Buried on the paylars.com site is one of the funniest posters I've seen in a long time. I've been laughing about it non-stop for the past five minutes.
It's seriously the funniest thing I've seen since "We hear you! - Your National Security Agency". == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Spammers who abuse systems for use as spam relays have been pursued for Denial of Serivce by AOL and others. That really where spam and DoS cross - opt out lists and other stuff don't address the DoS problem. That's what I think the initial question submission was about (ignoring the commentary).
We here in Arizona passed (and our Governor signed on April 7) the first state law specifically banning DoS attacks. House Bill 2428, in the relevant part (trimming some extra language - language in CAPS is new - formatting on the Ariz. website is much better), says:
A. A person WHO ACTS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR WHO EXCEEDS AUTHORIZATION OF USE commits computer TAMPERING BY:
... 4. RECKLESSLY DISRUPTING OR CAUSING THE DISRUPTION OF COMPUTER, COMPUTER SYSTEM OR NETWORK SERVICES OR DENYING OR CAUSING THE DENIAL OF COMPUTER OR NETWORK SERVICES TO ANY AUTHORIZED USER OF A COMPUTER,COMPUTER SYSTEM OR NETWORK.
... E.... Computer fraud in the second degree TAMPERING PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH... 4 OF THIS SECTION is a class 4 felony, UNLESS THE COMPUTER, COMPUTER SYSTEM OR NETWORK TAMPERED WITH IS A CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESOURCE, IN WHICH CASE IT IS A CLASS 2 FELONY.
I know Slashdotters think state laws in the international world of the Internet, but it helps Arizona prosecute the bad guys who live here. And with serious felonies on the table, extradition from other states becomes a viable option. This isn't just a trespassing misdemeanor anymore. (FYI: HB 2428 addressed a lot of technology crime issues, from trade secrets to cyberstalking. It's a good read.) == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
I've heard a lot about services like the Star Naming service. Is this finally a way to verify that they're not selling the celestial equivalent of Florida swampland? == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
The people who bought the.tv domain (obviously for television-related sites) are contributing just a bit more to the general chaos that has befallen the once respectable Internet.
Oh come on! We all know from surfing newgroup pr0n that TV means transvestite! I'm waiting for the MarthaStewart.tv domain to pop up. Then all those rumors will be confirmed. == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Not only that, but Visa doesn't hold you liable for anything if you lose money online.
Neither does American Express. Some joker ran up $10K on my Amex bidding on Ubid.com. Amex not only credited my account, they issued me a new card the same day (I did have to pick it up) and is apparently beating the tar out of Ubid with some lawyers.
In short, shop all ya want with Visa or Amex. If ya get ripped off, it's not your fault! == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Yep, same crop of Mystery reruns here in the "Silicon Desert". I'd guess this was a little bit of a false alarm. Does PBS really do nation-wide premiring of programming anyway? How do they handle Frontline and other such 'stuff that I should be watching except I've been dumbed down by Fox'?
T == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
It's just another forum geeks will need to pay attention to - politics. Bush is already taking $$ from Microsoft, and MS is banking that he'll somehow get the whole antitrust thing waived.
The issues are already there. Anna Eshoo (D-CA 14th) has a lot of net.savvy - but then she represents Silicon Valley.
T == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
>But many traditional retailers say they suffer an unfair disadvantage by having to add a sales tax to their goods in the >46 states that impose such a levy. Many governors and local officials fear a deep loss in revenue if online sales >siphon business away from traditional merchants.
>Further complicating the issue is the existence of more than 6,000 sales tax jurisdictions nationwide, with widely >varying rules.
So basically what will happen is that different states will end up with yet another set of taxation rules that apply to internet sales. Seeing as how internet sales will generally occur across state lines this will result in vast amounts of confusion as different states attempt to try to apply different laws, and people and businesses will lose out from trying to comply with this patchwork of regulations.
Clinton is obviously in favour of such a tax, and is trying to get enough states to enact it so that it becomes more and more difficult for the advisory commision or his successor to keep the moratorium in force.
