I don't know. We mandate all sorts of safety precautions depending on the environment you're in and the equipment you're using. Just because a car is very common equipment doesn't mean there shouldn't be regulations on how to use it safely. There is little to no benefit for not wearing a seatbelt. When we get back to the IPO issue though, there could be a very great benefit to purchasing stock in an IPO. What they are doing is saying that if you don't have enough money, they can't give you the opportunity to make any money. It doesn't matter that it's your money and if you want to risk it, they should not be able to tell you you can't. What happened to land of opportunity and all that? I guess it only applies to the rich these days.
It would be just fine if insurance companies weren't constantly scamming us and getting away with it. I'm all for mandatory insurance. Otherwise I could get badly injured by some moron who doesn't have, and never will have any money to pay for my medical expenses. The real problem is that they don't regulate insurance companies well enough. These people are taking our money and we have to give it to them by law. We should have a lot more say in how much we give them.
The intelligence agencies and governments may have known. Now that it has become public there should be more pressure on any government that considers outlawing encryption. The people of those countries now know for sure that they are being monitored. I don't think they'll like it any more than we do. Whether they can do anything about it is another matter though. I suppose that will vary between different countries.
And again, are criminals (the ones they are fighting against) going to care if encryption software is legal or not?
It's easier to grab criminals when all you have to do is intercept something that is encrypted. You can bust them for that. Kinda like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
Who's running this place anyway?
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
(NCCUSL), a private group of more than 300 lawyers, judges, and law professors.
Think about it. Lawyers make a law like this that will be controversial because it tips the scales heavily in favor of big software companies. The software companies will obviously want their state to OK the law and they will lobby for it. Consumer groups are against the law, but what can they do? Boycott the software companies? Not likely. So, the law passes and lawyers succeed in ensuring full employment for themselves due to lawsuits over the new law, and software companies get to realize some of their wildest fantasies. They can do whatever they want to their users and it's legal!
Ok, that was a rant. I'm annoyed. I still find it hard to believe that the states passed this abomination of a law. There's something very bad at work here, that much is obvious. Whether it's lawyers, big business, or government, I don't know. This is obviously not in the best interests of consumers though, so I wonder what that says about who is running this country. The people? Not likely. A few heads of big businesses and their lawyers? Much more likely.
Re:legal if the license allows it
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Yep. EULAs have won in court. It seems ridiculous until you see things like this UCITA bill pass. Then you realize who's really running things in this country.
Running won't help much... fight it here....
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Better to fight it here before it becomes well-established than to run from it and wait for it to catch up with you. I just submitted something yesterday in which I asked if there is a good Slashdot-type political site for people who are concerned about the government's complete cluelessness about technology issues. I hope to find one. We need a place to organize our voices into something that Washington can hear loud and clear.
I don't a problem with being held accountable for libelous or slanderous speech. On the other hand, people don't have much defense against a powerful corporation. We don't have the deep pockets to pursue lawsuits. That's why I believe that your statements should have to be proven to be libelous or slanderous in order for your identity to be revealed. As I've said, I don't know exactly how this should be done, but it should be done. Otherwise legitimate speech will be squashed by those who can afford to bring lawsuits against those who speak out against them. Others will cease to exercise their free speech rights due to fear of the cost of defending their speech in court. Defending your rights is getting mighty expensive these days.
I lose anonymity BEFORE I've been convicted of a crime. Once anonymity is lost, I can be fired, have certain financial difficulties, depending on what kind of relationship I had with the corporation. Can I afford to sue them for the things they do to me in retribution for something I said that is legal? No. Therefore, I should have the right to remain anonymous to protect myself from retribution against which I have no other defense.
Great. We're allowed to speak out against the government. We're apparently not allowed to speak out against corporations though, or at least we're not protected if we do. We could post an "anonymous" message (by which I mean one that does not contain our real name or information) that decries something that the corporation is doing. This could be based completely on fact, yet the corp would be allowed to sue you and find out who you are. It would not matter that the case has no real merit, you will now be prosecuted by a corp with more money than you will ever see. They will bleed you dry and you end up losing whether you win the case or not. That is why anonymous speech should be protected. Not in every case, mind you, but the identity of the speaker should be protected until such time as it has been determined by a court that the person violated the law. How this will be done, I don't know for sure. It does need to be done though.
The problem is that the identity of the person will be revealed before it has even been determined that they have actually done anything wrong. So, even if they said nothing illegal, they can be fired from the company or have other action taken against them by the company. It's real easy for the company to come up with some reason for firing anyone. The point is that corporations have a lot more money and power than individuals. They can cause us a lot more harm than we can cause them, but only if they know who we are. If something is posted anonymously, it should remain so until it has been determined that it is definitely illegal. This may cause some difficulties, but those will have to be worked out. Otherwise, we end up having our speech restricted by corporations rather than the government.
