Not being an Australian (but in total agreement with the whole banning games sucks theme) - I hunted around for a bit just to try and figure out wtf this all meant.
The Australian EFF equivalent site has a lot of interesting information on censorship in general, and they also a review of some of the guts of the issue.
This doesn't seem to be a new issue though -- in 1999 The Age printed that the first game banned for violence actually occurred in 1997.
Re:Well, half the population is less oppressed...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
Um, never said that women never held jobs -- nor did I say they've been oppressed for their entire lives.
The point I made was that under the Taliban, women were oppressed - ridiculously, and removing the Taliban from power has not made their situation any better, as a contrast to the original story about how computers and movies make everything great.
So, I'm not quite sure how I'm mistaken, since the scope of my post was discussing the Taliban and post Taliban rule, not pre and post Soviet invasion (an entirely different topic)
Re:Not to sound like an asshole, but...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
Agreed on a couple points: no, we are not the moral compass of the world, no we don't have the right to tell people how to govern themselves - no matter how much it sucks, and no, we can't force people to "modernize".
I think my point was more along the lines of a reminder that even though Katz is waving the modernization and free information and everything is gonna be great flag, there's a whole lot of people over there who currently aren't able to get on that boat.
Re:Well, half the population is less oppressed...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
...I know it because your media shows
Pakistan like that too and I know most Pakistani women are more free than any US women can dream of....
Actually, I'd say that's incorrect, because I don't think the US Media has ever stated that Pakistani women are oppressed. At least I haven't seen it on ANY of the news sources over here.
Furthermore, it's not only US media sources that point to the poor treatment of women under Taliban rule.
And why the hell am I replying to an AC post anyway?
Well, half the population is less oppressed...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
They open the theaters, people get their TVs and computers back. It's good.
But the women aren't allowed in the theater, they can't function in public, and they still aren't allowed to see doctors. It's not that removing the Taliban is a bad thing, but for a significant part of the population, the current status really hasn't gotten any better.
Food for thought, and it makes me thankful that I was born in the US and have the ability to say such things...
This is yet again proof of why chat groups, bulletin boards and internet newsgroups are useless as a "breaking story" news source. It's been less than
45 minutes since the crash and already people are posting "facts" that were proven wrong minutes later
While I agree with your point that there is a lot of absurd speculation going on, a lot of people are probably using slashdot as a source for information. Very few people have a TV at work, and a lot of the websites are flooded. People are posting facts as they pop up -- just because they are later proved untrue doesn't reflect poorly on the poster, it reflects on the information available at the time.
And, if the plane crashed in Queens, then techinically it did crash in NYC.
* American Airlines flight crashes on takeoff in NYC borough of Queens
* FAA: American Flight 587 -- Airbus A300 -- from JFK airport to Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic
* NYC Port Authority: 246 passengers, 9 crew
* All NYC area airports closed, bridges and tunnels leading into city closed
* Affiliate WCBS reports at least 4 buildings on fire
* New York Fire Department dispatches 44 trucks, 200 firefighters
Whie I don't think I'd disagree iwth anything you've said, I read it in a different light -- to me it was more like the Broadband wakeup call. While the points made are weak, I'm not sure that the premise is all that faulty.
I think a lot of the companies had the underlying assumption that once people got a decent connection, they weren't going to give it up. They're partially right--with the Slashdot community being the perfect example of such people.
However, I'm not sure that this assumption extends to the rest of the population. While it's easy to roll your eyes at "Particularly since Sept. 11, a lot of people are deciding which bills to cut out", the fact is, quite a few people point to that event as a significant downturn in the economy. The population is slowing their spending down (as the consumer confidence index confirms) and inevitably cutting some corners. Someone who kept a line around because it was really nice may decide that it's not worth the extra $350 a year to have.
People are starting to figure out ways to lower bills...they've either lost their job, taken a pay cut, or they're afraid of losing it. It isn't unfathomable that Broadband is one of the first things to go.
This is so screwed up. I'm kind of left here thinking "huh?"
She's babbling on about the evils of peer-to-peer and how "the public sees it" as an infestation of theives and porn and big evil computer viruses.
