That's easy. Make providers concurrently liable for any abuse they knowingly facilitate.
Giving them a complaint with logs puts them on notice, and then if they don't do jack shit about it afterwards they either don't give a crap, or they are directly profiting from it. Either way, they are facilitating the abuse by knowingly letting it happen.
Except that they clog up the tubes and make business difficult for us smart folks.
Not to mention that pissing off a spammer in control of a large botnet can be hazardous to your system when he decides to retaliate with a DDoS attack.
So here we have the circle of spam:
1. Spammers are huge and have massive resources at their disposal 2. Only governments and large corporations have the resources to fight them 3. The people pushing their wares through spammers have their friendly congress critters eating out of the palms of their hands 4. The congress critters, fat on the trough of special interests, willfully turn a blind eye to the spammers that their corporate buddies depend on.
Unless this vicious circle is broken, spam is here to stay.
I commend Blue Security for their efforts. Their martyr like collapse exposed spammers and their criminal syndicate backers for the terrorists that they are.
After all, if we're already taxing individual incomes, and especially the infamous "double taxation" that applies to dividends, why do we need to tax corporations in the first place?
Either end corporate income tax, allow corporations to deduct dividends from their gross income, or make exempt dividend income from a taxed corporation. It's not fair at all for Uncle Sam to double dip the same income twice before it's even been spent.
One important caveat to this however: Wealth brings power, and I think some of our corporations are already way too big for our own good. So it's entirely possible that the corporate income tax is a safety valve versus monopoly to a degree.
Filing phony DMCA requests among other things should give Youtube grounds to recover damages just for the expense of putting up with their legal bullshit.
And concealing assets, even ill-gotten gains, from the court in a bankruptcy proceeding is bankruptcy fraud, which is a federal offense you can go to prison for, not just get the crap fined out of your balance sheet.
I have nothing to hide from the government, at least in theory.
I do, however, have fellow citizens who would be more than happy to use my closet skeletons against me. Some to screw me over, some to push an agenda of their own, and others just to be assholes.
Additionally, I don't trust government EMPLOYEES. Apart from the fact that information can be abused, there's also the slight problem that government boffins tend to lose laptops on an eerily routine basis.
Slashdot Mirror
I say that a bank that can hold the economy hostage like that is too big.
Too big to fail means too big period.
Either we need a more robust economy that can survive a flopout, or we need tougher regulation on the banks.
That is also simple.
Assess penalties for frivolous complaints.
I believe the DMCA already has a provision to that effect anyway.
Especially since educating the users isn't going to actually stop the abuse.
That's easy. Make providers concurrently liable for any abuse they knowingly facilitate.
Giving them a complaint with logs puts them on notice, and then if they don't do jack shit about it afterwards they either don't give a crap, or they are directly profiting from it. Either way, they are facilitating the abuse by knowingly letting it happen.
I agree.
Anyone in the chain that becomes aware of spam going through their tubes and yet does diddly about it becomes an accessory.
That never stopped the RIAA from suing innocent bystanders...
There's this term called "aiding and abetting" you might want to look up sometime.
If you are aware of illegal activity, you can't just turn a blind eye and tell the whiners to screw off and tell the cops.
Because IF the cops find out you knew about it and didn't report it, *your* ass goes in the cooler too.
Except that they clog up the tubes and make business difficult for us smart folks.
Not to mention that pissing off a spammer in control of a large botnet can be hazardous to your system when he decides to retaliate with a DDoS attack.
So here we have the circle of spam:
1. Spammers are huge and have massive resources at their disposal
2. Only governments and large corporations have the resources to fight them
3. The people pushing their wares through spammers have their friendly congress critters eating out of the palms of their hands
4. The congress critters, fat on the trough of special interests, willfully turn a blind eye to the spammers that their corporate buddies depend on.
Unless this vicious circle is broken, spam is here to stay.
I commend Blue Security for their efforts. Their martyr like collapse exposed spammers and their criminal syndicate backers for the terrorists that they are.
It's called letting the feds do their job and get a warrant if they trace illegal activity to a server in a data center.
Google had no choice but to censor.
Either leave silent censorship by baidu, or go in and admit censorship when performed.
I somewhat agree.
After all, if we're already taxing individual incomes, and especially the infamous "double taxation" that applies to dividends, why do we need to tax corporations in the first place?
Either end corporate income tax, allow corporations to deduct dividends from their gross income, or make exempt dividend income from a taxed corporation. It's not fair at all for Uncle Sam to double dip the same income twice before it's even been spent.
One important caveat to this however: Wealth brings power, and I think some of our corporations are already way too big for our own good. So it's entirely possible that the corporate income tax is a safety valve versus monopoly to a degree.
Filing phony DMCA requests among other things should give Youtube grounds to recover damages just for the expense of putting up with their legal bullshit.
He's a spammer, he's rich.
And concealing assets, even ill-gotten gains, from the court in a bankruptcy proceeding is bankruptcy fraud, which is a federal offense you can go to prison for, not just get the crap fined out of your balance sheet.
I have nothing to hide from the government, at least in theory.
I do, however, have fellow citizens who would be more than happy to use my closet skeletons against me. Some to screw me over, some to push an agenda of their own, and others just to be assholes.
Additionally, I don't trust government EMPLOYEES. Apart from the fact that information can be abused, there's also the slight problem that government boffins tend to lose laptops on an eerily routine basis.
Unless the external verifier can access machine state directly without going to the kernel...
IMHO, only information that is stolen should be unlawful to possess.
If you create it yourself, or you get it with the permission of who owns it, no problem.
This simple rule can cover everything from piracy, to HIPAA violations, to security breaches.
I pirated Avatar.
I watched the AVI file.
I think the movie kicked ass.
I no longer feel shy about springing the bucks out when it hits the USA on DVD.
And this time, I get it crystal clear, with ENGLISH subtitles, and most likely, a few extra features.
Perhaps, but if all the bad company gets is a slap on the wrist, it remains profitable to defraud.
Excuse me, but where are the punitive damages?
That's the gayest idea I've ever heard.
Kinda like mass producing digital media by copying it, yes?
I bet there's a patent behind hearing aids someone's getting rich off of.
If artificial scarcity in the form of medallions is required to beef things up, then I'd argue that it's an inefficient service to begin with.
And if Novell actually loses those copyrights then all hell will break loose.
I'm curious how SCO v. Novell will impact SCO's other lawsuits.
And what's up with the trial court denying a stay so that Novell could appeal to SCOTUS?
More like they have buddies in big bad congress that they can't lay a finger on without getting de-fanged.
And we call that an increase in *supply*
You know what happens to prices when supply goes up, right?