Finally, the beastly "moratorium" will come home to roost.
First, a little education. The vaunted moratorium is not a ban on internet taxes. The moratorium is a ban on NEW taxes for the internet. What is means is that existing taxes (like sales taxes) can be applied to internet sales - there's nothing exceptional about a traditional money for goods exchange that occurs via a computer.
The comedy in this is that the/. Libertarians now are coming to an idea that maybe there should be a uniform tax for net transactions...
BUT WAIT! We just said the moratorium prohibits special taxes for net transactions! Sorry, thanks for playing! That's a special net tax -even if it's lower than the average sales tax.
In reality, this is just a big database project. Someone with some venture capital should just set up a database of locations and their various taxing rates. Can it really be more complicated than MapQuest? Retailers then query the database to determine the tax rates.
The internet will not remain a free ride for long. Venture capital that is used today to pay for free shipping will eventually disappear, and businesses will be forced to push their costs back onto the consumers. So too will the tax-free honeymoon end...
And as we see the net (or stockholders) sniveling for more protection from governments (not just in terms of Janet Reno, but in terms of auction fraud, spam and other unpleasantries of internet life) people will need to realize that it ain't free. A team of tech guys to track down hackers costs money, and if you aren't paying your taxes, don't expect legislators to fork over cash to protect you.
The moratorium is a farce. == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
* Spammers fight like hell with the Direct Marketing Association to stop Federal regulation of spam, back in 95-96 or thereabouts. Spammers win, Feds decide to do nothing.
* Anti-spam advocates go into state legislatures, and start to win - state-wide anti-spam statutes pop up in 5 states.
* By my count, including Colorado, 14 states now have anti-spam statutes. (I have the list at work, but I'm on vacation... I only recall WA, CA, VA and NV off the top of my head.)
The beauty of this process is that the state legislatures are not all passing the same law. The Nevada filtration model (ADV in the headers, opt out method must be provided) rules in several states, while other states followed the Washington opt-out model (states set up 'Do not solicit lists' - spammers cannot solicit on that list').
The effective result of this patchwork of state regulation is that by following one state's laws, a spammer can't help but violate another state's laws if the spam is sent nationwide. I don't see how any legal advisor to a spammer can green-light a nationwide spam using the same methods employed in the mid-90s. Trolling the net to scrounge up email addresses doesn't tell you which jurisdiction they're in...
Basically, a list of email addresses is useless unless it has a state field in the dattabase, too. Thank you DoubleClick!
If you don't know which jurisdiction's rules to follow, you shouldn't send the spam. Penalities like this Colorado statute eliminate the old profit model (40 sales of $20 each on 1 million spams was cost effective then; now those 1 million spams will generate you fines... you have to make more sales).
So thank you DMA, for effectively banning spam!
T == "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
}Forget about a movie... does anyone know why the TV series is still only available on video and not on DVD?
The shows probably have the same problem 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' and other Disney movies had - the dirty animators stuck pornographic images all over that you could see going frame to frame...
No wonder I like those Halloween episodes so much...
== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
It would be more appropriate to compare DeCSS to a set of lockpicks. Lockpicks are legal to buy and to use in your own home. The only thing that's illegal is when you use them to break into someone else's house.
In most states, I think you'll find possession of lock pick tools is very illegal. Generally only licensed locksmiths can have them. For your own reading , check Arizona's lockpick tool law. I think the intent element is pretty easy to prove... if DeCSS is a lockpick tool as you say, of course you're using it to break in (or you're distributing it to others who are...)
BUT, go back to the original argument. The MPAA wants to corner the market on PLAYERS. Their security, weak and insecure as it was, was aimed at protecting the ability to play back the files. This is not COPY protection, because you could still copy the entire contents, and get a MPAA player to decode them.
You're not picking the lock on the home. You're taking the "protection" off something you lawfully purchased, to use it in its intended use, but in your own (slightly different) manner. I can't think of an analogy that works really well, but here's a try - it's like buying a foot pump designed to inflate car tires. You use a tool to put on a needle the nozzle, and use it to inflate a basketball.