Why didn't she come right out and say that the WTC attacks were planned over a p2p network?
It's frustrating to see how the RIAA is taking advantage of the fact that it's not quite as commonplace as the phone to drum up anti-sentiment. This wouldn't be working if it was "hey, snail mail is peer-to-peer, they can steal our stuff!"
This story is really about "How not to maintain hiring standards in a time of need."
Honestly, it's a huge jump to go from:
-There is a guy who seems to be a good hire, but there were some red flags from his references. We hired him anyway, and were shocked to find out it was a mistake!
to:
-The quirky engineer that we once considered a staple of a company is gone.
It's a big stretch -- especially when the fault lies in the hiring practices...
...own the software and the right to use it "in
perpetuity." The problem with this model is that in reality, CIOs are lucky if
they can get three years out of a product before vendors release entirely new versions of their software. Vendors further pressure CIOs to buy those new releases by threatening to stop supporting previous releases-a tactic they
often take both to cut their tech support costs and to get CIOs to pay again and again for what is essentially the same product.
Microsoft's changing of its licensing practices has clearly pointed to a flaw in the software sales model -- in small doses, companies will put up with it because it's easier to maintain status quo than to radically change. However, companies are now looking at a tripled technology budget -- and they're looking seriously at how things are working.
They've figured out that some of it sucks.
The problem with the current software sales model is that it is impossible to tell the companies that will support and stand behind their product from those that will rake you over the coals. When companies have the ability to change their licensing agreements overnight, the consumer has no ability to chose the good from the bad.
The good thing from this: people might REALLY take open source seriously.
The bad thing: I think a lot of well-run, fair and supportive software companies are going to suffer because of the greed of the others.
The actual text is linked off of the Wired article, I've posted one of the two suggested texts for the amendment.:
No action may be brought under this subsection arising out of any impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information, resulting from measures taken by an owner of copyright in a work of authorship, or any person authorized by such owner to act on its behalf, that are intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright in such work by wire or electronic communication; provided that the use of the work that the owner is intending to impede or prevent is an infringing use.
Which means, if you own the copyright to something, and you believe that someone is poaching said thing, you have a blank check under this law. They can't prosecute you for whatever you do, provided you can prove the intent was to prevent/impede distribution.
But on the other hand, isn't intentionally breaking into someone's machine already illegal? How the hell would this amendment stand up as opposed to laws already in place?
Boston.com is reporting that the House passed the Senate Legislation with a 5 year sunset clause on some controversial topics. It passed 337-79, sounds like it's headed back to the Senate now...
Expanding the ability to subpoena ALL electronic data
I think that the points you bring up are pretty useful, and I'm not sure anyone has a problem with them. I don't think anyone would argue with the illegal to harbor a known terrorist at this point in time.
But thinking back to an earlier story about shopping habits, I think people are having a bigger problem with the little things slipping through the cracks, and the lack of a time limit on them. Taking all these little things and throwing them together result in one big database that knows a whole lot about you, and it does feel a little Big Brother-ish.
It's imperative to pass laws that enable the people dealing with the actual situation to do their job effectively, but at the same time, these laws are being passed in a VERY short time-span, and it's dangerous to not have a way out of the scenario if there are repercussions for the general population.
It basically sections things off into those that have passed, those on the floor, and those hanging around without any action. It also has the text of each bill, who sponsored, and any amendments made to it.
Unfortunately, it's not real-time, so the latest version of the Senate bill isn't up there (I couldn't find it), but for those who really want to get to the meat of what's going on, it's all here.
The House is saying that it won't pass this thing without some changes -- It specifically mentions the wiretapping clauses, and brings in the idea of money laundering as well (adding something that's potentially useful, whoda thunk?)
Yes, that's exactly the point. (insert dripping sarcasm here)
Please, think about it for a minute. First of all, I specifically mentioned heading for the manager -- who actually has some power over this. If every manager hears the same thing, guess what, it'll change.
