Just remember they're also the same company who bent over and let the NSA wiretap their networks en masse. They got this call right but there are much more serious calls they've gotten wrong
I'm not 100% sure but I think it might be because AT&T isnt owned by a Cable Company and/or other Big Media conglomerate. Although I could be wrong. Never know which company owns which these days.
UK law has no jurisdiction anywhere but in the UK. There must be something in international law about this stating that a country cant make laws that...
1) Affect people who are not living in the country. 2) Affect people who are not citizens, residents or immigrants of the country. 3) Make people answerable to a foreign power while not in the foreign powers country.
I figure unless you are planning a trip to England that you'd be pretty much safe from their claims. Just respond that you live in X country and dont believe that the British Empire has jurisdiction over you.
Slippery Slope as it applies to government is not a fallacy IMHO. If you give the government an inch they will take a mile. Just look at taxation. It started with property taxes. Then they brought in 'Income Tax' as a war time measure (and kept it), then added sales taxes and taxes on gas and 'taxes' on vehicles, animals (mostly pets) and firearms in the form of licenses. Keeping in mind this is something that they are required to be able to do and they go so overboard with it and we all know how if you give a drunk a $20 they're gonna go get themselves a bottle of cheap booze and get drunk... So to does the government have an addiction to spending so all money you give the government will go towards feeding their addiction.
Now we're letting them deal with what should be unalienable rights (Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, etc...) so long as there is no crime involved (IE. Real Children being used as models and such) then I have no problems with the Graphics artists creating such repulsive material. The fact is that if you want freedom of speech to mean something then you have to stand up for speech you find offensive as well as speech you agree with. Like I might not agree with some pro-lifer (or for that matter pro-choice) views on abortion but I'll defend their right to present their arguments in an acceptable public forum (and not on the front steps of an abortion clinic harassing pregnant women).
If you tell them its cold outside will they listen and go get their jacket? Obviously they know what cold is and reasonably if you've told them a few times the memory should already be stored so that when you tell them they trigger their other memories to go retrieve jackets and stuff.
I presume that once the monetary transaction is complete the credit card details are expunged from the account information. Therefore they know you paid to TPB for the VPN service but they dont know what your account is. Or alternatively they know what the account is but they wont be able to trace it back to an individual via credit card number by warrant or subpoena.
Of course, on the other side of the issue, you have to trust TPB to not be spying on you, and what happens when that traffic leave TBP is a different issue.
I'm more keen on trusting TPB than the government. After all some guys who have gotten away with what they have while people with seemingly infinitely deep pockets fail at getting them prosecuted. They know their shit and they know that unless they're legally obligated to keep log files and customer data beyond login name/password (IE. This account is paid for, so remove the card from the database linking them to the account). Even if that is the case they'll just move the servers to a jurisdiction where it isn't required.
Isn't that abridging the freedom of the presses that want to make political statements endorsing candidates? It basically says, "Don't make political endorsements, or else we'll tax you."
Apparently not since you know it's the paper's choice to be defined as a non-profit or not. If they define themselves as a non-profit they gain a benefit (tax-exempt status on some forms of income) but they get a drawback in that they cant go sponsoring a candidate. Frankly any publication which would go out of its way to sponsor a candidate is probably too biased to be worth while reading anyways.
AT&T is a private company but almost all of their business is done on public property. Therefore access is a right as long as you are able to pay the monthly charge.
AT&T is a REGULATED MONOPOLY, just like the power company. Technically internet access is becoming more and more like a utility and as a result cutting off internet access should have the same burden of proof as cutting off your electricity, water or gas line to your house. In many cases people's internet access is also their phone line (VOIP) and thus their access to 911 and emergency services as well.
Yes... the RIAA is losing the battle in the court system. What they are trying to do is win the war with backroom deals. Unfortunately the first time someone is cut off because of these RIAA goons is the time the EFF jumps on the ISP's case to get them declared a regulated monopoly.