The overbreadth argument works for me. The MPAA is controlling the viewer market, but like the theater owners did in the 30s and 40s. They are prohibiting independent filmmakers from using the technology to be seen, by forcing it into the hands of a few blessed resellers.
The trade secret is out of the bag, MPAA. You need to sue Xing for the damages as a result, not the holders of the once-secret formula. (Those damages will be hefty, too.)
== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Ok, so I'm not officially involved in the online vote, I have been active in the Arizona Democratic Party and I'm comfortable talking online voting here. However, I AM NOT A SPOKESMAN FOR THE ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY! THESE ARE MY PERSONAL OPINIONS! That disclaimer said, I want to address things I've seen in other threads, with respect to the upcoming Arizona primary.
Time period: Yes, the system will only be open for general population voting for about 48 hours. This is about the time it took people to hack the GCHQ cr/hacker test, but the Votation guys will be watching this system like hawks. I think they'll be able to handle the inevitable attack.
Availability of the system to the general public: Believe me, the Arizona Democratic Party is concerned about reaching core Democratic constituencies, many of whom do not even have access to computers, much less the internet (think about the residents of reservations, residents of poorer communities and minorities). The party is setting up more than 50 traditional polling places statewide with terminals that will conduct voting after the general public has had their chance to vote. Just as mail-in ballots reached out to those who were out of town or unable vote in person, I think this is an excellent way to reach out to younger voters, who still turn out less than any other demographic group.
Anonymity: This has always been a problem with voting. It is a special problem here - DNC rules say that only identified Democrats can cast a ballot. But, it's always been a problem! If you vote with a paper ballot or with a machine, you generally still have to come in and sign the vote register. Only then do you get your anonymous ballot. Voting by mail requires that the voter sign the flap of the envelope! Online, a series of verification checkbacks can be set up that result in a voter casting an anonymous ballot.
Vote fraud: Yes, this is a huge issue. The verification system set up is pretty extensive... The voter will receive a PIN in the mail. They'll have provide that PIN, along with other personal information required on Arizona's voter registration form to be validated to obtain a ballot. And I think the pieces are slowly coming together to prosecute fraud online. And to the people who noted e-commerce isn't 100% safe - there are always people who will try to vote illegally. This system is perhaps better equipped to stop them than some traditional hand-verification procedures. Papaer ballots are just as vulnerable to tampering.
Security: Ok, so now Votation has your verification information. At least they're one vendor, as opposed to having it scattered in the hands of hundreds of election officials statewide. And I think it's pretty much common knowledge that hacking an individual 128-bit-encrypted stream is pretty worthless compared to hacking the server that the votes are taken on. I would think relying on the browser's technology, and guarding the servers should put up a good defense. These Votation guys have conducted stockholder and union votes before, with no problems.
I'll probably get richly flamed for this post, but I think on-line voting is a valuable step in the future of the internet, the future of government and in the social well-being of the country.
== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
But online, this process of learning how to behave is oddly inverted. You might be rewarded for being creative and technologically-skilled, but not for being civil or tolerant. Perhaps more significantly, you never suffer for being hostile. Frequently -- through your ability to post public messages, to attack others and disrupt conversations --- you are actually rewarded.
I see what Katz is saying here in regards to online communities. Back when I had no life and plenty of spare time as an undergrad, I wasted a couple of hundred hours on a MUD, and a couple of thousand on IRC. Flamers and newbies often got noticed by being outrageous and obnoxious. But experienced people could not only control the flamers, but tame the reactions of net.regulars. I led some pretty decent flamewarz when I first got on the net, then spent 2-3 years trying to stop them in a couple of forums.
Online communities are evolving to handle the new users. (See every other thread on the planet that has "Imminent Death of UseNET/IRC/Internet Predicted".) The AOL flood, the spam flood, now the WebTV flood - they bring in 10 people who flame and fade away, and leave 1 person who really gives a crap.
