means".
If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide -- right citizen?
The police state racks up another battle in the war against freedom and privacy. Another sad day when illegal and unethical acts are sanctioned by the government -- guess nothing new there though -- is there?
And imagine how many divorces would result if people told their spouses the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
"Not paying your taxes is also a specific and easily-avoided action that violates other's rights."
You are entirely incorrect on both counts. Not paying taxes is not even an action, and it violates nobody's rights.
"Nobody is forcing you to pay your taxes"
All taxation is forced, so you have made yet another statement that has nothing to do with reality.
"You pay your taxes, and in exchange, the government provides you services. It's an agreement both parties fulfill"
In reality, I'm forced to pay taxes. The government then uses it to further enrich and empower itself. If there's any left over, they use it for services, but only the minimum amount necessary to keep anti-tax riots from happening. Taxation, as such, is way too high. If we cut out the waste, we could pay a fraction of what we have right now. Of course, Ted Kennedy might have to do without a few thousand-dollar suits, but tough.
And, finally, taxation is nothing more than a form of "legal" armed robbery. No matter how you try to spin it by breaking the robbery into separate charges including "resisting arrest". The fact is, someone is trying to steal from you, and they can and will hurt you or worse unless you give into their greedy demands. The only "danger to society" is from the greedy thugs who would harm you for not emptying your pockets for them.
"you could just pay your fucking taxes"
Yes, that is a way to avoid the violence of this armed robbery. Just like turning over your wallet quickly makes mugging "safe". But it does not change the fact that tax-taking and other forms of armed robbery are just different types of muggings.
By the way, you might want to calm down. You are losing control, and your logic is getting very sloppy and giving way to angry shouted profanities.
"Obviously in your fantasy world, immigration is a word that has no meaning."
No, it is not voluntary if your only "option" is to flee hundreds or thousands of miles away to get away from the thieves. What is voluntary taxation, then? That's when, if you fail to mail in your 1040 form in April, nobody harasses you and you can get away with it, since if it is voluntary, then it is your choice entirely. Since, in the real world, it's not your choice at all and you'll eventually get kidnapped, assaulted, or possibly killed for refusing to pay, taxation is anything but voluntary.
You'd also do well to check Federal, State, and local government legal codes which specifically state that paying taxes is compulsory, not voluntary. There's a lot of detail on forced compliance and the threats of violence and further robbery to enforce it.
The only people who, in fact, make the silly claim that paying taxes is only voluntary are some kooky scammers who make the claim that taxation is illegal in the US and it is perfectly legal to avoid it. While I know taxation is a formed of armed robbery, I know that it is legal in the US, and a certain amount of taxation is justified. Just not the ludicrously excessive overtaxation we have now (a burden which should be diminished significantly, through the legislative process).
And also, thanks for ignoring the REAL truth on "which is better to live in, Sweden or the US" which is shown by the numbers of people from Sweden moving to the US, and the lack of immigrants going the other way.
...why do I even bother to argue with idiotic libertarian wankers like you? If you can't understand the basic principle behind taxes, you're not intelligent enough to live in civilized society.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Please don't argue then, and please don't vote. You certainly are not civically/socially aware enough to do so. You are the one who does not understand the basic principle behind taxes, and are willing only to buy slavishly into the propaganda of the ruling class: "We are robbing you for your own good, so bend over NOW!!!".