Actually, two points you are missing. ^^;
1) They are not talking about making open wifi illegal. The subject line just suggests this is a step in that direction.
2) They can already hold the owner liable for illegal activity on his network.
I do not misunderstand. I actually agree on this issue. The media industry has gotten out of control and is taking over the world (or at least giving it a darned good try). ^^;;
It is kind of scary.
Our forefathers did not fight and die so that you could have the right to let other people commit crime using your equipment.
Getting up and arms over the right to aid and abed is not what the constitution is about.
Yes, there are those who see the 2nd amendment as supreme, but they tend to think that it is the answer to all things.
This is NOT a case that comes anywhere near the intent of the 2nd amendment.
Even with my stated views on the issue of open Wi-Fi, I have to agree that the current environment is not a good one when it comes to copyright issues.
If someone is accusing ME of copyright violations, I want to see proof.
If the only way to prove it is the existance of a file that never existed, then why should I have to show evidence that it never existed?
This is one of those cases where the burden of proof being on the accused is akward at the very least.
The only solidly safe way is to require a username and login, and a verifiable way to identify them.
i.e. If they do something illegal and you are not in a position to turn states evidence on them, you will be heald liable. This is the way it is with a lot of laws though, this is not unique to networks.
If the message is that some people are gun toting nuts with minimal actual understanding/regard for the constitution, sure I got the message.
None of those really directly apply in this situation, nor would they apply even if this WAS a US situation.
Plain and simple, if you let someone use your property, and they use it to commit a crime, you can be held liable. In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it, AND prove specifically WHO did it, then you MIGHT be let off.
If you have any doubt about that, look at the gun law that you seem so proud of.
P.S. I AM an American, and proud of it, and I actually know what the constitution says without having to use guessing and conjecture based on popular myth.
From there, it's but a small step to realizing that they can also walk away from Windows completely
No way. I'm as huge a unix and Free Software proponent as anyone here, but even I can see that statement is utterly idiotic. The motivation to stay with XP is the desire to not change.
Part of the problem with people who are trying to encourage/push businesses to switch to Linux is that they are targeting the wrong audience.
I agree here, unless there is a real motivating factor involved and established business should not change their OS midstream without a great deal of thought and consideration.
The proper target audience for this kind of effort is NEW businesses. Those guys who are at the startup level and are going to have to lay down the cash for training either way.
Don't target the guys who have already blown their startup training budget and have fourty grand worth of equipment and software already devoted to one general setup.
Target the guy who is about to make that move. If you point out that training costs are going to be about the same either way, but that he could save a fortune on the software he might be motivated to go the Linux or Unix route.
You have to be able to aproach the issue with solid, practical information. If the company is already highly invested in their current system then it is not practical to switch to something totaly different unless there is a dire need to do so.
So, things that are not likely to be put on a web page require links for proof.:P I know that in this day and age it is far fetched, but there are a lot of things that will never have links that did happen.
Depends on the needs of the business and how important their information is to them.
If the business is small enough that it is safe to let people install whatever they want, then it is small enough not to need an IT department.
As for a software company, that is a very specific case. People need to be able to test what they are working on, which means either give them access to do so, or slow them down by requiring them to jump through hoops. Part of developing a security plan is balancing all the needs of the company.
"Public transit on the other hand focuses on being a 'vehicle replacement' so people in lower density areas can actually give up their cars."
There are a lot of places in Japan where people can give up their cars. It is not perfect yet, but the system is still expanding.
A good transit system would go a long ways to helping with the problems in the US. As you said, it is not the whole solution, but if it is done right, it will go a long ways.
This sounds like a great way to use the technology. You just have to take measures to make sure that is all it is used for, and that the people actually running the updates know what they are doing.
MOST companies do not directly permit the use of P2P software on their networks.
MANY companies specifically forbid it.
INTELLIGENT companies should not even make it possible for the average user to install software on their work computers. This should be the task of the system admin guys.
This is not a management stance, this is a network security stance. There is a lot you have to take into concideration when setting network policies. There are exceptions, but in most instances there is no valid reason for an employee to be running P2P software on their work computer, even for legal reasons.
Now, if you are talking about an ISP (as apposed to an employer) That is a whole new can of worms. What people do with their home computers is totaly separate from what they do with work computers. That also leads into major gray areas when it comes to the issue of P2P software on an ISP's network. There are some ISP's that flat out forbid it's use. Others don't say anything beyond the usual "Don't use our network for illegal acts," then throttle the bandwidth to common P2P ports (Possibly worse than just forbidding it and closeing the ports off). Others leave everything wide open, then turn states evidence at the drop of a hat.:P
I personally like P2P software. There are a lot of perfectly LEGAL uses for it. I just don't think there is a reason to have it on MOST workstations in a business environment.
I emphasize certain words because what I have said does not apply to all cases. There are businesses where it is totaly appropriate to have P2P software on all the systems. However, if you as a manager (or especially as an IT guy) have to ask yourself if that is the case for your business, then the answer is probably no.
Execpt that piracy isnt theft, and OSS is free to the USER, which is what the discussion is about here. Its not about development 'costs'.
The fact you can buy support doesnt mean you have too.
Theft is theft, even if it is information.
Piracy is theft. If it was not theft, they would call it something else. For that matter, they would probably just not talk about it. ^^;;
When refering to Free Software, or Open Source Software, sometimes it is free to the user, sometimes there is a charge, but the term free refers to the way it is developed, and what people are allowed to do with it. As was stated, it is the perception that counts.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, two points you are missing. ^^; 1) They are not talking about making open wifi illegal. The subject line just suggests this is a step in that direction. 2) They can already hold the owner liable for illegal activity on his network.