But to my point: Katz tries to extrapolate out that we're all java-writing code punks who sit amongst year-old pizza boxes and empty bags of Cheetos, flaming away at him instead of playing Duke Nukem. (This reply puts aside the journalistic and scientifically poor decision to write about his own personal experiences...) Ok, so I know people like that, too. I think we all do, or we've seen them in places other than movies. But while some of my friends had that life for a while, they discovered the business side of the web. You remember - the dot.com revolution? The key: There are rewards for civility!
Those people quickly discovered that being a sloth and coding may produce great work, but it does not impress a client. Those who would rather be eccentric, angry artists have been fired by clients who just don't put up with that crap. The mainstream of business still wants the blue suits and respect. Look at the recent Apple Computer press conferences... While suits may be a little extreme for most coders, but I've seen some of the new techo-elite in the coffeehouses, and it's their wardrobe.
So, I'll leave Katz's complaints to the invisible hand of the market. Slowly, those flamers will need jobs and will be compelled to learn civility. Otherwise they will be forced to give up their access due to unemployment, or because the men with the white coats are taking them away.
== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
What are they up to? Maybe Gates is positioning himself so that if the DOJ breaks up MS, he can jump ship to the most profitable baby-MS, leaving Ballmer holding the bag with a less viable one?
That really has to be the underlying theme. This press conference had almost no lead time, and the annoucement was so suspicious that the AP Wire put it up on the top of the important annoucements. The implication from the resignation is that the negotiations with DOJ over the breakup are not going well.
Of course Gates and Ballmer will trumpet that they have done nothing wrong, and that the breakup would be horribly bad. But this is kinda like bankruptcy planning - if you see doom on the horizon, there is nothing illegal about getting your money put away (in certain ways - other ways are called 'fraud' {g}). I think Bill is just aiming to be sitting in the right chair when the music stops.
Of course, he has been Microsoft CEO for nearly 25 years, and he has a huge image problem. Maybe the conspiracy theory *is* garbage, and he just wants to do something else. That wouldn't be the first time that happened in the software industry.
== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
I think this is unquestionably a bad thing. We've seen the arrogance of Time Warner just in the past weeks with this debacle over carrying Fox stations in DC and Texas.
The internet thrives on connectivity. Time Warner's theories on openness leave a lot to be desired - look at their Pathfinder service. They've run their cable companies with an iron fist, and now they'll have control of AOL?
Oh yeah, and they're for openness, but only in broadband. What about in cable?
Someone previously mentioned the committment to broadband choice - that's just someone writing comedy into the press release. Vinton Cerf has said that broadband PROVIDERS are driving that revolution - AOL is just going to have to sit and watch unless they buy a provider. There is no incentive for me to put up a fat pipe to your house unless I can sell you the service that is going to run down that pipe. AOL wants access without doing any of the work or investing any of the money.
Someone needs to ask AOL since they are into open broadband, are they willing to open their instant message standard? Demanding openness all depends on whether you're at the short end of the equation.
In short, I think this is a power issue. AOL/TW will have far to much discretionary control over too many media outlets. I saw a syndicated column this morning in The Arizona Republic that mentioned how control of media outlets shapes public opinion, like in the 50s when the major networks supported the Korean War, and in the 60's when they opposed Vietnam. Who knows when that'll be exercised again...
== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Not being a very big Law fanatic, especially not an Uruguayan law fanatic what I would like to know is what, if any impact this would have outside of Uruguay?
Not being an expert in Uruguian law or even in the whole of International Law, but being a fan of the Conflicts area of law...
It all will eventually return to enforcement, even assuming just for the sake of argument (big leap) that the claim to the name Linux is valid. Countries are always debating about the power of each others laws when applied extra-territorially. My Conflicts law book had a picture inside the front cover (a dedication of sorts - pictures are rare in law books) of an obscure Caribbean island's (perhaps Trinidad) capital building. The picture was captioned with a quotation from an English Lord that the laws of Trinidad cannot bind the entire world. It's a principal of self-determination that runs against this Uruguan's claim.
