The luddite comment was meant for whoever posted that I need professional help. I assume you too need help, using a radio so early in your day:-)
Radio or RSS-reader, just ways to get the news in bed. As a waking up ritual. I am just saying that my choice of technology is not a problem, just as yours is not.
My grogginess, morning personality and lack of selfcontrol re. the snooze button all benefit immensely from having a few webcomics and some light news to lure my brain to wake up. Makes the next step (actually waking up) a bit easier. Together with sleep-as-an-droid, they have made my mornings much better.
I can only presume the outraged luddites commenting here feel equally horrified by reading a the paper, a book or a comic as part of a wake-up ritual...
Free as in perpetual state of war between individuals, because a set a of laws that does not give the bully the right to kill at will is not equal to freedom.
Or, to put it simpler, restricting some freedoms might be necessary to ensure others. Right to swing a fist, right to keep people from knowing what their computer is doing, etc.
Is there actually an enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly agree with you; but I think the closest the framers got to actually writing in a privacy was in the form of limiting powers of search and siezure.
You're right, of course. And the courts (Katz v. United States - 1967), and common sense, has agreed that search and seizure extends to conversations - recording one counts a search. Hence, there is an implied right to privacy, now based on case law.
You seem to misunderstand something about my response. I don't care about FDR. I care about what freedoms, guaranteed by the constitution, where taken away. You know, the question you asked me...?
With regards to Guantanamo, the issue is not whether there are US citizens, but whether the right to a fair trial has been taken from a US citizen. People held in Guantanamo and similar related "legal basis", have no means or rights to even claim citizen-ship. You could be picked up tomorrow, and you would have no discouse - no right to habeas corpus - no right to a fair trial.
I am aware that wiretapping is a useful tool for law enforcement. It is also something for which you need a warrant. Wiretapping without a warrant is an illegal breach of the right to privacy. Whether anyone has been convicted, or those recording have even been used in court, is entirely irrelevant.
No-fly lists are fine, as long as they are made as part of a judgement passed on an individual, or imposed on foreign nations or groups as part of a proper legal process. The no-fly lists hinder American citizens from travelling, with no proper basis in law. While there is no right to fly in natural philosophy or the united states constitution, the right to move and assemble freely is pretty well recognized. Of course you cannot disallow a primary mode of transportation without just cause - someone having the same name as someone else, who may or may not once have met someone accused of being a terrorist is not a convincing reason...
Regarding the right to declare war ("The President has always had the ability to initiate conflicts"), then I am pretty sure that when Congress alone was given the right to declare war, signing over that power to the president for fighting some hardly-nspecified enemy was not part of the deal. Congress can declare war, and they cannot hand over that power to the President, the postal office or you and me. They did, and that took away the right of the citizenry to decide on a case-by-case-basis, through their legislative representatives, whether they would go to war or not.
I have a question, btw:
> The constitution and our laws are not suicide pacts.
I have some problems parsing this; does this mean that the constitution is not set in stone and that sometimes it is OK to just disregard it? Does it mean that you do not even believe that there is such a thing as freedoms guaranteed, but rather freedoms suggested? Or what exactly are you saying about the law, here? That it should be waived whenever someone is in office you really agree with, or you feel we are not safe enough?
Right to a fair trial (Guantanamo detainees). Right to privacy (wiretapping). Right to travel (indiscriminate no-fly listing). The right of congress, not the president, to declare war (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - congress' own damn fault for signing this one away, still illegal though).
Maybe if Communism actually worked I'd consider doing something like this.
So noone can ever share any ressource ever, because some ass-hat in Russia misread Marx and tried forcibly to have everyone share everything?
Do you think we should privatize every meter of road too, and stop and charge each other for every meter driven? Because that is more or less what we are doing with bandwidth now, and it is more or less exactly as ineffecient.
Sharing is not a bad thing. Not sharing when it costs you nothing is indefensible. I have not heard of a single ethical or ownership theory which tried...
