Benjamin Franklin once stated that those willing to sacrafise liberty for security deserve neither. Saying that the Democrats are "Al Qaeda's Washington Bureau" because they are trying to uphold the values that the US purportedly went to war to protect in the first place is disingenuous at best.
I'm not aware of any law that permits Bush to do what he has been doing, and surveilance of American citizens could hardly be called "conducting a war". Could you please point to the specific law that authorizes Bush to do what he has done. Have fun by the way, because so far, Bush himself has been unable to do so, which is why he's tried (and failed) to toss the EFF suits out the window with the State Secrets Privaledge.
What makes you say that? Google already has an anti-phishing feature in Google toolbar, and both it and Pagerank are easily disabled with a few clicks.
Google's trying to protect its users and give users of competing search engines an incentive to use their search engine. Furthermore, like other posters have said, this does benefit Apple and Linux users as well. Malware doesn't only affect the computers it is installed on (ie. SPAM, Botnets, etc)
RTFA. The submitter and Zonk have it completely wrong (gasp shock?). No lawsuit has been filed. Forbes apparently doesn't know the difference between a publicity stunt and serious lawsuit threats. I'm thinking of adding Forbes.com to my adblock filter, the "journalism" there is shoddy at best.
Reading the articles does take time, but when it is Zonk that accepts the submissions, it really is recommended.
No lawsuits were filed. Just C&D letters, immediately followed by press releases. In other words, a publicity stunt. Once again, Zonk doesn't actually read the linked article before accepting the submission.
No lawsuit here. The fact that this was posted by Zonk explains everything. It was a C&D that was sent, and it was for publicity purposes. The company wouldn't be stupid enough to sue, because they don't have standing, and would be sanctioned severely and relatively quickly.
Off-topic: We should start a petition for OSTG to replace Zonk with a monkey.
This isn't always the case. For instance, I still find Flickr useful, even after the Yahoo! aquisition. Myspace is still growing at a nice clip, even after the News Corp. aquisition.
Exactly...clothes are another big area where counterfeiting is popular. Should donations to the salvation army be outlawed or require a fingerprinting/anal probe/retinal scan yada yada yada. The fact that this is limited to a single product (music CDs) pretty much proves that this law was bought by the RIAA, and wasn't passed for any sensible reason.
This smells like the DMCA all over again. Like the DMCA trampling over fair-use rights simply because copyrighted content is encrypted, this legislation is completely stripping consumers of their rights under the First-Sale Doctrine! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
For instance, in Florida a new restriction requires that stores only provide in-store credit, and not be allowed to pay for used albums that are turned in.
Once again, the RIAA bribes (whoops, I mean lobbies of course:-P) legislators, who in-turn strip citizens' rights to fatten the wallets of the already-rich. Pathetic.....
I would imagine there could be some potential criminal charges against some executives at the phone companies. I wonder how this would apply to those potential charges?
Bush is now attempting to control the damage caused by his warrant-less wiretapping scandal with the NSA and AT&T, amongst others. He wants to have legislation introduced that would grant retroactive immunity to phone companies that have assisted in his scheme in the past.
In other words, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Bush now wants Congress to give him and his accomplices a clean-slate for his and their past crimes. As the government later explains:
"companies that cooperate with the Government in the war on terror deserve our appreciation and protection--not litigation."
This is Bush trying to protect the phone companies, and in particular, AT&T, for actions that are clearly illegal, and is likely specifically targeting the EFF case against AT&T over the scandal. If the actions were authorized and legal, as the Bush administration claims, why would this (overly long and painful to read) clause even be necessary?
As Benjamen Franklin once said, those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I hope the Democrats who control congress do the right thing and reject this legislation. Furthermore, more investigations into the scandal need to be done, and Bush should be impeached for his blatant violations of the US constitution and the rights of his citizens (as well as his baseless aggression and attacks against countries such as Iraq).
First of all, I highly doubt the Universities would "lose everything" by resisting a subpoena. They might lose a few grande in lawyers fees by filing a motion to quash... However, there is no law that says a lawyer has to file the motion, so they could even have law students and faculty do it as a project. If they lose the motion....they turn over the documents and everyone goes on their merry way.
Second of all, the law isn't simply only on their side. This is evidenced by the recent string of motions lost by the RIAA in numerous cases they have filed. In-fact, it's fairly ingenuous to claim the law is on their side when it has never even been tested. Until the RIAA doesn't run away crying like a little girl every time one of their cases comes close to trial, the law will be unclear.
Ugh, it almost seems like you have to jump through hoops now just to simply post your own thoughts. Set up an LLC, journalism shield laws, terms of use, etc etc. Why can nothing ever be simple and straightforward?
For my own blog, I'm simply ignoring all of this and just doing what feels right. I live in Canada, so chances are anyone whom I piss off will not sue me and deal with international litigation to get at my scant assets.
Slashdot Mirror
Benjamin Franklin once stated that those willing to sacrafise liberty for security deserve neither. Saying that the Democrats are "Al Qaeda's Washington Bureau" because they are trying to uphold the values that the US purportedly went to war to protect in the first place is disingenuous at best.
Wouldn't Judges be the CPUs, since (to stretch the analogy to within a nanometer of the breaking point) they "compute" the laws?
