First, you implied that the FBI had influence because "banks are federally chartered". which is just wrong. Second, you implied that we don't have bank secrecy because the FBI would "put pressure" on anyone that didn't comply. But that's silly. Banks are required to cooperate BY LAW, not because some G-man in DC will put the muscle on their charter if they don't buckle under. They don't NEED to do that, Congress gave the Treasury Department that authority.
If Congress rescinded Know Your Customer today, we'd have a lot more privacy. In that scenario, even if an FBI agent tried to muscle a few banks, it wouldn't really have that great of an effect. The value of Know Your Customer is the massive data mine that it provides. FinCEN isn't poking around one account at a time, it's looking at everything at once. It works because it has ALL transactions, not just suspicious ones. It is, to be sure, a massive invasion of privacy with global reach.
But it doesn't exist because some FBI agent threatened some small-town banker who wasn't cooperating. It exists because Congress created it.
I don't work in academia and I do have real-world knowledge of banking regulation.
Just because you were investigated doesn't mean you know what was going in the minds of those doing the investigating. And, FYI, sometimes "investigators" need to "investigate" before they know what happened. That's how they attempt to find out what happened.
And yes, I realize it's possible to drive over the speed limit and not get caught. It's also possible to launder money and not get caught. In fact, people have even robbed banks (something the FBI does have primary jurisdiction over) and not get caught. Getting away with a crime doesn't make it legal. And it still doesn't mean that the FTC is in charge of speed limits any more than your idea that the FBI is a banking regulator.
I don't agree with all these laws, but I'm just explaining to you that financial privacy is not legal in this country because the Congress has passed laws and the president has signed them (and yes, in some cases just because the president said it was "an emergency").
Yeah, and the FBI is used on tax raids as well. The OP stated that we'll never have banking secrecy because "banks are Federally chartered" and "...the FBI can make life difficult..."
I'm not saying banks can keep secrets from the government, I'm just saying that sounds like a 5-year old's view of the world.
Beyond the fact that it's completely factually incorrect, it's also just silly. It's like saying you can't drive 100 MPH because the FTC will put pressure on auto makers. You can't drive 100 MPH because it's the law. We don't have banking secrecy in this country because we have laws that forbid it, not because "the FBI is putting pressure on banking charters."
Did you read the blog post where they solicited feedback? It had 9 comments in total. Among them was this comment from the author of the blog (4th comment):
I assure you we won't be changing that option [tab vs spaces] any time soon:-)
So they solicited comments on a blog that no one reads and immediately say they aren't planning to change anything when questioned. After saying they wouldn't be changing the option, no one complained. Wow, what due diligence.
The broad prohibition on "electioneering communications" set forth in section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 2 U.S.C. section 441b(b)(2), violates the First Amendment, and the limiting construction adopted by this Court in WRTL is insufficient to save it. Accordingly, the Court should strike down section 203 as facially unconstitutional and overrule that portion of McConnell that holds otherwise.
Instead of sending 19 men on suicide missions, Al-Qaeda could just send 19 men to different airports and have them all run through the exits at the same time.
The cumulative effect would be that *all* airports would be shut down for the day. We'd just assume that we didn't notice it at any airports that weren't "attacked". At that point, the technical solution (one-way walkways, rotating doors, more guards, or whatever) would have to implemented very quickly and more costly than implementing it at our convenience.
Not that I think it fixing the exits will really change anything. We've got bigger problems when a terrorist on a watch list and whose visa was revoked by the Brits can get on a plane without additional screening. I never even knew we had a list of suspected terrorists that we let on planes without screening before now...
Whether or not I dislike Microsoft is not relevant. Someone always will. And they are just an example. You mentioned that removing results because you "disliked" a company was reason enough to regulate the results. I am arguing that this violates basic free speech principles.
> Again with Microsoft.
Ignoring Microsoft would be ignorant. They have a history of not playing fair. We're talking about regulating the search industry and Microsoft wishes to be a player in that industry. How can you even discuss regulating an industry and not consider the past actions of a major player in that industry?