No, they are able to do work for hire - just like everywhere else. But they do not have the legal concept of work-for-hire (where the product is automatically owned by one's emplyer) - just like everywhere else, except the US and maybe a few other places.
Chance to flee? Why are you talking about having a chance to flee, let alone the desire? This guy did nothing wrong, there was no reason to assume he did (only that someone near his house might have done, or rereouted data from there in order to). Why should he flee?
Either you arrest the entire neighbourhood and seize all computer and devices within the working radius of the router, or you are not being serious about it. If the police or judge are not willing to do that, they should not be willing (or be allowed) to arrest one guy. Questioning him, checking the wifi for range, injecting data into the stream that is being actively used for illegal purposes - all ok. Arresting one guy because you had a brainfart and thought IP = person is not.
It was sufficient for a judge to do it, not sufficient under any non-insane code of laws. Because...
And, can we agree that IP number and ISP DHCP log files provide a reason to believe that a particular location is involved?
Location, yes. But only the location of a device which is designed to easily reroute data to other devices, such as a wireless router, which in turn... You see where this is going, and so should the judge. The IP address is interesting for further inqueries, as might be talking to the guy. Assuming you have the culprit is far, far off - and allowing officers to batter down a door when you have pseudo-pin-pointed a possible suspect within a 60 feet radius is not OK. Not under US law, not under any law meant to protect citizens. The judge made a mistake. A huge one. He should apologize and retire.
And what should they do instead? The IP address is the only thing they have at that point - the rest of the evidence is collected AFTER they gain entry to the house.
They could, for instance, check whether the wifi is secured, and how strongly. And how many neighbours are within range.
(and your IP address is one form of identification)
An IP is a temporary identification of a machine. Here, the modem. It is not an identification of the machine connected to that modem (the router), nor the machines connected to that. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an identification of a person. You should know that, the cops should know that and the judge should apologize and retire for not knowing it.
Well he was innocent. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be arrested and tried. That fact that his IP address was the offending IP Address was enough probable clause for an Arrest Warrant.
Not remotely.
Just as if you left your car unlocked some one stole your car, and robbed a bank with it. Chances are Police will get an arrest Warrant and you will be arrested.
Or they will question you first, depending on their level of intelligence...
so the solution is in the political realm: free/ossoftware should have the same status as firearms, as definted in the 2nd amendment, FOR THE SAME REASONS
True. I'd say the right to bear arms, if you're going the 'in case the government becomes corrupt'-way-of-thinking, is useless without free software, free spectrum, free hardware and free encryption. Rifles and shotguns against the US military? Please. Strong crypto and an unbreakable 'net - enough people would be a problem...
The difference is that the telephone has a microphone and gps already, for good reason. But that is not a good reason not to let the end user control those
And how would you propose to "control" the GPS on your cellphone more than you already can?
Like on my Android phone - I tell the OS which programs can access my location. Why should it be any different?
You bought a phone, and the cellphone company can quite reasonably say that the GPS is an "extra" you have to pay for, since it absolutely is not required to make cell phone calls.
So they are leasing me use of their GPS chip? Or whose chip is it now? Because if it is my chip, which me buying the phone would suggest, then I humbly suggest that it should follow my orders. Should the AC in your car require permission from the manufacturer before turning on?
Second, you already do have control over what outside your phone gets access to the GPS data, so although the phone could be used to spy on your movements, it would require a court order, which you would never have any control over, anyway.
Uhm... No. If the phone is not under my control, whether it sends GPS data to someone is not under my control either. iPhones already do this...
Third, there is no way for you to control the other location information available (the cell phone tower you connect to), as that is required by the phone company to give you service.
True. And they should not be allowed to retain it for more than absolutely necessary, of course. Also, we should, and are, building a better model for a network than that...
So, other than malicious software (which could even be open source) and court orders, you really do control any GPS that you paid for (and similarly the microphone).
Yes. On my phone I do. Not true for phones with non-free OS'es.
