The biggest problem I see with licensing internet use is that it can quickly turn into licensing operating system use. As I mentioned in another reply, a person who knows how to safely use OSX online may not know how to safely use WinXP online.
There are also other variables to consider. Do we bother requiring licenses for users who are on dialup? Those users will be of little value to botnet operators, as they're not online often and their connections are slow.
What about people who just want to check e-mail, but logically shouldn't be required to have the knowledge necessary to maintain a Windows machine and keep it up to date? (I'm thinking about Grandma.) Granted, Grandma isn't downloading the latest movie or the newest leak of the latest commercial game via P2P - but she's still susceptible to OS vulnerabilities while she's online. Should we grant exceptions in such cases?
What about allowing someone a license given the promise that someone else will be maintaining their machine (be it the Geek Squad or the neighbor's 13-year-old daughter)? Does that then mean we need two levels of licenses, one for maintainers and one for their clients?
We could start talking about the "big brother" worries, too, where the government would be able to track people's internet use (because to log on you'd need to hit the government server to valid your credentials).
And what about foreign countries? Do we require them to get US-issued licenses, or do we require each country to issue their own? How do we handle foreign visitors?
Licenses in this context are far from a simple idea.
To enforce that you'd have to do something like this:
1) Government agency issues "Internet Use License" 2) ISPs require a login based on said IUL to connect
problems:
1) IULs would have to be OS-specific - a person who can safely use OSX online may not know how to safely use a WinXP machine online (similar to how you need a separate license for a motorcycle, passenger vehicle, or semi) 2) Requiring a login against a governmetn database allows the government to track internet use on a per-user basis - i'm not much of a "big brother" conspiracy theorist but I'm not comfortable with this idea.
The key word in your post is that Feinstein tried to ban bomb-making instructions. Obviously, Feinstein failed - how, then, is the system broken? What speech has been censored on the Internet by the U.S.?
Or are you complaining that the U.S. wants to ban child porn? That complaint, in particular, is a double-edged sword.
Yes, there are pending bills that want to make stupid laws. Well guess what? Nothing amounting to censorship has been passed - or can you point to something (besides child porn) that has been censored?
Trouble is, the ITU isn't an impartial international party. As at least one other person has pointed out, the ITU doesn't like that phone calls can be made over the internet (because it cuts into their phone networks' profits). I don't know if the ITU makes any money, but I certainly would not be surprised if the companies who work with the ITU were to try to pressure them into blocking VoIP domains.
A more important question is, why change it before there's any reason to believe someone else will handle it better?
The U.N. is hardly impartial - oh, ideally, theoretically, it is, but as we've seen numerous times, the U.N. is controlled by its most powerful members (yes, the U.S. is one of them) who most certainly are not impartial.
Besides, who said it had to be fair? The Internet is, after all, largely (if not entirely) a US invention. Why shouldn't the inventors keep ownership?
If this were a network developed by a private company, nobody would be complaining that registration fees went to that company. Why is that suddenly a bad thing, just because it's the US DoC managing things instead of a private company?
You're right, but the issue isn't really about whether it would be a punishment or not, the issue is "there's little evidence (if any) that the U.N. could do it better, and several reasons it would be a bad idea to let them have control", so until someone counters those arguments I'd have to stick with the GP's conclusion - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I had an issue with Steam where Steam would crash and/or stop responding for apparently no reason. After a bit of back-and-forth with Valve's tech support (including sending crash reports and Steam dump files and such) I was told "the problem should go away if you reinstall Windows."
The trick is to start the compile just before you go to bed. Wine doesn't get updated all that often, all things considered, so it's not too much of a hassle, and what does it matter how long it takes if you're asleep the whole time anyway?
Suddenly all distros were dropping the good and stable 3.5 version for the 4.0 and 4.1 KDE versions
You realize that nobody is forcing you to accept the software updates that move you away from 3.5, right?
You realize that you can still go download an older version of $distro and use KDE 3.5, right? Nobody is forcing you to upgrade to 2009.4 or 2009.10 (in the case of Kubuntu), that's your choice.
For the eighth time, I wish people would understand that the issue here is not the downloading. The issue here is that he broke the acceptable use policy for the university's network, and the university took action.
It's irrelevant to discuss whether eviction is a suitable punishment for downloading movies, because that's not the issue.
What we should be discussing is whether it's appropriate for the university to evict a student for breaking rules the student had previously agreed to, knowing that the consequence of breaking those rules is eviction!
If the broken rule in question were "No graffiti on the external walls", nobody would be sympathizing with this guy. The fact is, he broke a rule he most certainly agreed he would keep. Why should the university allow him to continue living there?
Just like so many others, you're assuming that the e-mail was the university's only basis for the eviction. There's no evidence of that - to the contrary, the OP readily admits that he is guilty.
The most likely scenario involves the university asking the student whether the accusation is true - and the student saying yes.