Hopefully municipal governments will stop giving exclusivity contracts to ISPs. Perhaps we might be able to create ISPs of our own based on fiber to future-proof our networks then set up peering arrangements.
No its more like the bully happens to play the flute and makes a little money by selling recordings (CDs) of him playing. He also gives away recordings by broadcasting them over the radio for 'free'. Now he's punching you in the face because you downloaded an MP3 off the internet which may have been from the 'free' stream or potentially from the 'paid' stream of CDs. Regardless it is being given away for free and therefore the value of the music is virtually nil.
PS: The bully gets charged with assault because assault is a criminal offense while copyright infringement is a civil matter.
To restrict speech it has to be 1) Reasonable 2) Prescribed by law 3) Demonstrably justified
Child Porn passed this test. Hate Speech has also passed this test. However, I believe that what some people consider to be 'hate speech' is a little overboard. Calling someone a jew, nigger, packi, chink, ect... is not 'hate speech'. Although if you do such while beating someone up it might turn your assault from a normal crime into a 'hate crime' (I hate that term too because it implies 'hate' as a motivator makes a crime worse than just deciding you want their wallet)
I agree... this may not be 'illegal' but it is 100% immoral.
Firstly it assumes 'guilty even if proven innocent'.
Secondly it takes the whole 'government issued monopoly' that DSL and Cable providers typically enjoy and makes it abusive. Without the monopoly position they enjoy and the public funding thrown at these ISPs to get them to build the infrastructure they would not be permitted to take these steps. I think it might be a good opportuity to take the companies to court and/or the municipal governments that are letting this go on.
Thirdly it is effectively taking the law into their own hands. If they do this then I would suggest that people push really hard that 'common carrier' defense no longer applies. I'd love to see the next person who gets busted for child porn after this goes into effect to claim that the ISP is responsible for distributing it and they can nolonger claim common carrier because they are doing throttling and deep packet inspection they should be responsible for distribution.
1) Small companies generally don't have the lines going cross country to deliver internet service. 2) Small companies generally take what the big companies have and resell it. 3) AT&T, Verison and Bell are probably some of the companies that are "Too big to let fail" a la AIG.
Easy way to do that would be to take IP addresses and store them as MD5 hashes w/ Potential Salting so they have to manually go through all the combinations. Sure your 'data set' is limited to the number of IP addresses from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 or 4.3 billion combinations roughly (2^32). If you include IPv6 then the number of combinations skyrockets to potentially (2^128) making it even more difficult to determine which IP address was involved.
Technically you'd be preserving the data but in reality unless they get a set of IP addresses of people accessing the site and know the salting procedure they'd be SOL in reverse engineering the MD5 to IP Address even though the IP address is a statistically smaller set of data than hashing normally is used on.
You could further compound this data by using all IP addresses as IPv6 versions rather than IPv4 versions so they'd have to check all the IPv6 dataset as well.
We have no separation of church and state. We have no right to free speech.
Technically we do... its filed under 'Freedom of Expression'... It lets you choose what religion you are or if you even have one and gives you the right to free speech within acceptable limits. (IE. You cant go screaming 'fire' in a crowded building or other things that might be harmful to public safety unless they're true). The thing is we also have a right to be free from persecution and thus follows the no 'hate speech'.
Your analysis of Canadian legal system is that of someone who has never had any legal class. IANAL but I've been in a few basic legal classes in high school and college. You're innocent until proven guilty and thats the same as the UK and US. If this was not the case you would never even get a bail hearing. In a criminal case the onus is on the crown to prove that you did it (beyond a reasonable doubt).
You have the right to defend yourself and your home with equal or slightly greater force than those threatening it. Therefore if someone busts into your house in an armed robbery you are fully within your rights to do so. Just look at the case in quebec where the police enacted a predawn raid on someone's house they though the people coming in were armed robbers and shot and killed a police officer. The person was acquitted of all charges because 1) There was a flap covering the 'POLICE' word on the front of the guy when he was geared up. 2) The firearm he used to shoot the police officer was legal and registered in accordance with the law. 3) He had a reasonable expectation that his home was being invaded (Knocking the door down and marching through the house is pretty scary and might lead you to believe a criminal is robbing your house). 4) The warrant was found to be given on such flimsy evidence that it shouldnt have been given in the first place.