I bring up SCO just as an example that people on this forum should be familiar with. You had the notion that cases without merit don't make it to court. That's ridiculous on the face of it. People sue all the time in hopes of getting a quick payout or settlement.
There is an entire field of economic study called "Regulatory Capture". The theory is not too complicated:
1) Regulation can be a barrier to entry. For established companies, this can reduce competition and can be seen as an economic good.
2) Those with the greatest stake are the established industry, and they will exert their power on the regulatory body. While short-term consumer outrage may lead to the creation of a regulatory body, the public's interest quickly wanes while those being regulated stick around.
The ICC is the classic example. They were not exclusive.
It is easy to imagine that the foundem founder will stop paying attention once google gives him the top spot. But Microsoft, a convicted and unrepentant monopolist, will happily use regulatory powers to punish competition.
No, regulation is the opposite of innovation. The plan here is to regulate to enforce neutrality.
> Restating your premise again does not make it true.
The first federal regulatory body in the US was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). It was established to regulate the railroads. The RR did evil things like charge a higher rate per mile for transport between Chicago and New York than between smaller cities.
The first chair of the ICC was a former RR lawyer. The solution to the "unfair" rates was to raise all the rates to the highest levels (something the railroads had always wanted to do themselves but they were never able to effectively collude without the ICC; someone always defected).
I said I wanted to promote free software. I want to do this because I dislike Microsoft. Same thing.
If you think you can just wave your hands and have a law requiring "neutral search results" become a law without morons like "foundem" getting their prints on the law, you've got a lot to learn about politics.
> Not likely. If they were to try, they would first have to pay for a lawyer to file that suit, then prove harm, then get past the motion to dismiss.
Unless Microsoft helped pay the way. And don't forget, MS was one of the companies that bought a SCOsource license for SCO (along with directing "investors" to SCO).
> You have built a straw-man by trying to define neutrality as the opposite of innovation.
No, regulation is the opposite of innovation. The plan here is to regulate to enforce neutrality.
> Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher? Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it?
In my example, I most certainly did remove Microsoft because I don't like them. That was the point of my proposed engine, to search for things that I like and not show things I don't like.
Now take the example from TFA. The website "foundem" didn't score high. Are you suggesting that google took a bribe? Did they remove "foundem" because they didn't like them? TFA never actually says why. The author certainly wants google to push his site higher, so do you think he'd be happy with a plan that ignored his complaint?
Anywats, most business regulations are handled by licensing boards (you can't even cut hair without a license). The courts do not have the capacity to handle every single regulation. They are already excessively burdened.
> If they tried, it would never make it to court since there would be no evidence.
It's been more than six years since SCO sued IBM. Are you sure you can't get into court without evidence? To date, SCO still hasn't shown a single line of code copied by IBM into the Linux kernel, and the case is still running.
Before a trial, you get to have Discovery. Every crappy website with a low ranking will file a suit against google seeking Discovery to find evidence of why their site wasn't given a "fair" rank.
Don't forget, in addition to the normal operating costs, you will need an army of lawyers to handle, by hand, every single complaint from every single website that believes that their site is rightfully the top link.
Consider the size of the SEO industry (ethical and otherwise), and convince me that every SEO out there won't focus all their efforts on legal claims against search engines.
With neutrality rules in place, every search engine will:
(1) Need a license or certificate showing that they have been tested and validated. This, in itself, is a barrier to entry.
(2) Results of the search engine will expect to follow the pre-existing norms. Anything innovative, original or experimental will not likely fit into the existing set of regulations and will automatically be out-of-compliance.
Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software. It's not really intended to be a "general purpose" search engine but, instead, is designed to find free alternatives to commercial software. The idea is that you can search for "excel" and it will find you info about Open Office, koffice, etc. It's my own website that I'm paying for at my expense to promote my own personal beliefs.
Along comes Microsoft, a licensed search company. They are, to be sure, not happy that a search engine helps people find alternatives to their software. They complain to the license board that I don't have a license and my site is shut down. Or, I suppose, I could get a license (and have to pass certification on topics unrelated to my search niche). And since the goal of this license is "neutrality," I can't have results that leave out proprietary software. In fact, my search engine can't even legally endorse free software.
Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo. Innovation is about changing the status quo.
Anyone can fork at anytime. The problem for Monty is that his fork would have to stay in the GPL. He isn't concerned that Oracle will stop maintaining MySQL or stop releasing it under the GPL. It's not Oracle that wants to close the source on MySQL, that's what Monty wants to do for himself. The problem is, he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version.
An employee/employer relationship is ongoing. It is not a sale. First sale would never apply. You can't sell your job. A job is not an object and has nothing to do with copyright. It's just a silly strawman that you came up with.
Likewise, an airline ticket is an agreement for service. The sale is final after service is provided. I don't know what that would have to do with first sale. You can't sell a service that you received after the fact. Another silly strawman.
When you buy a book or DVD, however, you get a physical object. There is no ongoing relationship. You don't have to continue to pay for the book and your relationship with the publisher or retailer ends when the transaction has concluded. You have the right to do whatever you want with your copy.
You *can* construct an arrangement where there is an ongoing relationship, but you can't convert a retail sale into a license by simply adding a notice inside a book that makes that claim.
When you buy software at retail, you get a physical object (CD or DVD). There is no ongoing relationship. You give them money, they give you the object. You are not expected to continue to pay for the software after the fact. Why should THEY be allowed to add some additional claim after the fact when other copyright holders can't.
With a car lease, you sign an agreement and agree to give the car back at the end of the lease period. You absolutely have a contract and they can limit your rights.
When you buy Mac OS X at retail, you do not have to sign a contract. You are not required to give the software back after some time. It is sold as a box, so the first sale doctrine should apply.
There IS software that is sold as a contract. There is software where you are only allowed to use it for a fixed period of time and where you must agree to a contract ahead of time. Max OS X in a box is NOT like that.
Not sure what CAD case you're talking about, but in Vernor vs. Autodesk, the courts (to date) have found first-sale applies when the software purchase resembles a sale. The software is not time-limited and there are no recurring charges.
You say a bought a license. Bob-Merrill Co. said Straus bought a license in 1908. The Supreme Court said Straus bought a book and adding a notice limiting the rights inside the book did not create a license. You can buy OS X in a box set.
If you can't add a notice to a book or DVD and call it a license, why can you add a notice to software and call it a license?
> Why can my boss tell me I have to work 40 hours a week...
He can't. You both come to terms and have a contract.
> Why can the airlines tell me to take off my shoes...
They can't. However, before they allow you to board the plane, you must agree.
> Why do I have to wear a shirt and shoes for service..
Generally because the health department has imposed this requirement, but it's still a requirement that takes effect before you enter the business. A restaurant can NOT tell you that you have to wear shoes and shirt when you take your food home. If you buy food at for takeout, you are allowed to give it to someone else. You can feed it to your dog. They can NOT limit your rights to do what you want with your merchandise after you leave their establishment.
You can NOT add a license to a book and then sell it at retail. You can require a purchaser to agree to terms BEFORE you sell the book, but you can't just add a notice inside the book. This is literally what was attempted a hundred years ago and the Supreme Court found that it was nonsense. Copyright does NOT give you ultimate control of every copy for all time, and selling a copy at retail does NOT create a license.
Given that selling a box of software at a retail store, why is it ANY different than selling a book or DVD? You do NOT need to agree to a license BEFORE you buy the product, so why should a software vendor be allowed to do what book publishers have never been allowed to do?
They can *say* whatever they want. The Supreme Court ruled that the terms of the so-called license of the book were invalid. They didn't say it was illegal to to write that, just that it was unenforceable.
Again, the Bobbs-Merrill Company included a notice (essentially, an EULA) with a book. One hundred years ago, the Supreme Court saw that this was clearly a sale and not a contract or license. The court didn't say that Straus was entitled to a refund, they said that Straus bought the book and he could do whatever he wanted with it (despite the fact that it violated the notice inside the book).
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just charge a billion dollars? That way, they'd only need to sell one...