Moreover, who said anything about making a scene? Since when is going in and announcing how you feel going to get you anywhere? My point was simply that by mentioning the fact (note: without announcing it to the world, without making a scene, and without holding up the line), you may get someone else thinking about it. Get enough people thinking about it and you may just get somewhere.
The trick is to find the ethical route that also lets them know how you feel.
Tell the cashiers. I do.
Every time I purchase something in CVS, the conversation goes like this:
Them: Do you have a CVS Extra Care Card?
Me: No.
Them: Would you like one? It'll just take a minute.
Me: No thank you, I don't agree with having my drug store purchases tracked by anyone.
9 times out of 10, the cashier will then pull out their card and scan it for me. If the manager happens to be working a register, I shoot for their register so that they can hear it too. It's a method that generally gets me the proper price for items, as well as letting appropriate people know that I'm not happy with the system.
...some sort of force majuere clause about giving information to law-enforcement
By simply keeping the information around (i.e not piping it to/dev/null) it can be supoenaed by a court of law. I think it probably came down to either willingly giving up the data in question, which means you are a cooperative type person, or waiting X hours before the data was subpoenaed...and everyone trying to figure out what's going on doesn't take too kindly to you.
It seems to me that the W3C is going to get themselves in a catch-22.
I honestly believe that they have the best of intentions in trying to address the fact that for the time being, open-source and patented software have to learn to play together in the same sandbox. The FAQ states pretty clearly:
In developing a new Patent Policy for W3C activities, our goal is to affirm the Web community's long-standing preference for recommendations that can be implemented on an RF basis. Where that is not possible, the new Policy will provide a framework to assure maximum possible openness based on RAND licensing terms.
It looks like both people win, open-source if you can, reasonable RAND if you can't. But I'm concerned about the point they make where working groups can switch from RF to RAND. We live in a work where software is built on top of other software -- could you imagine if everyone who ever worked on TCP/IP decided to get together and apply for a RAND license? (Granted, it's not the best example...but work with me) How could this possibly work? Furthermore, does every piece of software which used it under the RF license now have to convert to the RAND license? Obviously, this'll stifle the development community, and from reading the proposal, it doesn't seem to be clear how this situation is handled.
3. If the government were to adopt provisions relating to technological measures, in which respects should such provisions be subject to exceptions or other limitations?
Copyright Act provisions for exemptions should still be applicable (broadly the "fair dealing" or excusable exploitation exemptions). As mentioned above, the limitations imposed by the term of protection, and any authorized use of such 'technology' should not be caught in the definition of an offence.
In my view, this is one of the biggest legal problems facing the DMCA, and it looks like IBM is missing the boat. Here they are, stating pretty clearly that a user's fair use is still legitimate, yet the very acts they are trying to push through prevent the end user from exercising fair use at all.
Has anyone found a corporate stance that actually addresses fair use without glossing over it or saying "well, the user gets to make X copies?"
The article specifically adresses the fair use clause, and how SunComm belives that they have addressed the issue of fair use by limiting the number of copies made.
I think this is going to run them into the ground just as the Ebook. They just made the number higher -- by saying you can make six copies instead of two. Granted, it will take longer for people to screw up their machines to run out of their six copies, but the hard limit on the number of copies is always going to run into the same problem -- too low and the consumer is angry, too high and the consumer will give said copies away just to stick it to the industry.
The greater issue -- it's likely that technology can not solve this problem reasonably. Furthermore, the DCMA is not enforcable -- they are going to use it in select cases to scare people into abiding by it. Perhaps, the recording industry should look to create a culture where *gasp* neither the performer nor the consumer feels like they are getting screwed over.
The next time some issues like this comes up, if people really want letters to get written, it needs to be spelled out in black and white, with links accessible directly from that issue. As in: mail letter X from EFF.org to address Y depending on your state by date Z.
People who are active participants will always find a way to get things done. But people who passively care might need a little more direction. Less effort generally means more people.
And someone should mod
the above post up to remind people that it isn't too hard to find where to write...
Re:Because no one here exerts any effort..
on
Slashdot in Politics?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
(quick - who is the house member from your district?)