I can see the court making some sort of extrapolation that IP address collection is similar to cameras in public places and that you have no reasonable expectation to the privacy of your IP address. After all you require IP addresses to participate in the internet and much of the internet could be considered a public forum. Therefore by going to a website you are giving your IP address much the same as someone walking into a store is videotaped/recorded.
Then again they might say that spoofing IP addresses qualifies as identity theft then...
Technically we did... They posted a story about Colbert's antics while people were still able to vote. Presumably a good portion of slashdotters like myself threw their vote in for Colbert too.
Actually depending on the situation it may be permitted to ask some of these 'illegal' questions provided that you can prove that such things are a bona fide requirement for the job.
#2: Might be possible to be asked if you are interviewing for a translator/call center position where language skills are important (IE. Speaking Spanish or something) #6: Any physically demanding job would be viable to ask such questions. Police Officer, Fireman, Paramedic, Construction Worker... #7: Is probably something you can ask for a job that involves high amount of access to information and such. However, such positions are usually conditional on a background check. #8: Might be applicable if they have listed military service in their resume.
Yup. I have walked out of jobs like this and let some of my less scrupulous colleagues take them on. While no one I know of locally has ever had a visit from the BSA, they are a bit like lightning.
If you get close enough to strip search a 13 year old suicide bomber then kudos to you. Usually they'll just blow themselves up and you along with them before they would let that happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Just remember they're also the same company who bent over and let the NSA wiretap their networks en masse. They got this call right but there are much more serious calls they've gotten wrong
I'm not 100% sure but I think it might be because AT&T isnt owned by a Cable Company and/or other Big Media conglomerate. Although I could be wrong. Never know which company owns which these days.
UK law has no jurisdiction anywhere but in the UK. There must be something in international law about this stating that a country cant make laws that...
1) Affect people who are not living in the country.
2) Affect people who are not citizens, residents or immigrants of the country.
3) Make people answerable to a foreign power while not in the foreign powers country.
I figure unless you are planning a trip to England that you'd be pretty much safe from their claims. Just respond that you live in X country and dont believe that the British Empire has jurisdiction over you.
Agreed...
Slippery Slope as it applies to government is not a fallacy IMHO. If you give the government an inch they will take a mile. Just look at taxation. It started with property taxes. Then they brought in 'Income Tax' as a war time measure (and kept it), then added sales taxes and taxes on gas and 'taxes' on vehicles, animals (mostly pets) and firearms in the form of licenses. Keeping in mind this is something that they are required to be able to do and they go so overboard with it and we all know how if you give a drunk a $20 they're gonna go get themselves a bottle of cheap booze and get drunk... So to does the government have an addiction to spending so all money you give the government will go towards feeding their addiction.
Now we're letting them deal with what should be unalienable rights (Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, etc...) so long as there is no crime involved (IE. Real Children being used as models and such) then I have no problems with the Graphics artists creating such repulsive material. The fact is that if you want freedom of speech to mean something then you have to stand up for speech you find offensive as well as speech you agree with. Like I might not agree with some pro-lifer (or for that matter pro-choice) views on abortion but I'll defend their right to present their arguments in an acceptable public forum (and not on the front steps of an abortion clinic harassing pregnant women).
The question is...
If you tell them its cold outside will they listen and go get their jacket? Obviously they know what cold is and reasonably if you've told them a few times the memory should already be stored so that when you tell them they trigger their other memories to go retrieve jackets and stuff.
I presume that once the monetary transaction is complete the credit card details are expunged from the account information. Therefore they know you paid to TPB for the VPN service but they dont know what your account is. Or alternatively they know what the account is but they wont be able to trace it back to an individual via credit card number by warrant or subpoena.