There is a longstanding international organization that handles these things: the World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.org. And since I really don't know enough about it offhand to even speak ineloquently about it, I'll just leave that URL there for your own personal investigation into international trademark law. Whatever the outcome, I think it's a long time off - these kind of disputes never move quickly, especially across hemispheres.
== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Think of all the new quotations we could add to military/political history:
From the Battle of New Orleans: "Damn the firewall, full speed ahead!"
From the Philippines, WWII: "I shall redial."
From Dec. 7 1941: "A day that will live in cache."
General Patton: "Now I want you to remember that no hacker ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb hacker die for his country."
From Berlin, 1961: "Eich ein cDc."
Khruschev at the UN: "We will DoS you!"
Winston Churchill: "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never order pizza."
President Reagan, circa 1983: "I've signed legislation outlawing Microsoft. We begin hacking in 5 minutes."
=== "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
The Big Dumb Patent Bully HAS to be Amazon. I'll second that nomination.
I'll nominate for Domain Name Bully WhatsHappenin.com for their silly lawsuit against QuePasa.com. The internet is NOT english only.
The Cluestick award should go to 2600 Magazine. When will they take down the "Free Kevin" crap? Not only did Mitnick ask for a bunch of the delays in his case, HE PLEAD GUILTY. Biggest media punt of the year.(puts on asbestos underwear)
I nominated for everything but Best Dressed... hmm... maybe Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee? "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
The knock on net.libertarians has everything to do with the issue in hand, and I think you illustrate that beautifully. The idea that people have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies is fine. Completely agree with you there. The downside is when that person reads that some drug will help, gets it, and it doesn't - or worse, it injures them. People make mistakes - a vast majority don't have medical training, and you can't believe everything you read on a website, especially one promoting the sale of a particular drug. When people make mistakes like these - mistakes that aren't really their fault - they want government to help.
Getting the wrong drug is gonna happen in any pharmacy, and will probably happen whenever a human is ever involved in the process. This is aimed at screening for the drug that's gonna hurt you - the drug that a doctor or knowledgable pharmacist wouldn't have given you. That's (in theory) what the FDA is all about.
T "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
[I'm in the same boat you are, law degree, but not practicing (taking bar exam this Feb though...).]
So...... unless you can say with a straight face that people are accidentally writing viruses, their criminal act is a superceding cause that breaks the chain of causation from the vendor.
People aren't accidentally writing viruses, but viruses ARE being distributed accidentally. All it takes is one moron accidentally opening an attachment, and some virus springs forth to infect others. It's hard to argue that the guy clicking on the attachment has criminal intent.
The criminal act of writing the virus is removed from the actual infection. This creates a causation problem in your superceding cause, and defeats the argument. Unless your infector is directly causing the problem (no intermediate accidents), I'd think your argument is structurally unsound.
Indeed, I think quite the opposite. Viruses are so commonplace, and virus scanners so ubiquitous (and even free in some cases) that they are part of the landscape. It's as if you designed a house that looked great in the sun, but collapsed upon the first drop of rain. Sure, the rain is an intervening cause, but you should have planned for it.
As long as net.newbies are in healthy supply, and virus writers still exist, I think you need to incorporate some form of virus protection into your system. Anyone can be infected, and to deny the possibility is to accept some degree of responsibility.
T "This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.paylars.com/paranoia.jpg
It's seriously the funniest thing I've seen since "We hear you! - Your National Security Agency".
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
We here in Arizona passed (and our Governor signed on April 7) the first state law specifically banning DoS attacks. House Bill 2428, in the relevant part (trimming some extra language - language in CAPS is new - formatting on the Ariz. website is much better), says:
13-2316. Computer tampering; venue; forfeiture; classification
A. A person WHO ACTS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR WHO EXCEEDS AUTHORIZATION OF USE commits computer TAMPERING BY:
4. RECKLESSLY DISRUPTING OR CAUSING THE DISRUPTION OF COMPUTER, COMPUTER SYSTEM OR NETWORK SERVICES OR DENYING OR CAUSING THE DENIAL OF COMPUTER OR NETWORK SERVICES TO ANY AUTHORIZED USER OF A COMPUTER,COMPUTER SYSTEM OR NETWORK.