From all appearances, they didn't just kick him out based on the e-mail. It appears that he admitted to downloading it - why should they investigate further after a confession has been obtained?
And, if he missed a clause in the AUP, that's his own fault. You shouldn't sign something you haven't read thoroughly - but if you do, you shouldn't complain when it comes back to bite you.
Your argument is moot if he was punished for violating the terms of his residency - rules he previously agreed to - and it seems likely to me that this is the case.
Would you be complaining if the rule he had agreed to and subsequently broken were something non-electronic like "no posting giant pictures of Barney the Dinosaur on your front door"?
If you agree to a rule and then knowingly break it, you shouldn't be surprised if you have to face the consequences of your actions. It doesn't matter that the rule in this case has to do with filesharing.
That's totally irrelevant. The point is, the RIAA didn't administer or even ask for the punishment that was given - that was decided on and carried out by the university, without the involvement of the RIAA, most likely as a direct result of this student's violation of the agreement he signed in order to live there.
Why, exactly, is anyone mad that the kid broke the rules of the dorm (or university) - rules he agreed to obey - and got punished for it? It's irrelevant that the rule he broke happened to be noticed by the RIAA.
Due process doesn't apply if he wasn't punished as a criminal. It sounds to me like he broke the university's rules, and they simply administered the consequences of breaking that rule - and I'd bet that he agreed to those rules when he was admitted to the school.
It's stupid for anybody to complain when they're punished for breaking rules they agreed they wouldn't break.
I doubt he was evicted for the download so much as for breaking university or dormitory rules - rules he probably agreed to when he was admitted to the university.
I really doubt the university would kick out a student just because someone accused that student of filesharing, even if that someone were the RIAA. From what I see, he was accused, he admitted the accusation was correct, and then he was kicked out.
I don't know where you're pulling your inference that he only admitted to it after the punishment was administered, but I don't see any evidence of that.
Since about six people have said "I thought that was the end of Die Hard", I should mention that when I wrote "I thought that was the end of Unbreakable", I was going to follow it up with "... or was it Die Hard" as a joke, since I haven't seen it.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem I see with licensing internet use is that it can quickly turn into licensing operating system use. As I mentioned in another reply, a person who knows how to safely use OSX online may not know how to safely use WinXP online.
There are also other variables to consider. Do we bother requiring licenses for users who are on dialup? Those users will be of little value to botnet operators, as they're not online often and their connections are slow.
What about people who just want to check e-mail, but logically shouldn't be required to have the knowledge necessary to maintain a Windows machine and keep it up to date? (I'm thinking about Grandma.) Granted, Grandma isn't downloading the latest movie or the newest leak of the latest commercial game via P2P - but she's still susceptible to OS vulnerabilities while she's online. Should we grant exceptions in such cases?
What about allowing someone a license given the promise that someone else will be maintaining their machine (be it the Geek Squad or the neighbor's 13-year-old daughter)? Does that then mean we need two levels of licenses, one for maintainers and one for their clients?
We could start talking about the "big brother" worries, too, where the government would be able to track people's internet use (because to log on you'd need to hit the government server to valid your credentials).
And what about foreign countries? Do we require them to get US-issued licenses, or do we require each country to issue their own? How do we handle foreign visitors?
Licenses in this context are far from a simple idea.
To enforce that you'd have to do something like this:
1) Government agency issues "Internet Use License"
2) ISPs require a login based on said IUL to connect
problems:
1) IULs would have to be OS-specific - a person who can safely use OSX online may not know how to safely use a WinXP machine online (similar to how you need a separate license for a motorcycle, passenger vehicle, or semi)
2) Requiring a login against a governmetn database allows the government to track internet use on a per-user basis - i'm not much of a "big brother" conspiracy theorist but I'm not comfortable with this idea.
When was the first time a real terrorist was found in a border check?
The key word in your post is that Feinstein tried to ban bomb-making instructions. Obviously, Feinstein failed - how, then, is the system broken? What speech has been censored on the Internet by the U.S.?
Or are you complaining that the U.S. wants to ban child porn? That complaint, in particular, is a double-edged sword.
Yes, there are pending bills that want to make stupid laws. Well guess what? Nothing amounting to censorship has been passed - or can you point to something (besides child porn) that has been censored?
Trouble is, the ITU isn't an impartial international party. As at least one other person has pointed out, the ITU doesn't like that phone calls can be made over the internet (because it cuts into their phone networks' profits). I don't know if the ITU makes any money, but I certainly would not be surprised if the companies who work with the ITU were to try to pressure them into blocking VoIP domains.
GP greatly misunderstands OpenDNS. No need to change your DNS settings.
A more important question is, why change it before there's any reason to believe someone else will handle it better?
The U.N. is hardly impartial - oh, ideally, theoretically, it is, but as we've seen numerous times, the U.N. is controlled by its most powerful members (yes, the U.S. is one of them) who most certainly are not impartial.