Of course, on the other side of the issue, you have to trust TPB to not be spying on you, and what happens when that traffic leave TBP is a different issue.
I'm more keen on trusting TPB than the government. After all some guys who have gotten away with what they have while people with seemingly infinitely deep pockets fail at getting them prosecuted. They know their shit and they know that unless they're legally obligated to keep log files and customer data beyond login name/password (IE. This account is paid for, so remove the card from the database linking them to the account). Even if that is the case they'll just move the servers to a jurisdiction where it isn't required.
Isn't that abridging the freedom of the presses that want to make political statements endorsing candidates? It basically says, "Don't make political endorsements, or else we'll tax you."
Apparently not since you know it's the paper's choice to be defined as a non-profit or not. If they define themselves as a non-profit they gain a benefit (tax-exempt status on some forms of income) but they get a drawback in that they cant go sponsoring a candidate. Frankly any publication which would go out of its way to sponsor a candidate is probably too biased to be worth while reading anyways.
Someone needs to make a picture and go 'if you noticed the blue dick I have some bad news...'
Well I understand Wikileaks likes to post the entirety of it...
However they could have spared people the trouble and not made every URL a hyperlink. Just to spare people with pre-fetching browsers.
AT&T is a private company but almost all of their business is done on public property. Therefore access is a right as long as you are able to pay the monthly charge.
AT&T is a REGULATED MONOPOLY, just like the power company. Technically internet access is becoming more and more like a utility and as a result cutting off internet access should have the same burden of proof as cutting off your electricity, water or gas line to your house. In many cases people's internet access is also their phone line (VOIP) and thus their access to 911 and emergency services as well.
Yes... the RIAA is losing the battle in the court system. What they are trying to do is win the war with backroom deals. Unfortunately the first time someone is cut off because of these RIAA goons is the time the EFF jumps on the ISP's case to get them declared a regulated monopoly.
Hopefully municipal governments will stop giving exclusivity contracts to ISPs. Perhaps we might be able to create ISPs of our own based on fiber to future-proof our networks then set up peering arrangements.
No its more like the bully happens to play the flute and makes a little money by selling recordings (CDs) of him playing. He also gives away recordings by broadcasting them over the radio for 'free'. Now he's punching you in the face because you downloaded an MP3 off the internet which may have been from the 'free' stream or potentially from the 'paid' stream of CDs. Regardless it is being given away for free and therefore the value of the music is virtually nil.
PS: The bully gets charged with assault because assault is a criminal offense while copyright infringement is a civil matter.
Unfortunately our Constitution both permits freedom of speech as well as restrictions on free speech within reason.
Freedom of Speech in Canada
To restrict speech it has to be
1) Reasonable
2) Prescribed by law
3) Demonstrably justified
Child Porn passed this test. Hate Speech has also passed this test. However, I believe that what some people consider to be 'hate speech' is a little overboard. Calling someone a jew, nigger, packi, chink, ect... is not 'hate speech'. Although if you do such while beating someone up it might turn your assault from a normal crime into a 'hate crime' (I hate that term too because it implies 'hate' as a motivator makes a crime worse than just deciding you want their wallet)
I agree... this may not be 'illegal' but it is 100% immoral.
Firstly it assumes 'guilty even if proven innocent'.
Secondly it takes the whole 'government issued monopoly' that DSL and Cable providers typically enjoy and makes it abusive. Without the monopoly position they enjoy and the public funding thrown at these ISPs to get them to build the infrastructure they would not be permitted to take these steps. I think it might be a good opportuity to take the companies to court and/or the municipal governments that are letting this go on.
Thirdly it is effectively taking the law into their own hands. If they do this then I would suggest that people push really hard that 'common carrier' defense no longer applies. I'd love to see the next person who gets busted for child porn after this goes into effect to claim that the ISP is responsible for distributing it and they can nolonger claim common carrier because they are doing throttling and deep packet inspection they should be responsible for distribution.
False unfortunately...