Human beings are not amplifying their thinking with devices. This started around the time math was invented, and allowed bridges, trebuchets, trains and tanks, the internet and Windows ME. It is, as they say, a pretty big deal.
Tomorrow, my phone, along with some servers and satellites, will bring me from this motel and back home. I will not be very much involved, at least not in the thinking department...
We are thinking _with_ our devices. We should control them. That is all.
PS: It is not really, there is the whole issue of a society where knowledge about everyone is a commodity (already a problem around voting nights), of monopolies that ruin markets, and of letting everyone with a cool idea work on it, or hire whoever he choses do to so.
Absolutely right. And I was not being obtuse, but fixing the analogy. Stallman cares about privacy, and empowering the individual and not the state/corporation. Hence, he is leary (to say the least) about surveillance. The microwave only becomes relevant to the discussion, to the degree that it (hypothetically) is bugged. The schematics for their own sake is not the issue, and the analogy is entirely false. The inner workings of a microwave does not matter for a privacy advocate, free software in cell phones does.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
See, that's the thing though... Most people wouldn't be alarmed if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier.
Some individuals - like school teachers - would have a problem with it. They'd want some kind of bypass or educational license or something so that they could make copies for students...
But your average person doesn't care all that much about books. Seriously. As long as they can pick up a novel and read it, they'd be happy.
Then all the more reason to raise awareness of the problem. We need school teachers able to do their job. And we need a populace which is not being monitored.
I do not think that you are right, that people would accept a micrphone, gps tracker and 'phone home'-capabilities in every book. They'd rightly ask 'why' and, if given the choice, opt out. They should do the same with cell phones...
And the social problem of non-free software? People do not care
Not the point. The point is that they should, and Stallman is trying to make that happen. I am not saying he is going about it in the best way (I'd would say that Eben Moglen is, more or less).
I doubt Stallman cares about every little detail about things he uses but isn't that interested in. When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
You know what, I think Stallman does care whether his microwave has a microphone in it, that he is not allowed to control. And I think he cares about whether his sneakers have a GPS that will not let him decide when it is off or on. I even think you do.
The difference is that the telephone has a microphone and gps already, for good reason. But that is not a good reason not to let the end user control those - I do not care if you installed a bug in my house, or installed software on my phone behind my back, the end result is the same.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
It might be tedious to rip an entire colelction, but how often do you buy music? It's hardly tedious to rip a single album... you stick in the CD, and on most computers you launch your audio program and press "rip" or "import"...
There is no reason anyone should ever have to do this job - it is as silly as printing and scanning a document, in order to email it. We have better technology than this, why not use it?
Just because the wasted time is a small amount (at a time) is no argument for continuing to waste that time...
I think the soul of sarcasm is sorta the same as wit's, but never mind that...
My point does not, as you seem to assume, hinge on the research in the field being better. Not looking at previous research is _never_ a strength in itself. I am all for new approaches, but if you do not check out the existing research, how will you know whether your approach has been tried? How did it fail? What did _the field learn_?
A scientist with a new idea should first check if his idea is new. Then, you pour money and work into it.
And obviously, if existing approaches are better, learning from the field is still a good idea.
Not even wanting to learn from the field is... pseudo-science or artist's arrogance.
Q: What other artificial life/intelligence projects are you keeping tabs on? What should we be excited about? A: Oh, I’m the wrong person to ask. I try not to look....and then he goes on about not wanting to be "polluted" as an artist. While claiming this is not a game, but research.
Research and science, that is uninterested in what is being done in the field... I have a hard time coming up with something that fits that bill except pseudo-science.
Slashdot Mirror
Bedside table/pile.
The luddite comment was meant for whoever posted that I need professional help. I assume you too need help, using a radio so early in your day :-)
Radio or RSS-reader, just ways to get the news in bed. As a waking up ritual. I am just saying that my choice of technology is not a problem, just as yours is not.
Yup.