But that's just the point -- people generally don't know these things off the top of their head. And even if you did, can you recite the postal address by heart? That's much less likely.
Perhaps one of the things that we need is an accessible list of reps (both Senate and House) and the mailing addresses -- for each state. Combine that with the sample letters that EFF provides, and suddenly you have something that just needs to be printed, signed and stamped. Put it all in one place and you have one stop shopping for letters to Congress.
Then all we have to do is get people away from their monitors long enough to go buy a stamp...
I had hoped that by now, we as a country would realize that it's not always a matter of pointing a finger and blaming anyone and everyone that could have been involved.
Honestly, we all know that allowing crypto backdoors isn't going to help. As with cell phone, those with malicious intent STOPPED using them as soon as they realized they could be traced.
Every attempt the authorities make to stop communication will just yield a new method of communication. Are they going to ban snail mail? Couriers? Talking?
I think it's good that serious incidents cause people to think about the state of how we work, and take a good look at how things could be made better. I just hope that we don't go overboard because we're scared -- it won't make us any safer.
Slashdot Mirror
The Australian EFF equivalent site has a lot of interesting information on censorship in general, and they also a review of some of the guts of the issue.
This doesn't seem to be a new issue though -- in 1999 The Age printed that the first game banned for violence actually occurred in 1997.
Um, never said that women never held jobs -- nor did I say they've been oppressed for their entire lives.
The point I made was that under the Taliban, women were oppressed - ridiculously, and removing the Taliban from power has not made their situation any better, as a contrast to the original story about how computers and movies make everything great.
So, I'm not quite sure how I'm mistaken, since the scope of my post was discussing the Taliban and post Taliban rule, not pre and post Soviet invasion (an entirely different topic)
I think my point was more along the lines of a reminder that even though Katz is waving the modernization and free information and everything is gonna be great flag, there's a whole lot of people over there who currently aren't able to get on that boat.
Actually, I'd say that's incorrect, because I don't think the US Media has ever stated that Pakistani women are oppressed. At least I haven't seen it on ANY of the news sources over here.
Furthermore, it's not only US media sources that point to the poor treatment of women under Taliban rule.
And why the hell am I replying to an AC post anyway?
They open the theaters, people get their TVs and computers back. It's good.
But the women aren't allowed in the theater, they can't function in public, and they still aren't allowed to see doctors. It's not that removing the Taliban is a bad thing, but for a significant part of the population, the current status really hasn't gotten any better.
Food for thought, and it makes me thankful that I was born in the US and have the ability to say such things...
While I agree with your point that there is a lot of absurd speculation going on, a lot of people are probably using slashdot as a source for information. Very few people have a TV at work, and a lot of the websites are flooded. People are posting facts as they pop up -- just because they are later proved untrue doesn't reflect poorly on the poster, it reflects on the information available at the time.
And, if the plane crashed in Queens, then techinically it did crash in NYC.
* American Airlines flight crashes on takeoff in NYC borough of Queens
* FAA: American Flight 587 -- Airbus A300 -- from JFK airport to Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic
* NYC Port Authority: 246 passengers, 9 crew
* All NYC area airports closed, bridges and tunnels leading into city closed
* Affiliate WCBS reports at least 4 buildings on fire
* New York Fire Department dispatches 44 trucks, 200 firefighters
I think a lot of the companies had the underlying assumption that once people got a decent connection, they weren't going to give it up. They're partially right--with the Slashdot community being the perfect example of such people.
However, I'm not sure that this assumption extends to the rest of the population. While it's easy to roll your eyes at "Particularly since Sept. 11, a lot of people are deciding which bills to cut out", the fact is, quite a few people point to that event as a significant downturn in the economy. The population is slowing their spending down (as the consumer confidence index confirms) and inevitably cutting some corners. Someone who kept a line around because it was really nice may decide that it's not worth the extra $350 a year to have.
People are starting to figure out ways to lower bills...they've either lost their job, taken a pay cut, or they're afraid of losing it. It isn't unfathomable that Broadband is one of the first things to go.