No, everyone else has access to the client code and can make use of the AIM network for communication, not for commercial profit through advertising. That's what MS is doing that is wrong. Not to mention the fact that MS is notorious for hijacking other companies' ideas and tech. That alone is good enough reason to fight them off on this one.
how much disclosure can we squeeze out of the government and powerful organizations?
Never enough probably. We don't have that kind of control over our government. The way we're going, we'll continue to have less and less control. As long as elections continue to heavily favor the 2 main parties (not that they are much choice when you can't tell the difference between them much of the time), we'll never be able to vote for real change in the government.
You make a point. I've considered the prospect of a compromise that would allow us to have access to our government once again, in exchange for our privacy. It's almost worth it. Remember David Brin's "Transparent Society?"
We seem to have completely lost our government. Elections are a sham. If our votes don't have realy power, how can we make a difference? Additionally, most people don't have time to keep up with everything happening in Washington. Big business controls nearly all the news. How do we know what's really important and what's not being said?
Just by using the words "assassinate the president?" The president of what? The local bingo group? The kitty litter company on the other side of town? What?
Now I'm worried. I realize that this is a satire since I haven't seen such a report anywhere else. The thing that bothers me is that with all the things we've heard in the last month or two (i.e., Echelon, the Armed Services Committee bill, the ability of law enforcement to get info without a warrant, etc.), it doesn't sound the least bit far-fetched. I think the government has just raised the bar on satire. You're gonna hafta go a ways farther out on that limb to make it really sound like satire. Otherwise you're just gonna freak people out and have them checking all the other news sites for more info.
I haven't yet figured out how to explain these things to people without sounding like a conspiracy nut. I've got a couple friends who understand, but others who don't. I try to just point things out and let them draw their own conclusions. This works in some instances. I couldn't really talk about these kinds of things with people at work though. I work for a government contractor and it might not go over well. Overall, it's pretty tough to discuss these things with most people. They either dismiss it out of hand since they have nothing to hide or are not really interested because they don't understand all that computer stuff.
I suppose the real question is what do you do when the government gets out of control, but the population at large doesn't seem to care or even understand what it all means? Are we that far gone already? Where are the prominent people who can be heard? What are they doing to scrape together some kind of backing to prevent these gross invasions of privacy and violations of our rights? Starting at the bottom is a tough way to do things. It works out much better if you have a focal point to rally around. I'd like to know if one exists, or will everyone going off to their own little group and our voices will be drown out by the bigger, louder voices?
Being a hypocrite is not a prerequisite for being good at business, but it is sometimes obviously necessary.
It may be necessary for the company to continue its sucess at any expense, but I wouldn't say it is absolutely necessary. It should not be tolerated. If Microsoft wants open standards, let them open their own protocols and formats. Otherwise, what right do they have to use their influence to badger another company to do what they still refuse to do themselves?
Such an admission would no doubt hurt them earings wise, and no one with half a brain would expect them to lose money for honesty's sake.
Here's where you and I definitely disagree. You seem to be saying that businesses are there to make money by any means necessary and if honesty gets in the way, then we should expect it to be sacrificed. I don't think I'm being too idealistic when I say that this is absolutely the wrong way to look at these things. It's this kind of thinking that has brought us to the point we're at. If we start assuming that businesses will lie, cheat, and steal and do nothing about it, then we deserve to be the ones getting screwed in the end. We should be able to point out the hypocrisy and demand that Microsoft either explain their actions or shut the hell up.
It's a pity we don't have a law against hypocrisy. Unfortunately, if we did have one, it would be misused and nobody would ever be allowed to change their minds on anything, or at least they wouldn't be able to admit it.
I wouldn't agree that AOL has an absolute right to do it, but I do think that they have every right to defend themselves from Microsoft. MS is known for usurping other's ideas and turning them into MS-only apps. MS itself won't open it's protocols, so I see no reason for AOL to do anything that Microsoft wants.
You just pointed out some reasons why we should not agree with ESR, and they are valid. MS is using open source as a pawn to get what they want. They are not often in a position like the one they're in now. Something is being controlled by another company and they're having a hard time getting in on the action. Boo hoo. MS is famous for using the exact same tactics and it infuriates me that they have the nerve to whine about AOL doing it to protect their interests. Microsoft won't even play by their own rules! I hope MS rots for this.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. We mandate all sorts of safety precautions depending on the environment you're in and the equipment you're using. Just because a car is very common equipment doesn't mean there shouldn't be regulations on how to use it safely. There is little to no benefit for not wearing a seatbelt. When we get back to the IPO issue though, there could be a very great benefit to purchasing stock in an IPO. What they are doing is saying that if you don't have enough money, they can't give you the opportunity to make any money. It doesn't matter that it's your money and if you want to risk it, they should not be able to tell you you can't. What happened to land of opportunity and all that? I guess it only applies to the rich these days.