My grogginess, morning personality and lack of selfcontrol re. the snooze button all benefit immensely from having a few webcomics and some light news to lure my brain to wake up. Makes the next step (actually waking up) a bit easier. Together with sleep-as-an-droid, they have made my mornings much better.
I can only presume the outraged luddites commenting here feel equally horrified by reading a the paper, a book or a comic as part of a wake-up ritual...
The whooshing...
Yeah! Outlaw the bittorrent protocol, that'll make everything on the net go smoother!
Free as in perpetual state of war between individuals, because a set a of laws that does not give the bully the right to kill at will is not equal to freedom.
Or, to put it simpler, restricting some freedoms might be necessary to ensure others. Right to swing a fist, right to keep people from knowing what their computer is doing, etc.
Is there actually an enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly agree with you; but I think the closest the framers got to actually writing in a privacy was in the form of limiting powers of search and siezure.
You're right, of course. And the courts (Katz v. United States - 1967), and common sense, has agreed that search and seizure extends to conversations - recording one counts a search. Hence, there is an implied right to privacy, now based on case law.
You seem to misunderstand something about my response. I don't care about FDR. I care about what freedoms, guaranteed by the constitution, where taken away. You know, the question you asked me...?
With regards to Guantanamo, the issue is not whether there are US citizens, but whether the right to a fair trial has been taken from a US citizen. People held in Guantanamo and similar related "legal basis", have no means or rights to even claim citizen-ship. You could be picked up tomorrow, and you would have no discouse - no right to habeas corpus - no right to a fair trial.
I am aware that wiretapping is a useful tool for law enforcement. It is also something for which you need a warrant. Wiretapping without a warrant is an illegal breach of the right to privacy. Whether anyone has been convicted, or those recording have even been used in court, is entirely irrelevant.
No-fly lists are fine, as long as they are made as part of a judgement passed on an individual, or imposed on foreign nations or groups as part of a proper legal process. The no-fly lists hinder American citizens from travelling, with no proper basis in law. While there is no right to fly in natural philosophy or the united states constitution, the right to move and assemble freely is pretty well recognized. Of course you cannot disallow a primary mode of transportation without just cause - someone having the same name as someone else, who may or may not once have met someone accused of being a terrorist is not a convincing reason...
Regarding the right to declare war ("The President has always had the ability to initiate conflicts"), then I am pretty sure that when Congress alone was given the right to declare war, signing over that power to the president for fighting some hardly-nspecified enemy was not part of the deal. Congress can declare war, and they cannot hand over that power to the President, the postal office or you and me. They did, and that took away the right of the citizenry to decide on a case-by-case-basis, through their legislative representatives, whether they would go to war or not.
I have a question, btw:
> The constitution and our laws are not suicide pacts.
I have some problems parsing this; does this mean that the constitution is not set in stone and that sometimes it is OK to just disregard it? Does it mean that you do not even believe that there is such a thing as freedoms guaranteed, but rather freedoms suggested? Or what exactly are you saying about the law, here? That it should be waived whenever someone is in office you really agree with, or you feel we are not safe enough?
Right to a fair trial (Guantanamo detainees).
Right to privacy (wiretapping).
Right to travel (indiscriminate no-fly listing).
The right of congress, not the president, to declare war (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - congress' own damn fault for signing this one away, still illegal though).
Yeah, off in magical happy fairy land where your theoretical legal protections actually matter...
So you do not believe any law ever written would ever work? What?
Of course legal protections matter, and of course you depend on this fact every single day without thinking about it.
Maybe if Communism actually worked I'd consider doing something like this.
So noone can ever share any ressource ever, because some ass-hat in Russia misread Marx and tried forcibly to have everyone share everything?
Do you think we should privatize every meter of road too, and stop and charge each other for every meter driven? Because that is more or less what we are doing with bandwidth now, and it is more or less exactly as ineffecient.
Sharing is not a bad thing. Not sharing when it costs you nothing is indefensible. I have not heard of a single ethical or ownership theory which tried...