First, you implied that the FBI had influence because "banks are federally chartered". which is just wrong. Second, you implied that we don't have bank secrecy because the FBI would "put pressure" on anyone that didn't comply. But that's silly. Banks are required to cooperate BY LAW, not because some G-man in DC will put the muscle on their charter if they don't buckle under. They don't NEED to do that, Congress gave the Treasury Department that authority.
If Congress rescinded Know Your Customer today, we'd have a lot more privacy. In that scenario, even if an FBI agent tried to muscle a few banks, it wouldn't really have that great of an effect. The value of Know Your Customer is the massive data mine that it provides. FinCEN isn't poking around one account at a time, it's looking at everything at once. It works because it has ALL transactions, not just suspicious ones. It is, to be sure, a massive invasion of privacy with global reach.
But it doesn't exist because some FBI agent threatened some small-town banker who wasn't cooperating. It exists because Congress created it.
I don't work in academia and I do have real-world knowledge of banking regulation.
Just because you were investigated doesn't mean you know what was going in the minds of those doing the investigating. And, FYI, sometimes "investigators" need to "investigate" before they know what happened. That's how they attempt to find out what happened.
And yes, I realize it's possible to drive over the speed limit and not get caught. It's also possible to launder money and not get caught. In fact, people have even robbed banks (something the FBI does have primary jurisdiction over) and not get caught. Getting away with a crime doesn't make it legal. And it still doesn't mean that the FTC is in charge of speed limits any more than your idea that the FBI is a banking regulator.
I don't agree with all these laws, but I'm just explaining to you that financial privacy is not legal in this country because the Congress has passed laws and the president has signed them (and yes, in some cases just because the president said it was "an emergency").
Yeah, and the FBI is used on tax raids as well. The OP stated that we'll never have banking secrecy because "banks are Federally chartered" and "...the FBI can make life difficult..."
I'm not saying banks can keep secrets from the government, I'm just saying that sounds like a 5-year old's view of the world.
Beyond the fact that it's completely factually incorrect, it's also just silly. It's like saying you can't drive 100 MPH because the FTC will put pressure on auto makers. You can't drive 100 MPH because it's the law. We don't have banking secrecy in this country because we have laws that forbid it, not because "the FBI is putting pressure on banking charters."
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is run out of the Treasury Dept, not the FBI.
> The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US.
There is such a thing as state chartered banks.
> The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.
And here I thought the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OTS and state regulatory agencies regulated banks.
Did you read the blog post where they solicited feedback? It had 9 comments in total. Among them was this comment from the author of the blog (4th comment):
So they solicited comments on a blog that no one reads and immediately say they aren't planning to change anything when questioned. After saying they wouldn't be changing the option, no one complained. Wow, what due diligence.
You could read the ACLU's Amicus Brief:
Groups that support this ruling: NRA, ACLU, US Chamber of Commerce & the AFL-CIO.
Instead of sending 19 men on suicide missions, Al-Qaeda could just send 19 men to different airports and have them all run through the exits at the same time.
The cumulative effect would be that *all* airports would be shut down for the day. We'd just assume that we didn't notice it at any airports that weren't "attacked". At that point, the technical solution (one-way walkways, rotating doors, more guards, or whatever) would have to implemented very quickly and more costly than implementing it at our convenience.
Not that I think it fixing the exits will really change anything. We've got bigger problems when a terrorist on a watch list and whose visa was revoked by the Brits can get on a plane without additional screening. I never even knew we had a list of suspected terrorists that we let on planes without screening before now...
Whether or not I dislike Microsoft is not relevant. Someone always will. And they are just an example. You mentioned that removing results because you "disliked" a company was reason enough to regulate the results. I am arguing that this violates basic free speech principles.
> Again with Microsoft.
Ignoring Microsoft would be ignorant. They have a history of not playing fair. We're talking about regulating the search industry and Microsoft wishes to be a player in that industry. How can you even discuss regulating an industry and not consider the past actions of a major player in that industry?
I bring up SCO just as an example that people on this forum should be familiar with. You had the notion that cases without merit don't make it to court. That's ridiculous on the face of it. People sue all the time in hopes of getting a quick payout or settlement.