1) Small companies generally don't have the lines going cross country to deliver internet service.
2) Small companies generally take what the big companies have and resell it.
3) AT&T, Verison and Bell are probably some of the companies that are "Too big to let fail" a la AIG.
Easy way to do that would be to take IP addresses and store them as MD5 hashes w/ Potential Salting so they have to manually go through all the combinations. Sure your 'data set' is limited to the number of IP addresses from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 or 4.3 billion combinations roughly (2^32). If you include IPv6 then the number of combinations skyrockets to potentially (2^128) making it even more difficult to determine which IP address was involved.
Technically you'd be preserving the data but in reality unless they get a set of IP addresses of people accessing the site and know the salting procedure they'd be SOL in reverse engineering the MD5 to IP Address even though the IP address is a statistically smaller set of data than hashing normally is used on.
You could further compound this data by using all IP addresses as IPv6 versions rather than IPv4 versions so they'd have to check all the IPv6 dataset as well.
We have no separation of church and state. We have no right to free speech.
Technically we do... its filed under 'Freedom of Expression'... It lets you choose what religion you are or if you even have one and gives you the right to free speech within acceptable limits. (IE. You cant go screaming 'fire' in a crowded building or other things that might be harmful to public safety unless they're true). The thing is we also have a right to be free from persecution and thus follows the no 'hate speech'.
Your analysis of Canadian legal system is that of someone who has never had any legal class. IANAL but I've been in a few basic legal classes in high school and college. You're innocent until proven guilty and thats the same as the UK and US. If this was not the case you would never even get a bail hearing. In a criminal case the onus is on the crown to prove that you did it (beyond a reasonable doubt).
You have the right to defend yourself and your home with equal or slightly greater force than those threatening it. Therefore if someone busts into your house in an armed robbery you are fully within your rights to do so. Just look at the case in quebec where the police enacted a predawn raid on someone's house they though the people coming in were armed robbers and shot and killed a police officer. The person was acquitted of all charges because 1) There was a flap covering the 'POLICE' word on the front of the guy when he was geared up. 2) The firearm he used to shoot the police officer was legal and registered in accordance with the law. 3) He had a reasonable expectation that his home was being invaded (Knocking the door down and marching through the house is pretty scary and might lead you to believe a criminal is robbing your house). 4) The warrant was found to be given on such flimsy evidence that it shouldnt have been given in the first place.
Unfortunately...
I can see the court making some sort of extrapolation that IP address collection is similar to cameras in public places and that you have no reasonable expectation to the privacy of your IP address. After all you require IP addresses to participate in the internet and much of the internet could be considered a public forum. Therefore by going to a website you are giving your IP address much the same as someone walking into a store is videotaped/recorded.
Then again they might say that spoofing IP addresses qualifies as identity theft then...
Oh come on, the whole sarcasm is part of the act. Its a bit of a running gag now for him to run around and try and get things named after him.
I vote we make NYCL our fearless leader.
Technically we did... They posted a story about Colbert's antics while people were still able to vote. Presumably a good portion of slashdotters like myself threw their vote in for Colbert too.
Actually depending on the situation it may be permitted to ask some of these 'illegal' questions provided that you can prove that such things are a bona fide requirement for the job.
#2: Might be possible to be asked if you are interviewing for a translator/call center position where language skills are important (IE. Speaking Spanish or something)
#6: Any physically demanding job would be viable to ask such questions. Police Officer, Fireman, Paramedic, Construction Worker...
#7: Is probably something you can ask for a job that involves high amount of access to information and such. However, such positions are usually conditional on a background check.
#8: Might be applicable if they have listed military service in their resume.
Yup. I have walked out of jobs like this and let some of my less scrupulous colleagues take them on. While no one I know of locally has ever had a visit from the BSA, they are a bit like lightning.
You mean they never strike the same place twice?
If you get close enough to strip search a 13 year old suicide bomber then kudos to you. Usually they'll just blow themselves up and you along with them before they would let that happen.