You know, I'm not sure hypocritical is the right word, now that you mention it. Contradictory isn't right, either, though, since that doesn't imply malice. This is definitely malicious - they want to treat each case in whatever way screws over the defendant the most, instead of thinking about which way is the most just.
If the US court understood the issues involved, and didn't have an ulterior motive, it seems likely that it would indeed decline jurisdiction. The crime, after all, took place in Britain.
Unfortunately I'm not confident that either of those prerequisites will be satisfied.
Well, what's your opinion? If I'm sitting on a computer in the UK, communicating with a computer in the US, should I be subject to the jurisdiction of UK law or US law?
If the former, then I can't be extradited. If the latter, I can't be charged with something that isn't a crime in the US. Seems to me the UK and US governments want to have it both ways, and that's hypocrisy.
That makes no sense to me at all. What would be wrong with prosecuting him in Britain?
Consider the consequences of this policy: to obey the law, you have to first figure out where each and every computer you communicate with is physically located. Then you have to look up the laws of that nation; heck, that should only take a few years per computer.
It would probably be easier just to cut your internet connection and go live in a cave.:-)
I can just imagine someone hacking into a web site, seeing the terms of service, and saying to himself "OK, I won't use the website to post defamatory comments, I'll just steal all the credit card data instead... let me check, nope, that's not against the ToS, I'm good."
In your example, the actual crime would be launching the missile, which happened where? Britain. In the real case, the crime was sending malicious instructions to a computer, which happened where? Britain.
In both cases, the appropriate action would be to prosecute in Britain. You know, where the crime took place.
Have you ever made a comment on a web site that could offend a religious group? Better hope the server wasn't located in Ireland, because that's illegal there, and you could be extradited. Ever criticised the Chinese government? Better hope the server wasn't located in China. And so on.
Basically, this sets a really, really bad precedent.
The crime took place on British soil. Why is he being extradited?
Or, if you want to take the view that the servers were on US soil, why have people posting to US servers been prosecuted in Britain for hate speech? You can't have it both ways.
Say you "forget" to reveal the code before taking the picture. Then you void the ballot and cast a new one. "Correct" votes, but no code to verify them. But hey, it was an honest mistake.
Won't stop the bad guys killing you. Or refusing to pay.
If you think that won't satisfy them, just digitally edit the photo to show the code off the second ballot (the one you did cast).
Granted, I didn't think of that. However, this wouldn't work if you were required to send the photo while actually at the ballot box.
If it were me analyzing the data I'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows(US users) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update(China).
Except that those who don't use Windows Update aren't included in the statistics. (Well, unless they manually download and run the MSRT, but that can't be a statistically significant number.)
Thus, I did not follow closely the debate you are referring to. I just noted "yup, there are issues, mainly if you try to make a profit off of GPL licensed code". So my commercial work.. I simply avoid GPLv3 code - good for the company, good for the authors of the GPLv3 licensed code in question too.
My point is that if the code were BSD licensed you would be able to use it, which would be even better. I think it's rather sad that so many people are willing to volunteer time to write code, but then, rather than letting the code benefit society as a whole, waste it on promoting what seems to me to be a rather silly philosophical position.
Please drop the "religion" nonsense about the [Free Software] movement. It is not true, it is a bad analogy, and it is tired.
(Note that I'm assuming that when you wrote Open Source instead of Free Software this was merely a typo.)
I wouldn't use this analogy myself, but I'm not convinced it is inappropriate. The core of the Free Software movement appears to be the assertion that it is unethical, regardless of the circumstances, to provide someone with executable code but not the corresponding source code. But, to the best of my knowledge, this is accepted as an axiom; I'm not aware of any logical arguments in favour of it. To me, that smells of religion, in the broad sense of the word, at least.
So instead of spending money on lawyers we either use tools with simple enough licence terms so that we can at least think we can understand them or we avoid the tools with licence terms we do not understand (and thus rightfully fear).
I'm not at all sure GPLv3 qualifies as simple or easy to understand! Did you happen to catch the debate a few weeks back involving whether a proprietary dynamically linked kernel extension violates the GPL or not?:-)
Vilifying RMS is another meme I cannot understand - even despite his outsized personality. The man's strident defense of your freedoms [...]
That, I think, is the key point. From my perspective, he isn't defending my freedom [1], nor do I understand why anyone thinks he is. (To avoid any possible misunderstanding, please note that I don't doubt your sincerity, I just don't understand it.)
Since the GPL reduces the usefulness of code (when compared to the BSD license, for example) he has certainly caused a small but perhaps not insignificant amount of harm to... well, pretty much everybody... so from that point of view some animosity is understandable. For my part I don't blame him personally, although I'm puzzled by the extent of his influence.