No, they are able to do work for hire - just like everywhere else. But they do not have the legal concept of work-for-hire (where the product is automatically owned by one's emplyer) - just like everywhere else, except the US and maybe a few other places.
Chance to flee? Why are you talking about having a chance to flee, let alone the desire? This guy did nothing wrong, there was no reason to assume he did (only that someone near his house might have done, or rereouted data from there in order to). Why should he flee?
Either you arrest the entire neighbourhood and seize all computer and devices within the working radius of the router, or you are not being serious about it. If the police or judge are not willing to do that, they should not be willing (or be allowed) to arrest one guy. Questioning him, checking the wifi for range, injecting data into the stream that is being actively used for illegal purposes - all ok. Arresting one guy because you had a brainfart and thought IP = person is not.
But was it sufficient for a search warrant
It was sufficient for a judge to do it, not sufficient under any non-insane code of laws. Because...
And, can we agree that IP number and ISP DHCP log files provide a reason to believe that a particular location is involved?
Location, yes. But only the location of a device which is designed to easily reroute data to other devices, such as a wireless router, which in turn... You see where this is going, and so should the judge. The IP address is interesting for further inqueries, as might be talking to the guy. Assuming you have the culprit is far, far off - and allowing officers to batter down a door when you have pseudo-pin-pointed a possible suspect within a 60 feet radius is not OK. Not under US law, not under any law meant to protect citizens. The judge made a mistake. A huge one. He should apologize and retire.
None. I share with my neighbours when it costs me nothing - how could you defend anything else morally?
And what should they do instead? The IP address is the only thing they have at that point - the rest of the evidence is collected AFTER they gain entry to the house.
They could, for instance, check whether the wifi is secured, and how strongly. And how many neighbours are within range.
(and your IP address is one form of identification)
An IP is a temporary identification of a machine. Here, the modem. It is not an identification of the machine connected to that modem (the router), nor the machines connected to that. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an identification of a person. You should know that, the cops should know that and the judge should apologize and retire for not knowing it.
Well he was innocent. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be arrested and tried. That fact that his IP address was the offending IP Address was enough probable clause for an Arrest Warrant.
Not remotely.
Just as if you left your car unlocked some one stole your car, and robbed a bank with it. Chances are Police will get an arrest Warrant and you will be arrested.
Or they will question you first, depending on their level of intelligence...
No, he just said video games aren't art, and he's right...
Portal.
so the solution is in the political realm: free/ossoftware should have the same status as firearms, as definted in the 2nd amendment, FOR THE SAME REASONS
True. I'd say the right to bear arms, if you're going the 'in case the government becomes corrupt'-way-of-thinking, is useless without free software, free spectrum, free hardware and free encryption.
Rifles and shotguns against the US military? Please. Strong crypto and an unbreakable 'net - enough people would be a problem...
The difference is that the telephone has a microphone and gps already, for good reason. But that is not a good reason not to let the end user control those
And how would you propose to "control" the GPS on your cellphone more than you already can?
Like on my Android phone - I tell the OS which programs can access my location. Why should it be any different?
You bought a phone, and the cellphone company can quite reasonably say that the GPS is an "extra" you have to pay for, since it absolutely is not required to make cell phone calls.
So they are leasing me use of their GPS chip? Or whose chip is it now? Because if it is my chip, which me buying the phone would suggest, then I humbly suggest that it should follow my orders. Should the AC in your car require permission from the manufacturer before turning on?
Second, you already do have control over what outside your phone gets access to the GPS data, so although the phone could be used to spy on your movements, it would require a court order, which you would never have any control over, anyway.
Uhm... No. If the phone is not under my control, whether it sends GPS data to someone is not under my control either. iPhones already do this...
Third, there is no way for you to control the other location information available (the cell phone tower you connect to), as that is required by the phone company to give you service.
True. And they should not be allowed to retain it for more than absolutely necessary, of course. Also, we should, and are, building a better model for a network than that...
So, other than malicious software (which could even be open source) and court orders, you really do control any GPS that you paid for (and similarly the microphone).