There is an entire field of economic study called "Regulatory Capture". The theory is not too complicated:
1) Regulation can be a barrier to entry. For established companies, this can reduce competition and can be seen as an economic good.
2) Those with the greatest stake are the established industry, and they will exert their power on the regulatory body. While short-term consumer outrage may lead to the creation of a regulatory body, the public's interest quickly wanes while those being regulated stick around.
The ICC is the classic example. They were not exclusive.
It is easy to imagine that the foundem founder will stop paying attention once google gives him the top spot. But Microsoft, a convicted and unrepentant monopolist, will happily use regulatory powers to punish competition.
No, regulation is the opposite of innovation. The plan here is to regulate to enforce neutrality.
> Restating your premise again does not make it true.
The first federal regulatory body in the US was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). It was established to regulate the railroads. The RR did evil things like charge a higher rate per mile for transport between Chicago and New York than between smaller cities.
The first chair of the ICC was a former RR lawyer. The solution to the "unfair" rates was to raise all the rates to the highest levels (something the railroads had always wanted to do themselves but they were never able to effectively collude without the ICC; someone always defected).
I said I wanted to promote free software. I want to do this because I dislike Microsoft. Same thing.
If you think you can just wave your hands and have a law requiring "neutral search results" become a law without morons like "foundem" getting their prints on the law, you've got a lot to learn about politics.
> Not likely. If they were to try, they would first have to pay for a lawyer to file that suit, then prove harm, then get past the motion to dismiss.
Unless Microsoft helped pay the way. And don't forget, MS was one of the companies that bought a SCOsource license for SCO (along with directing "investors" to SCO).
> You have built a straw-man by trying to define neutrality as the opposite of innovation.
No, regulation is the opposite of innovation. The plan here is to regulate to enforce neutrality.
> Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher? Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it?
In my example, I most certainly did remove Microsoft because I don't like them. That was the point of my proposed engine, to search for things that I like and not show things I don't like.
Now take the example from TFA. The website "foundem" didn't score high. Are you suggesting that google took a bribe? Did they remove "foundem" because they didn't like them? TFA never actually says why. The author certainly wants google to push his site higher, so do you think he'd be happy with a plan that ignored his complaint?
Anywats, most business regulations are handled by licensing boards (you can't even cut hair without a license). The courts do not have the capacity to handle every single regulation. They are already excessively burdened.
> If they tried, it would never make it to court since there would be no evidence.
It's been more than six years since SCO sued IBM. Are you sure you can't get into court without evidence? To date, SCO still hasn't shown a single line of code copied by IBM into the Linux kernel, and the case is still running.
Before a trial, you get to have Discovery. Every crappy website with a low ranking will file a suit against google seeking Discovery to find evidence of why their site wasn't given a "fair" rank.
Don't forget, in addition to the normal operating costs, you will need an army of lawyers to handle, by hand, every single complaint from every single website that believes that their site is rightfully the top link.
Consider the size of the SEO industry (ethical and otherwise), and convince me that every SEO out there won't focus all their efforts on legal claims against search engines.
With neutrality rules in place, every search engine will:
(1) Need a license or certificate showing that they have been tested and validated. This, in itself, is a barrier to entry.
(2) Results of the search engine will expect to follow the pre-existing norms. Anything innovative, original or experimental will not likely fit into the existing set of regulations and will automatically be out-of-compliance.
Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software. It's not really intended to be a "general purpose" search engine but, instead, is designed to find free alternatives to commercial software. The idea is that you can search for "excel" and it will find you info about Open Office, koffice, etc. It's my own website that I'm paying for at my expense to promote my own personal beliefs.
Along comes Microsoft, a licensed search company. They are, to be sure, not happy that a search engine helps people find alternatives to their software. They complain to the license board that I don't have a license and my site is shut down. Or, I suppose, I could get a license (and have to pass certification on topics unrelated to my search niche). And since the goal of this license is "neutrality," I can't have results that leave out proprietary software. In fact, my search engine can't even legally endorse free software.
Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo. Innovation is about changing the status quo.