--
[1] In this context. If I understand correctly, the FSF does work against software patents and no-reverse-engineering clauses, which are legitimate examples of defending freedom.
Fascinating. Is there a corresponding document somewhere explaining how this is supposed to be implemented? It seems to defeat one of the design criteria of IPv6, i.e., keeping routing tables simple.
Regardless, I still think it would be a good start to identify one or more ISPs that are serving some of those blocks and talk to them about it.
I thought this was solved by technologies like 6to4 and Toredo? Or do you mean hosts running operating systems and/or applications that don't understand IPv6?
As far as I can see, there are two sides to this: legacy client machines need access to the internet, and web sites (and other services) need IPv4 addresses.
Legacy client machines could be provided with internet access via NAT easily enough.
As for web sites, it should be fairly trivial for someone to offer a service which routes a block of IPv4 addresses each to a separate IPv6-connected web server. We wouldn't even need a single standard, the customers (the folks running the web server) might need a bit of hardware or software appropriate to the particular service they used, but that shouldn't be a major problem.
It seems entirely plausible to me that the problem really is at the other end; that is, the missing routes aren't in fact globally routable and are only visible from Sprint and Hurricane Electric due to some sort of hackery.
So the first question I'd want answered would be: which backbone provider do those blocks belong to?
I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding that IPv6 addresses, unlike IPv4 addresses, include information about the backbone provider, so you really can't get your own allocation from ARIN and expect an ISP to route it for you. It doesn't (or isn't supposed to) work like that, for good reason. So, if the missing blocks are people who aren't backbone providers but have some kind of back-door deal with Sprint and/or Hurricane Electric, Verizon may be in the right.
If those blocks *are* owned by backbone providers, I'd want to talk to some of them and see what they say about it. They're the ones who should be talking to Verizon about why they're being blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I'm not sure hypocritical is the right word, now that you mention it. Contradictory isn't right, either, though, since that doesn't imply malice. This is definitely malicious - they want to treat each case in whatever way screws over the defendant the most, instead of thinking about which way is the most just.
If the US court understood the issues involved, and didn't have an ulterior motive, it seems likely that it would indeed decline jurisdiction. The crime, after all, took place in Britain.
Unfortunately I'm not confident that either of those prerequisites will be satisfied.
That's slightly different, I think. It's a spy's job to break the law, and naturally their home nation isn't going to extradite them.
Would Britain extradite James Bond? :-)
Well, what's your opinion? If I'm sitting on a computer in the UK, communicating with a computer in the US, should I be subject to the jurisdiction of UK law or US law?
If the former, then I can't be extradited. If the latter, I can't be charged with something that isn't a crime in the US. Seems to me the UK and US governments want to have it both ways, and that's hypocrisy.
The funny thing about jurisdiction is that traditionally it is based on where the crime took place. Nowadays it seems to be a matter of convenience.
That makes no sense to me at all. What would be wrong with prosecuting him in Britain?
Consider the consequences of this policy: to obey the law, you have to first figure out where each and every computer you communicate with is physically located. Then you have to look up the laws of that nation; heck, that should only take a few years per computer.
It would probably be easier just to cut your internet connection and go live in a cave. :-)
LOL! Terms of service are a civil contract.
I can just imagine someone hacking into a web site, seeing the terms of service, and saying to himself "OK, I won't use the website to post defamatory comments, I'll just steal all the credit card data instead ... let me check, nope, that's not against the ToS, I'm good."
In your example, the actual crime would be launching the missile, which happened where? Britain. In the real case, the crime was sending malicious instructions to a computer, which happened where? Britain.
In both cases, the appropriate action would be to prosecute in Britain. You know, where the crime took place.
Have you ever made a comment on a web site that could offend a religious group? Better hope the server wasn't located in Ireland, because that's illegal there, and you could be extradited. Ever criticised the Chinese government? Better hope the server wasn't located in China. And so on.
Basically, this sets a really, really bad precedent.
Why would it be inappropriate to prosecute him in Britain, where the crime actually took place?
He wasn't in the US when the offences took place, so why would he be considered subject to US law?
Why hasn't he been prosecuted in Britain?
The crime took place on British soil. Why is he being extradited?
Or, if you want to take the view that the servers were on US soil, why have people posting to US servers been prosecuted in Britain for hate speech? You can't have it both ways.
Say you "forget" to reveal the code before taking the picture. Then you void the ballot and cast a new one. "Correct" votes, but no code to verify them. But hey, it was an honest mistake.
Won't stop the bad guys killing you. Or refusing to pay.
If you think that won't satisfy them, just digitally edit the photo to show the code off the second ballot (the one you did cast).
Granted, I didn't think of that. However, this wouldn't work if you were required to send the photo while actually at the ballot box.