Yes. On my phone I do. Not true for phones with non-free OS'es.
Human beings are not amplifying their thinking with devices. This started around the time math was invented, and allowed bridges, trebuchets, trains and tanks, the internet and Windows ME. It is, as they say, a pretty big deal.
Tomorrow, my phone, along with some servers and satellites, will bring me from this motel and back home. I will not be very much involved, at least not in the thinking department...
We are thinking _with_ our devices. We should control them. That is all.
PS: It is not really, there is the whole issue of a society where knowledge about everyone is a commodity (already a problem around voting nights), of monopolies that ruin markets, and of letting everyone with a cool idea work on it, or hire whoever he choses do to so.
The obvious question is why should they?
Absolutely right. And I was not being obtuse, but fixing the analogy. Stallman cares about privacy, and empowering the individual and not the state/corporation. Hence, he is leary (to say the least) about surveillance. The microwave only becomes relevant to the discussion, to the degree that it (hypothetically) is bugged. The schematics for their own sake is not the issue, and the analogy is entirely false. The inner workings of a microwave does not matter for a privacy advocate, free software in cell phones does.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
See, that's the thing though... Most people wouldn't be alarmed if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier.
Some individuals - like school teachers - would have a problem with it. They'd want some kind of bypass or educational license or something so that they could make copies for students...
But your average person doesn't care all that much about books. Seriously. As long as they can pick up a novel and read it, they'd be happy.
Then all the more reason to raise awareness of the problem. We need school teachers able to do their job. And we need a populace which is not being monitored.
I do not think that you are right, that people would accept a micrphone, gps tracker and 'phone home'-capabilities in every book. They'd rightly ask 'why' and, if given the choice, opt out. They should do the same with cell phones...
And the social problem of non-free software? People do not care
Not the point. The point is that they should, and Stallman is trying to make that happen. I am not saying he is going about it in the best way (I'd would say that Eben Moglen is, more or less).
I doubt Stallman cares about every little detail about things he uses but isn't that interested in. When he is cooking his tv dinner, he just wants a microwave that works.
You know what, I think Stallman does care whether his microwave has a microphone in it, that he is not allowed to control. And I think he cares about whether his sneakers have a GPS that will not let him decide when it is off or on. I even think you do.
The difference is that the telephone has a microphone and gps already, for good reason. But that is not a good reason not to let the end user control those -
I do not care if you installed a bug in my house, or installed software on my phone behind my back, the end result is the same.
People would be alarmed, if every book came with surveillance technology and screamed bloody murder if it came near a photo copier. The 'political arm' of the free software movement is saying you should be equally alarmed with the current state of affairs.
It might be tedious to rip an entire colelction, but how often do you buy music? It's hardly tedious to rip a single album... you stick in the CD, and on most computers you launch your audio program and press "rip" or "import" ...
There is no reason anyone should ever have to do this job - it is as silly as printing and scanning a document, in order to email it. We have better technology than this, why not use it?
Just because the wasted time is a small amount (at a time) is no argument for continuing to waste that time...
I think the soul of sarcasm is sorta the same as wit's, but never mind that...
My point does not, as you seem to assume, hinge on the research in the field being better.
Not looking at previous research is _never_ a strength in itself. I am all for new approaches, but if you do not check out the existing research, how will you know whether your approach has been tried? How did it fail? What did _the field learn_?
A scientist with a new idea should first check if his idea is new. Then, you pour money and work into it.
And obviously, if existing approaches are better, learning from the field is still a good idea.
Not even wanting to learn from the field is... pseudo-science or artist's arrogance.
Q: What other artificial life/intelligence projects are you keeping tabs on? What should we be excited about? ...and then he goes on about not wanting to be "polluted" as an artist. While claiming this is not a game, but research.
A: Oh, I’m the wrong person to ask. I try not to look.
Research and science, that is uninterested in what is being done in the field... I have a hard time coming up with something that fits that bill except pseudo-science.