It would be just fine if insurance companies weren't constantly scamming us and getting away with it. I'm all for mandatory insurance. Otherwise I could get badly injured by some moron who doesn't have, and never will have any money to pay for my medical expenses. The real problem is that they don't regulate insurance companies well enough. These people are taking our money and we have to give it to them by law. We should have a lot more say in how much we give them.
The intelligence agencies and governments may have known. Now that it has become public there should be more pressure on any government that considers outlawing encryption. The people of those countries now know for sure that they are being monitored. I don't think they'll like it any more than we do. Whether they can do anything about it is another matter though. I suppose that will vary between different countries.
Since Echelon became public, I would think that most other countries would be all for encryption all over the place.
And again, are criminals (the ones they are fighting against) going to care if encryption software is legal or not?
It's easier to grab criminals when all you have to do is intercept something that is encrypted. You can bust them for that. Kinda like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
(NCCUSL), a private group of more than 300 lawyers, judges, and law professors.
Think about it. Lawyers make a law like this that will be controversial because it tips the scales heavily in favor of big software companies. The software companies will obviously want their state to OK the law and they will lobby for it. Consumer groups are against the law, but what can they do? Boycott the software companies? Not likely. So, the law passes and lawyers succeed in ensuring full employment for themselves due to lawsuits over the new law, and software companies get to realize some of their wildest fantasies. They can do whatever they want to their users and it's legal!
Ok, that was a rant. I'm annoyed. I still find it hard to believe that the states passed this abomination of a law. There's something very bad at work here, that much is obvious. Whether it's lawyers, big business, or government, I don't know. This is obviously not in the best interests of consumers though, so I wonder what that says about who is running this country. The people? Not likely. A few heads of big businesses and their lawyers? Much more likely.
Yep. EULAs have won in court. It seems ridiculous until you see things like this UCITA bill pass. Then you realize who's really running things in this country.
Better to fight it here before it becomes well-established than to run from it and wait for it to catch up with you. I just submitted something yesterday in which I asked if there is a good Slashdot-type political site for people who are concerned about the government's complete cluelessness about technology issues. I hope to find one. We need a place to organize our voices into something that Washington can hear loud and clear.
I don't a problem with being held accountable for libelous or slanderous speech. On the other hand, people don't have much defense against a powerful corporation. We don't have the deep pockets to pursue lawsuits. That's why I believe that your statements should have to be proven to be libelous or slanderous in order for your identity to be revealed. As I've said, I don't know exactly how this should be done, but it should be done. Otherwise legitimate speech will be squashed by those who can afford to bring lawsuits against those who speak out against them. Others will cease to exercise their free speech rights due to fear of the cost of defending their speech in court. Defending your rights is getting mighty expensive these days.
I lose anonymity BEFORE I've been convicted of a crime. Once anonymity is lost, I can be fired, have certain financial difficulties, depending on what kind of relationship I had with the corporation. Can I afford to sue them for the things they do to me in retribution for something I said that is legal? No. Therefore, I should have the right to remain anonymous to protect myself from retribution against which I have no other defense.
Couldn't someone still follow the chain back to you?
Good point. I've heard these kinds of things said at press conferences. It's completely ridiculous.
Anonymous posting abuse on the other hand allows tyranny by a malicious few.
The problem is that you lose your anonymity before there is any evidence that you actually committed a crime.
Then don't use the internet to post your information.....
Why do you bother posting this crap? Why should it matter what medium you use to speak? Come back when you have something intelligent to say.
Great. We're allowed to speak out against the government. We're apparently not allowed to speak out against corporations though, or at least we're not protected if we do. We could post an "anonymous" message (by which I mean one that does not contain our real name or information) that decries something that the corporation is doing. This could be based completely on fact, yet the corp would be allowed to sue you and find out who you are. It would not matter that the case has no real merit, you will now be prosecuted by a corp with more money than you will ever see. They will bleed you dry and you end up losing whether you win the case or not. That is why anonymous speech should be protected. Not in every case, mind you, but the identity of the speaker should be protected until such time as it has been determined by a court that the person violated the law. How this will be done, I don't know for sure. It does need to be done though.