Besides, who said it had to be fair? The Internet is, after all, largely (if not entirely) a US invention. Why shouldn't the inventors keep ownership?
If this were a network developed by a private company, nobody would be complaining that registration fees went to that company. Why is that suddenly a bad thing, just because it's the US DoC managing things instead of a private company?
You're right, but the issue isn't really about whether it would be a punishment or not, the issue is "there's little evidence (if any) that the U.N. could do it better, and several reasons it would be a bad idea to let them have control", so until someone counters those arguments I'd have to stick with the GP's conclusion - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Some apartment buildings have the same problem. Inside, I might get a usable signal sometimes. Three feet outside, my phone works fine.
I had an issue with Steam where Steam would crash and/or stop responding for apparently no reason. After a bit of back-and-forth with Valve's tech support (including sending crash reports and Steam dump files and such) I was told "the problem should go away if you reinstall Windows."
The trick is to start the compile just before you go to bed. Wine doesn't get updated all that often, all things considered, so it's not too much of a hassle, and what does it matter how long it takes if you're asleep the whole time anyway?
Suddenly all distros were dropping the good and stable 3.5 version for the 4.0 and 4.1 KDE versions
You realize that nobody is forcing you to accept the software updates that move you away from 3.5, right?
You realize that you can still go download an older version of $distro and use KDE 3.5, right? Nobody is forcing you to upgrade to 2009.4 or 2009.10 (in the case of Kubuntu), that's your choice.
For the eighth time, I wish people would understand that the issue here is not the downloading. The issue here is that he broke the acceptable use policy for the university's network, and the university took action.
It's irrelevant to discuss whether eviction is a suitable punishment for downloading movies, because that's not the issue.
What we should be discussing is whether it's appropriate for the university to evict a student for breaking rules the student had previously agreed to, knowing that the consequence of breaking those rules is eviction!
If the broken rule in question were "No graffiti on the external walls", nobody would be sympathizing with this guy. The fact is, he broke a rule he most certainly agreed he would keep. Why should the university allow him to continue living there?
Just like so many others, you're assuming that the e-mail was the university's only basis for the eviction. There's no evidence of that - to the contrary, the OP readily admits that he is guilty.
The most likely scenario involves the university asking the student whether the accusation is true - and the student saying yes.
From all appearances, they didn't just kick him out based on the e-mail. It appears that he admitted to downloading it - why should they investigate further after a confession has been obtained?
And, if he missed a clause in the AUP, that's his own fault. You shouldn't sign something you haven't read thoroughly - but if you do, you shouldn't complain when it comes back to bite you.
Your argument is moot if he was punished for violating the terms of his residency - rules he previously agreed to - and it seems likely to me that this is the case.
Would you be complaining if the rule he had agreed to and subsequently broken were something non-electronic like "no posting giant pictures of Barney the Dinosaur on your front door"?
If you agree to a rule and then knowingly break it, you shouldn't be surprised if you have to face the consequences of your actions. It doesn't matter that the rule in this case has to do with filesharing.
That's totally irrelevant. The point is, the RIAA didn't administer or even ask for the punishment that was given - that was decided on and carried out by the university, without the involvement of the RIAA, most likely as a direct result of this student's violation of the agreement he signed in order to live there.
Why, exactly, is anyone mad that the kid broke the rules of the dorm (or university) - rules he agreed to obey - and got punished for it? It's irrelevant that the rule he broke happened to be noticed by the RIAA.
Due process doesn't apply if he wasn't punished as a criminal. It sounds to me like he broke the university's rules, and they simply administered the consequences of breaking that rule - and I'd bet that he agreed to those rules when he was admitted to the school.
It's stupid for anybody to complain when they're punished for breaking rules they agreed they wouldn't break.
I doubt he was evicted for the download so much as for breaking university or dormitory rules - rules he probably agreed to when he was admitted to the university.
I really doubt the university would kick out a student just because someone accused that student of filesharing, even if that someone were the RIAA. From what I see, he was accused, he admitted the accusation was correct, and then he was kicked out.
I don't know where you're pulling your inference that he only admitted to it after the punishment was administered, but I don't see any evidence of that.
My Wheel of Time books are too thick. It almost takes more time to tear them apart and run them through the shredder than to just read them.
(I should know, I've read them four times.)
Since about six people have said "I thought that was the end of Die Hard", I should mention that when I wrote "I thought that was the end of Unbreakable", I was going to follow it up with "... or was it Die Hard" as a joke, since I haven't seen it.
Now, I'm starting to wonder.
Dude... I was totally going to read Harry RingGate: DaVinci in Black, but you ruined the ending for me! Now what am I going to do?
(Incidentally, it's spelled "goa'uld". If you're going to make nerdy comments, at least check your spelling ;)
No... I responded seriously.