But then the website will show that the ballot you photographed wasn't counted.
If you take a photo of your ballot, what prevents you from proving who you voted for?
If it were me analyzing the data I'm afraid I would have to conclude that users who use windows update more often and use official copies of windows(US users) are more likely to receive a malware infection than users on pirated copies without using windows update(China).
Except that those who don't use Windows Update aren't included in the statistics. (Well, unless they manually download and run the MSRT, but that can't be a statistically significant number.)
Why the heck isn't someone reaming out the employee/staffer who used his government computer system for personal use?
They fired him, does that count?
Thus, I did not follow closely the debate you are referring to. I just noted "yup, there are issues, mainly if you try to make a profit off of GPL licensed code". So my commercial work .. I simply avoid GPLv3 code - good for the company, good for the authors of the GPLv3 licensed code in question too.
My point is that if the code were BSD licensed you would be able to use it, which would be even better. I think it's rather sad that so many people are willing to volunteer time to write code, but then, rather than letting the code benefit society as a whole, waste it on promoting what seems to me to be a rather silly philosophical position.
YMMV.
Please drop the "religion" nonsense about the [Free Software] movement. It is not true, it is a bad analogy, and it is tired.
(Note that I'm assuming that when you wrote Open Source instead of Free Software this was merely a typo.)
I wouldn't use this analogy myself, but I'm not convinced it is inappropriate. The core of the Free Software movement appears to be the assertion that it is unethical, regardless of the circumstances, to provide someone with executable code but not the corresponding source code. But, to the best of my knowledge, this is accepted as an axiom; I'm not aware of any logical arguments in favour of it. To me, that smells of religion, in the broad sense of the word, at least.
Not to everybody.
So instead of spending money on lawyers we either use tools with simple enough licence terms so that we can at least think we can understand them or we avoid the tools with licence terms we do not understand (and thus rightfully fear).
I'm not at all sure GPLv3 qualifies as simple or easy to understand! Did you happen to catch the debate a few weeks back involving whether a proprietary dynamically linked kernel extension violates the GPL or not? :-)
The earth's orbit is an ellipse, with the sun at one of the two focal points. WHAT IS AT THE OTHER FOCAL POINT?
Uh ... nothing?
So, do I win some kind of prize, or what?
Vilifying RMS is another meme I cannot understand - even despite his outsized personality. The man's strident defense of your freedoms [...]
That, I think, is the key point. From my perspective, he isn't defending my freedom [1], nor do I understand why anyone thinks he is. (To avoid any possible misunderstanding, please note that I don't doubt your sincerity, I just don't understand it.)
Since the GPL reduces the usefulness of code (when compared to the BSD license, for example) he has certainly caused a small but perhaps not insignificant amount of harm to ... well, pretty much everybody ... so from that point of view some animosity is understandable. For my part I don't blame him personally, although I'm puzzled by the extent of his influence.
--
[1] In this context. If I understand correctly, the FSF does work against software patents and no-reverse-engineering clauses, which are legitimate examples of defending freedom.
Fascinating. Is there a corresponding document somewhere explaining how this is supposed to be implemented? It seems to defeat one of the design criteria of IPv6, i.e., keeping routing tables simple.
Regardless, I still think it would be a good start to identify one or more ISPs that are serving some of those blocks and talk to them about it.
I thought this was solved by technologies like 6to4 and Toredo? Or do you mean hosts running operating systems and/or applications that don't understand IPv6?
As far as I can see, there are two sides to this: legacy client machines need access to the internet, and web sites (and other services) need IPv4 addresses.
Legacy client machines could be provided with internet access via NAT easily enough.
As for web sites, it should be fairly trivial for someone to offer a service which routes a block of IPv4 addresses each to a separate IPv6-connected web server. We wouldn't even need a single standard, the customers (the folks running the web server) might need a bit of hardware or software appropriate to the particular service they used, but that shouldn't be a major problem.
It seems entirely plausible to me that the problem really is at the other end; that is, the missing routes aren't in fact globally routable and are only visible from Sprint and Hurricane Electric due to some sort of hackery.
So the first question I'd want answered would be: which backbone provider do those blocks belong to?
I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding that IPv6 addresses, unlike IPv4 addresses, include information about the backbone provider, so you really can't get your own allocation from ARIN and expect an ISP to route it for you. It doesn't (or isn't supposed to) work like that, for good reason. So, if the missing blocks are people who aren't backbone providers but have some kind of back-door deal with Sprint and/or Hurricane Electric, Verizon may be in the right.
If those blocks *are* owned by backbone providers, I'd want to talk to some of them and see what they say about it. They're the ones who should be talking to Verizon about why they're being blocked.