> ... they are using tax money ...
Not. It's all funded by corporate sponsors and volunteers. Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI) owns the website.
Anyone can fork at anytime. The problem for Monty is that his fork would have to stay in the GPL. He isn't concerned that Oracle will stop maintaining MySQL or stop releasing it under the GPL. It's not Oracle that wants to close the source on MySQL, that's what Monty wants to do for himself. The problem is, he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version.
An employee/employer relationship is ongoing. It is not a sale. First sale would never apply. You can't sell your job. A job is not an object and has nothing to do with copyright. It's just a silly strawman that you came up with.
Likewise, an airline ticket is an agreement for service. The sale is final after service is provided. I don't know what that would have to do with first sale. You can't sell a service that you received after the fact. Another silly strawman.
When you buy a book or DVD, however, you get a physical object. There is no ongoing relationship. You don't have to continue to pay for the book and your relationship with the publisher or retailer ends when the transaction has concluded. You have the right to do whatever you want with your copy.
You *can* construct an arrangement where there is an ongoing relationship, but you can't convert a retail sale into a license by simply adding a notice inside a book that makes that claim.
When you buy software at retail, you get a physical object (CD or DVD). There is no ongoing relationship. You give them money, they give you the object. You are not expected to continue to pay for the software after the fact. Why should THEY be allowed to add some additional claim after the fact when other copyright holders can't.
You're the one who brought up food.
With a car lease, you sign an agreement and agree to give the car back at the end of the lease period. You absolutely have a contract and they can limit your rights.
When you buy Mac OS X at retail, you do not have to sign a contract. You are not required to give the software back after some time. It is sold as a box, so the first sale doctrine should apply.
There IS software that is sold as a contract. There is software where you are only allowed to use it for a fixed period of time and where you must agree to a contract ahead of time. Max OS X in a box is NOT like that.
Not sure what CAD case you're talking about, but in Vernor vs. Autodesk, the courts (to date) have found first-sale applies when the software purchase resembles a sale. The software is not time-limited and there are no recurring charges.
You say a bought a license. Bob-Merrill Co. said Straus bought a license in 1908. The Supreme Court said Straus bought a book and adding a notice limiting the rights inside the book did not create a license. You can buy OS X in a box set.
If you can't add a notice to a book or DVD and call it a license, why can you add a notice to software and call it a license?
> Why can my boss tell me I have to work 40 hours a week...
He can't. You both come to terms and have a contract.
> Why can the airlines tell me to take off my shoes...
They can't. However, before they allow you to board the plane, you must agree.
> Why do I have to wear a shirt and shoes for service..
Generally because the health department has imposed this requirement, but it's still a requirement that takes effect before you enter the business. A restaurant can NOT tell you that you have to wear shoes and shirt when you take your food home. If you buy food at for takeout, you are allowed to give it to someone else. You can feed it to your dog. They can NOT limit your rights to do what you want with your merchandise after you leave their establishment.
You can NOT add a license to a book and then sell it at retail. You can require a purchaser to agree to terms BEFORE you sell the book, but you can't just add a notice inside the book. This is literally what was attempted a hundred years ago and the Supreme Court found that it was nonsense. Copyright does NOT give you ultimate control of every copy for all time, and selling a copy at retail does NOT create a license.
Given that selling a box of software at a retail store, why is it ANY different than selling a book or DVD? You do NOT need to agree to a license BEFORE you buy the product, so why should a software vendor be allowed to do what book publishers have never been allowed to do?
They can *say* whatever they want. The Supreme Court ruled that the terms of the so-called license of the book were invalid. They didn't say it was illegal to to write that, just that it was unenforceable.
> It's in the EULA.
Again, the Bobbs-Merrill Company included a notice (essentially, an EULA) with a book. One hundred years ago, the Supreme Court saw that this was clearly a sale and not a contract or license. The court didn't say that Straus was entitled to a refund, they said that Straus bought the book and he could do whatever he wanted with it (despite the fact that it violated the notice inside the book).
Why can Apple do what Bobbs-Merrill Co. couldn't?