She's babbling on about the evils of peer-to-peer and how "the public sees it" as an infestation of theives and porn and big evil computer viruses.
Why didn't she come right out and say that the WTC attacks were planned over a p2p network?
It's frustrating to see how the RIAA is taking advantage of the fact that it's not quite as commonplace as the phone to drum up anti-sentiment. This wouldn't be working if it was "hey, snail mail is peer-to-peer, they can steal our stuff!"
Honestly, it's a huge jump to go from:
-There is a guy who seems to be a good hire, but there were some red flags from his references. We hired him anyway, and were shocked to find out it was a mistake!
to:
-The quirky engineer that we once considered a staple of a company is gone.
It's a big stretch -- especially when the fault lies in the hiring practices...
Microsoft's changing of its licensing practices has clearly pointed to a flaw in the software sales model -- in small doses, companies will put up with it because it's easier to maintain status quo than to radically change. However, companies are now looking at a tripled technology budget -- and they're looking seriously at how things are working.
They've figured out that some of it sucks.
The problem with the current software sales model is that it is impossible to tell the companies that will support and stand behind their product from those that will rake you over the coals. When companies have the ability to change their licensing agreements overnight, the consumer has no ability to chose the good from the bad.
The good thing from this: people might REALLY take open source seriously.
The bad thing: I think a lot of well-run, fair and supportive software companies are going to suffer because of the greed of the others.
No action may be brought under this subsection arising out of any impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information, resulting from measures taken by an owner of copyright in a work of authorship, or any person authorized by such owner to act on its behalf, that are intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright in such work by wire or electronic communication; provided that the use of the work that the owner is intending to impede or prevent is an infringing use.
Which means, if you own the copyright to something, and you believe that someone is poaching said thing, you have a blank check under this law. They can't prosecute you for whatever you do, provided you can prove the intent was to prevent/impede distribution.
But on the other hand, isn't intentionally breaking into someone's machine already illegal? How the hell would this amendment stand up as opposed to laws already in place?
Boston.com is reporting that the House passed the Senate Legislation with a 5 year sunset clause on some controversial topics. It passed 337-79, sounds like it's headed back to the Senate now...
- Expanding the ability to subpoena voice mail
- Expanding the ability to subpoena ALL electronic data
I think that the points you bring up are pretty useful, and I'm not sure anyone has a problem with them. I don't think anyone would argue with the illegal to harbor a known terrorist at this point in time.But thinking back to an earlier story about shopping habits, I think people are having a bigger problem with the little things slipping through the cracks, and the lack of a time limit on them. Taking all these little things and throwing them together result in one big database that knows a whole lot about you, and it does feel a little Big Brother-ish.
It's imperative to pass laws that enable the people dealing with the actual situation to do their job effectively, but at the same time, these laws are being passed in a VERY short time-span, and it's dangerous to not have a way out of the scenario if there are repercussions for the general population.
It basically sections things off into those that have passed, those on the floor, and those hanging around without any action. It also has the text of each bill, who sponsored, and any amendments made to it.
Unfortunately, it's not real-time, so the latest version of the Senate bill isn't up there (I couldn't find it), but for those who really want to get to the meat of what's going on, it's all here.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011012/us/attac
The House is saying that it won't pass this thing without some changes -- It specifically mentions the wiretapping clauses, and brings in the idea of money laundering as well (adding something that's potentially useful, whoda thunk?)
Please, think about it for a minute. First of all, I specifically mentioned heading for the manager -- who actually has some power over this. If every manager hears the same thing, guess what, it'll change.
Moreover, who said anything about making a scene? Since when is going in and announcing how you feel going to get you anywhere? My point was simply that by mentioning the fact (note: without announcing it to the world, without making a scene, and without holding up the line), you may get someone else thinking about it. Get enough people thinking about it and you may just get somewhere.
Tell the cashiers. I do.
Every time I purchase something in CVS, the conversation goes like this:
Them: Do you have a CVS Extra Care Card?
Me: No.
Them: Would you like one? It'll just take a minute.
Me: No thank you, I don't agree with having my drug store purchases tracked by anyone.