The problem is that the identity of the person will be revealed before it has even been determined that they have actually done anything wrong. So, even if they said nothing illegal, they can be fired from the company or have other action taken against them by the company. It's real easy for the company to come up with some reason for firing anyone. The point is that corporations have a lot more money and power than individuals. They can cause us a lot more harm than we can cause them, but only if they know who we are. If something is posted anonymously, it should remain so until it has been determined that it is definitely illegal. This may cause some difficulties, but those will have to be worked out. Otherwise, we end up having our speech restricted by corporations rather than the government.
MS simply wants the same thing everyone else has.
No, everyone else has access to the client code and can make use of the AIM network for communication, not for commercial profit through advertising. That's what MS is doing that is wrong. Not to mention the fact that MS is notorious for hijacking other companies' ideas and tech. That alone is good enough reason to fight them off on this one.
how much disclosure can we squeeze out of the government and powerful organizations?
Never enough probably. We don't have that kind of control over our government. The way we're going, we'll continue to have less and less control. As long as elections continue to heavily favor the 2 main parties (not that they are much choice when you can't tell the difference between them much of the time), we'll never be able to vote for real change in the government.
You make a point. I've considered the prospect of a compromise that would allow us to have access to our government once again, in exchange for our privacy. It's almost worth it. Remember David Brin's "Transparent Society?"
We seem to have completely lost our government. Elections are a sham. If our votes don't have realy power, how can we make a difference? Additionally, most people don't have time to keep up with everything happening in Washington. Big business controls nearly all the news. How do we know what's really important and what's not being said?
Just by using the words "assassinate the president?" The president of what? The local bingo group? The kitty litter company on the other side of town? What?
Now I'm worried. I realize that this is a satire since I haven't seen such a report anywhere else. The thing that bothers me is that with all the things we've heard in the last month or two (i.e., Echelon, the Armed Services Committee bill, the ability of law enforcement to get info without a warrant, etc.), it doesn't sound the least bit far-fetched. I think the government has just raised the bar on satire. You're gonna hafta go a ways farther out on that limb to make it really sound like satire. Otherwise you're just gonna freak people out and have them checking all the other news sites for more info.
I haven't yet figured out how to explain these things to people without sounding like a conspiracy nut. I've got a couple friends who understand, but others who don't. I try to just point things out and let them draw their own conclusions. This works in some instances. I couldn't really talk about these kinds of things with people at work though. I work for a government contractor and it might not go over well. Overall, it's pretty tough to discuss these things with most people. They either dismiss it out of hand since they have nothing to hide or are not really interested because they don't understand all that computer stuff.
I suppose the real question is what do you do when the government gets out of control, but the population at large doesn't seem to care or even understand what it all means? Are we that far gone already? Where are the prominent people who can be heard? What are they doing to scrape together some kind of backing to prevent these gross invasions of privacy and violations of our rights? Starting at the bottom is a tough way to do things. It works out much better if you have a focal point to rally around. I'd like to know if one exists, or will everyone going off to their own little group and our voices will be drown out by the bigger, louder voices?
Being a hypocrite is not a prerequisite for being good at business, but it is sometimes obviously necessary.
It may be necessary for the company to continue its sucess at any expense, but I wouldn't say it is absolutely necessary. It should not be tolerated. If Microsoft wants open standards, let them open their own protocols and formats. Otherwise, what right do they have to use their influence to badger another company to do what they still refuse to do themselves?
Such an admission would no doubt hurt them earings wise, and no one with half a brain would expect them to lose money for honesty's sake.
Here's where you and I definitely disagree. You seem to be saying that businesses are there to make money by any means necessary and if honesty gets in the way, then we should expect it to be sacrificed. I don't think I'm being too idealistic when I say that this is absolutely the wrong way to look at these things. It's this kind of thinking that has brought us to the point we're at. If we start assuming that businesses will lie, cheat, and steal and do nothing about it, then we deserve to be the ones getting screwed in the end. We should be able to point out the hypocrisy and demand that Microsoft either explain their actions or shut the hell up.
It's a pity we don't have a law against hypocrisy. Unfortunately, if we did have one, it would be misused and nobody would ever be allowed to change their minds on anything, or at least they wouldn't be able to admit it.
I wouldn't agree that AOL has an absolute right to do it, but I do think that they have every right to defend themselves from Microsoft. MS is known for usurping other's ideas and turning them into MS-only apps. MS itself won't open it's protocols, so I see no reason for AOL to do anything that Microsoft wants.
You just pointed out some reasons why we should not agree with ESR, and they are valid. MS is using open source as a pawn to get what they want. They are not often in a position like the one they're in now. Something is being controlled by another company and they're having a hard time getting in on the action. Boo hoo. MS is famous for using the exact same tactics and it infuriates me that they have the nerve to whine about AOL doing it to protect their interests. Microsoft won't even play by their own rules! I hope MS rots for this.