I do not misunderstand. I actually agree on this issue. The media industry has gotten out of control and is taking over the world (or at least giving it a darned good try). ^^;; It is kind of scary.
Have you actually been to Singapore, or studied their laws or culture?
Our forefathers did not fight and die so that you could have the right to let other people commit crime using your equipment. Getting up and arms over the right to aid and abed is not what the constitution is about. Yes, there are those who see the 2nd amendment as supreme, but they tend to think that it is the answer to all things. This is NOT a case that comes anywhere near the intent of the 2nd amendment.
Even with my stated views on the issue of open Wi-Fi, I have to agree that the current environment is not a good one when it comes to copyright issues. If someone is accusing ME of copyright violations, I want to see proof. If the only way to prove it is the existance of a file that never existed, then why should I have to show evidence that it never existed? This is one of those cases where the burden of proof being on the accused is akward at the very least.
The only solidly safe way is to require a username and login, and a verifiable way to identify them. i.e. If they do something illegal and you are not in a position to turn states evidence on them, you will be heald liable. This is the way it is with a lot of laws though, this is not unique to networks.
There are some parts of the US where you can cut overhanging branches, but you can't pick the fruit off of them. :P Go figure.
If the message is that some people are gun toting nuts with minimal actual understanding/regard for the constitution, sure I got the message. None of those really directly apply in this situation, nor would they apply even if this WAS a US situation. Plain and simple, if you let someone use your property, and they use it to commit a crime, you can be held liable. In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it, AND prove specifically WHO did it, then you MIGHT be let off. If you have any doubt about that, look at the gun law that you seem so proud of. P.S. I AM an American, and proud of it, and I actually know what the constitution says without having to use guessing and conjecture based on popular myth.
Problem is that people who provide services have long been held liable for the actions of people using those services. The precedent is here.
If someone is in your place of business, and they get hurt by another customer, you can be heald liable.
It may not be right, but it is the way that it is. There is precedent.
If you make your Wi-Fi completely open, and someone uses it for a crime, then you are liable. You should have secured your network better.
Linux/WINE/Word is hardly the answer.
Wine/Word is just asking for a crash to begin with. It is just never quite right.
From there, it's but a small step to realizing that they can also walk away from Windows completely
No way. I'm as huge a unix and Free Software proponent as anyone here, but even I can see that statement is utterly idiotic. The motivation to stay with XP is the desire to not change.
Part of the problem with people who are trying to encourage/push businesses to switch to Linux is that they are targeting the wrong audience.
I agree here, unless there is a real motivating factor involved and established business should not change their OS midstream without a great deal of thought and consideration.
The proper target audience for this kind of effort is NEW businesses. Those guys who are at the startup level and are going to have to lay down the cash for training either way.
Don't target the guys who have already blown their startup training budget and have fourty grand worth of equipment and software already devoted to one general setup.
Target the guy who is about to make that move. If you point out that training costs are going to be about the same either way, but that he could save a fortune on the software he might be motivated to go the Linux or Unix route.
You have to be able to aproach the issue with solid, practical information. If the company is already highly invested in their current system then it is not practical to switch to something totaly different unless there is a dire need to do so.
So, things that are not likely to be put on a web page require links for proof. :P I know that in this day and age it is far fetched, but there are a lot of things that will never have links that did happen.
Depends on the needs of the business and how important their information is to them. If the business is small enough that it is safe to let people install whatever they want, then it is small enough not to need an IT department. As for a software company, that is a very specific case. People need to be able to test what they are working on, which means either give them access to do so, or slow them down by requiring them to jump through hoops. Part of developing a security plan is balancing all the needs of the company.
"Public transit on the other hand focuses on being a 'vehicle replacement' so people in lower density areas can actually give up their cars." There are a lot of places in Japan where people can give up their cars. It is not perfect yet, but the system is still expanding. A good transit system would go a long ways to helping with the problems in the US. As you said, it is not the whole solution, but if it is done right, it will go a long ways.
This sounds like a great way to use the technology. You just have to take measures to make sure that is all it is used for, and that the people actually running the updates know what they are doing.
MOST companies do not directly permit the use of P2P software on their networks.
MANY companies specifically forbid it.
INTELLIGENT companies should not even make it possible for the average user to install software on their work computers. This should be the task of the system admin guys.
This is not a management stance, this is a network security stance. There is a lot you have to take into concideration when setting network policies. There are exceptions, but in most instances there is no valid reason for an employee to be running P2P software on their work computer, even for legal reasons.
Now, if you are talking about an ISP (as apposed to an employer) That is a whole new can of worms. What people do with their home computers is totaly separate from what they do with work computers. That also leads into major gray areas when it comes to the issue of P2P software on an ISP's network. There are some ISP's that flat out forbid it's use. Others don't say anything beyond the usual "Don't use our network for illegal acts," then throttle the bandwidth to common P2P ports (Possibly worse than just forbidding it and closeing the ports off). Others leave everything wide open, then turn states evidence at the drop of a hat. :P
I personally like P2P software. There are a lot of perfectly LEGAL uses for it. I just don't think there is a reason to have it on MOST workstations in a business environment.
I emphasize certain words because what I have said does not apply to all cases. There are businesses where it is totaly appropriate to have P2P software on all the systems. However, if you as a manager (or especially as an IT guy) have to ask yourself if that is the case for your business, then the answer is probably no.