9 times out of 10, the cashier will then pull out their card and scan it for me. If the manager happens to be working a register, I shoot for their register so that they can hear it too. It's a method that generally gets me the proper price for items, as well as letting appropriate people know that I'm not happy with the system.
By simply keeping the information around (i.e not piping it to /dev/null) it can be supoenaed by a court of law. I think it probably came down to either willingly giving up the data in question, which means you are a cooperative type person, or waiting X hours before the data was subpoenaed...and everyone trying to figure out what's going on doesn't take too kindly to you.
I honestly believe that they have the best of intentions in trying to address the fact that for the time being, open-source and patented software have to learn to play together in the same sandbox. The FAQ states pretty clearly:
In developing a new Patent Policy for W3C activities, our goal is to affirm the Web community's long-standing preference for recommendations that can be implemented on an RF basis. Where that is not possible, the new Policy will provide a framework to assure maximum possible openness based on RAND licensing terms.
It looks like both people win, open-source if you can, reasonable RAND if you can't. But I'm concerned about the point they make where working groups can switch from RF to RAND. We live in a work where software is built on top of other software -- could you imagine if everyone who ever worked on TCP/IP decided to get together and apply for a RAND license? (Granted, it's not the best example...but work with me) How could this possibly work? Furthermore, does every piece of software which used it under the RF license now have to convert to the RAND license? Obviously, this'll stifle the development community, and from reading the proposal, it doesn't seem to be clear how this situation is handled.
3. If the government were to adopt provisions relating to technological measures, in which respects should such provisions be subject to exceptions or other limitations?
Copyright Act provisions for exemptions should still be applicable (broadly the "fair dealing" or excusable exploitation exemptions). As mentioned above, the limitations imposed by the term of protection, and any authorized use of such 'technology' should not be caught in the definition of an offence.
In my view, this is one of the biggest legal problems facing the DMCA, and it looks like IBM is missing the boat. Here they are, stating pretty clearly that a user's fair use is still legitimate, yet the very acts they are trying to push through prevent the end user from exercising fair use at all.
Has anyone found a corporate stance that actually addresses fair use without glossing over it or saying "well, the user gets to make X copies?"
I think this is going to run them into the ground just as the Ebook. They just made the number higher -- by saying you can make six copies instead of two. Granted, it will take longer for people to screw up their machines to run out of their six copies, but the hard limit on the number of copies is always going to run into the same problem -- too low and the consumer is angry, too high and the consumer will give said copies away just to stick it to the industry.
The greater issue -- it's likely that technology can not solve this problem reasonably. Furthermore, the DCMA is not enforcable -- they are going to use it in select cases to scare people into abiding by it. Perhaps, the recording industry should look to create a culture where *gasp* neither the performer nor the consumer feels like they are getting screwed over.
My point was more along the lines of:
The next time some issues like this comes up, if people really want letters to get written, it needs to be spelled out in black and white, with links accessible directly from that issue. As in: mail letter X from EFF.org to address Y depending on your state by date Z.
People who are active participants will always find a way to get things done. But people who passively care might need a little more direction. Less effort generally means more people.
And someone should mod the above post up to remind people that it isn't too hard to find where to write...
But that's just the point -- people generally don't know these things off the top of their head. And even if you did, can you recite the postal address by heart? That's much less likely.
Perhaps one of the things that we need is an accessible list of reps (both Senate and House) and the mailing addresses -- for each state. Combine that with the sample letters that EFF provides, and suddenly you have something that just needs to be printed, signed and stamped. Put it all in one place and you have one stop shopping for letters to Congress.
Then all we have to do is get people away from their monitors long enough to go buy a stamp...
Honestly, we all know that allowing crypto backdoors isn't going to help. As with cell phone, those with malicious intent STOPPED using them as soon as they realized they could be traced.
Every attempt the authorities make to stop communication will just yield a new method of communication. Are they going to ban snail mail? Couriers? Talking?
I think it's good that serious incidents cause people to think about the state of how we work, and take a good look at how things could be made better. I just hope that we don't go overboard because we're scared -- it won't make us any safer.