E.
I know Slashdotters think state laws in the international world of the Internet, but it helps Arizona prosecute the bad guys who live here. And with serious felonies on the table, extradition from other states becomes a viable option. This isn't just a trespassing misdemeanor anymore. (FYI: HB 2428 addressed a lot of technology crime issues, from trade secrets to cyberstalking. It's a good read.)
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
I've heard a lot about services like the Star Naming service. Is this finally a way to verify that they're not selling the celestial equivalent of Florida swampland?
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Oh come on! We all know from surfing newgroup pr0n that TV means transvestite! I'm waiting for the MarthaStewart.tv domain to pop up. Then all those rumors will be confirmed.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Neither does American Express. Some joker ran up $10K on my Amex bidding on Ubid.com. Amex not only credited my account, they issued me a new card the same day (I did have to pick it up) and is apparently beating the tar out of Ubid with some lawyers.
In short, shop all ya want with Visa or Amex. If ya get ripped off, it's not your fault!
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
T
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
The issues are already there. Anna Eshoo (D-CA 14th) has a lot of net.savvy - but then she represents Silicon Valley.
T
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
>46 states that impose such a levy. Many governors and local officials fear a deep loss in revenue if online sales
>siphon business away from traditional merchants.
>Further complicating the issue is the existence of more than 6,000 sales tax jurisdictions nationwide, with widely
>varying rules.
So basically what will happen is that different states will end up with yet another set of taxation rules that apply to internet sales. Seeing as how internet sales will generally occur across state lines this will result in vast amounts of confusion as different states attempt to try to apply different laws, and people and businesses will lose out from trying to comply with this patchwork of regulations.
Clinton is obviously in favour of such a tax, and is trying to get enough states to enact it so that it becomes more and more difficult for the advisory commision or his successor to keep the moratorium in force.
Finally, the beastly "moratorium" will come home to roost.
First, a little education. The vaunted moratorium is not a ban on internet taxes. The moratorium is a ban on NEW taxes for the internet. What is means is that existing taxes (like sales taxes) can be applied to internet sales - there's nothing exceptional about a traditional money for goods exchange that occurs via a computer.
The comedy in this is that the /. Libertarians now are coming to an idea that maybe there should be a uniform tax for net transactions...
BUT WAIT! We just said the moratorium prohibits special taxes for net transactions! Sorry, thanks for playing! That's a special net tax -even if it's lower than the average sales tax.
In reality, this is just a big database project. Someone with some venture capital should just set up a database of locations and their various taxing rates. Can it really be more complicated than MapQuest? Retailers then query the database to determine the tax rates.
The internet will not remain a free ride for long. Venture capital that is used today to pay for free shipping will eventually disappear, and businesses will be forced to push their costs back onto the consumers. So too will the tax-free honeymoon end...
And as we see the net (or stockholders) sniveling for more protection from governments (not just in terms of Janet Reno, but in terms of auction fraud, spam and other unpleasantries of internet life) people will need to realize that it ain't free. A team of tech guys to track down hackers costs money, and if you aren't paying your taxes, don't expect legislators to fork over cash to protect you.
The moratorium is a farce.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
* Spammers fight like hell with the Direct Marketing Association to stop Federal regulation of spam, back in 95-96 or thereabouts. Spammers win, Feds decide to do nothing.
* Anti-spam advocates go into state legislatures, and start to win - state-wide anti-spam statutes pop up in 5 states.
* By my count, including Colorado, 14 states now have anti-spam statutes. (I have the list at work, but I'm on vacation... I only recall WA, CA, VA and NV off the top of my head.)
The beauty of this process is that the state legislatures are not all passing the same law. The Nevada filtration model (ADV in the headers, opt out method must be provided) rules in several states, while other states followed the Washington opt-out model (states set up 'Do not solicit lists' - spammers cannot solicit on that list').