I'm not aware of any law that permits Bush to do what he has been doing, and surveilance of American citizens could hardly be called "conducting a war". Could you please point to the specific law that authorizes Bush to do what he has done. Have fun by the way, because so far, Bush himself has been unable to do so, which is why he's tried (and failed) to toss the EFF suits out the window with the State Secrets Privaledge.
What makes you say that? Google already has an anti-phishing feature in Google toolbar, and both it and Pagerank are easily disabled with a few clicks.
Google's trying to protect its users and give users of competing search engines an incentive to use their search engine. Furthermore, like other posters have said, this does benefit Apple and Linux users as well. Malware doesn't only affect the computers it is installed on (ie. SPAM, Botnets, etc)
RTFA. The submitter and Zonk have it completely wrong (gasp shock?). No lawsuit has been filed. Forbes apparently doesn't know the difference between a publicity stunt and serious lawsuit threats. I'm thinking of adding Forbes.com to my adblock filter, the "journalism" there is shoddy at best.
Reading the articles does take time, but when it is Zonk that accepts the submissions, it really is recommended.
No lawsuits were filed. Just C&D letters, immediately followed by press releases. In other words, a publicity stunt. Once again, Zonk doesn't actually read the linked article before accepting the submission.
No lawsuit here. The fact that this was posted by Zonk explains everything. It was a C&D that was sent, and it was for publicity purposes. The company wouldn't be stupid enough to sue, because they don't have standing, and would be sanctioned severely and relatively quickly.
Off-topic: We should start a petition for OSTG to replace Zonk with a monkey.
This isn't always the case. For instance, I still find Flickr useful, even after the Yahoo! aquisition. Myspace is still growing at a nice clip, even after the News Corp. aquisition.
Otherwise known as the Doctrine of First-Sale...
Exactly...clothes are another big area where counterfeiting is popular. Should donations to the salvation army be outlawed or require a fingerprinting/anal probe/retinal scan yada yada yada. The fact that this is limited to a single product (music CDs) pretty much proves that this law was bought by the RIAA, and wasn't passed for any sensible reason.
This smells like the DMCA all over again. Like the DMCA trampling over fair-use rights simply because copyrighted content is encrypted, this legislation is completely stripping consumers of their rights under the First-Sale Doctrine! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
:-P) legislators, who in-turn strip citizens' rights to fatten the wallets of the already-rich. Pathetic.....
- your-old-cds-become-criminal.html
For instance, in Florida a new restriction requires that stores only provide in-store credit, and not be allowed to pay for used albums that are turned in.
Once again, the RIAA bribes (whoops, I mean lobbies of course
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/2007/05/offload
but support the GPL/BSD/whatever as an interim solution?
You mean retarded laws that make no sense? You're right, I think every country in the world has and continues to dabble in that area.
I would imagine there could be some potential criminal charges against some executives at the phone companies. I wonder how this would apply to those potential charges?
Bush is now attempting to control the damage caused by his warrant-less wiretapping scandal with the NSA and AT&T, amongst others. He wants to have legislation introduced that would grant retroactive immunity to phone companies that have assisted in his scheme in the past.
t empts-damage-control.html )
:-P
In other words, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Bush now wants Congress to give him and his accomplices a clean-slate for his and their past crimes. As the government later explains:
"companies that cooperate with the Government in the war on terror deserve our appreciation and protection--not litigation."
This is Bush trying to protect the phone companies, and in particular, AT&T, for actions that are clearly illegal, and is likely specifically targeting the EFF case against AT&T over the scandal. If the actions were authorized and legal, as the Bush administration claims, why would this (overly long and painful to read) clause even be necessary?
As Benjamen Franklin once said, those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I hope the Democrats who control congress do the right thing and reject this legislation. Furthermore, more investigations into the scandal need to be done, and Bush should be impeached for his blatant violations of the US constitution and the rights of his citizens (as well as his baseless aggression and attacks against countries such as Iraq).
(These are excerpts from a post on my Blog before this story was posted on Slashdot, figured I'd post them here as well, you can read the full original post here:
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/2007/05/bush-at
And before I'm accused of self-promotion, I have no ads on my Blog and I'm admitting its my own blog
Would you mind if I republished your comment on my Blog? Just reply to this post to let me know. Thanks!
First of all, I highly doubt the Universities would "lose everything" by resisting a subpoena. They might lose a few grande in lawyers fees by filing a motion to quash... However, there is no law that says a lawyer has to file the motion, so they could even have law students and faculty do it as a project. If they lose the motion....they turn over the documents and everyone goes on their merry way.
Second of all, the law isn't simply only on their side. This is evidenced by the recent string of motions lost by the RIAA in numerous cases they have filed. In-fact, it's fairly ingenuous to claim the law is on their side when it has never even been tested. Until the RIAA doesn't run away crying like a little girl every time one of their cases comes close to trial, the law will be unclear.
Ugh, it almost seems like you have to jump through hoops now just to simply post your own thoughts. Set up an LLC, journalism shield laws, terms of use, etc etc. Why can nothing ever be simple and straightforward?
For my own blog, I'm simply ignoring all of this and just doing what feels right. I live in Canada, so chances are anyone whom I piss off will not sue me and deal with international litigation to get at my scant assets.