The effective result of this patchwork of state regulation is that by following one state's laws, a spammer can't help but violate another state's laws if the spam is sent nationwide. I don't see how any legal advisor to a spammer can green-light a nationwide spam using the same methods employed in the mid-90s. Trolling the net to scrounge up email addresses doesn't tell you which jurisdiction they're in...
Basically, a list of email addresses is useless unless it has a state field in the dattabase, too. Thank you DoubleClick!
If you don't know which jurisdiction's rules to follow, you shouldn't send the spam. Penalities like this Colorado statute eliminate the old profit model (40 sales of $20 each on 1 million spams was cost effective then; now those 1 million spams will generate you fines... you have to make more sales).
So thank you DMA, for effectively banning spam!
T
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
The shows probably have the same problem 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' and other Disney movies had - the dirty animators stuck pornographic images all over that you could see going frame to frame...
No wonder I like those Halloween episodes so much...
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
In most states, I think you'll find possession of lock pick tools is very illegal. Generally only licensed locksmiths can have them. For your own reading , check Arizona's lockpick tool law. I think the intent element is pretty easy to prove... if DeCSS is a lockpick tool as you say, of course you're using it to break in (or you're distributing it to others who are...)
BUT, go back to the original argument. The MPAA wants to corner the market on PLAYERS. Their security, weak and insecure as it was, was aimed at protecting the ability to play back the files. This is not COPY protection, because you could still copy the entire contents, and get a MPAA player to decode them.
You're not picking the lock on the home. You're taking the "protection" off something you lawfully purchased, to use it in its intended use, but in your own (slightly different) manner. I can't think of an analogy that works really well, but here's a try - it's like buying a foot pump designed to inflate car tires. You use a tool to put on a needle the nozzle, and use it to inflate a basketball.
The overbreadth argument works for me. The MPAA is controlling the viewer market, but like the theater owners did in the 30s and 40s. They are prohibiting independent filmmakers from using the technology to be seen, by forcing it into the hands of a few blessed resellers.
The trade secret is out of the bag, MPAA. You need to sue Xing for the damages as a result, not the holders of the once-secret formula. (Those damages will be hefty, too.)
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Time period: Yes, the system will only be open for general population voting for about 48 hours. This is about the time it took people to hack the GCHQ cr/hacker test, but the Votation guys will be watching this system like hawks. I think they'll be able to handle the inevitable attack.
Availability of the system to the general public: Believe me, the Arizona Democratic Party is concerned about reaching core Democratic constituencies, many of whom do not even have access to computers, much less the internet (think about the residents of reservations, residents of poorer communities and minorities). The party is setting up more than 50 traditional polling places statewide with terminals that will conduct voting after the general public has had their chance to vote. Just as mail-in ballots reached out to those who were out of town or unable vote in person, I think this is an excellent way to reach out to younger voters, who still turn out less than any other demographic group.
Anonymity: This has always been a problem with voting. It is a special problem here - DNC rules say that only identified Democrats can cast a ballot. But, it's always been a problem! If you vote with a paper ballot or with a machine, you generally still have to come in and sign the vote register. Only then do you get your anonymous ballot. Voting by mail requires that the voter sign the flap of the envelope! Online, a series of verification checkbacks can be set up that result in a voter casting an anonymous ballot.
Vote fraud: Yes, this is a huge issue. The verification system set up is pretty extensive... The voter will receive a PIN in the mail. They'll have provide that PIN, along with other personal information required on Arizona's voter registration form to be validated to obtain a ballot. And I think the pieces are slowly coming together to prosecute fraud online. And to the people who noted e-commerce isn't 100% safe - there are always people who will try to vote illegally. This system is perhaps better equipped to stop them than some traditional hand-verification procedures. Papaer ballots are just as vulnerable to tampering.
Security: Ok, so now Votation has your verification information. At least they're one vendor, as opposed to having it scattered in the hands of hundreds of election officials statewide. And I think it's pretty much common knowledge that hacking an individual 128-bit-encrypted stream is pretty worthless compared to hacking the server that the votes are taken on. I would think relying on the browser's technology, and guarding the servers should put up a good defense. These Votation guys have conducted stockholder and union votes before, with no problems.
I'll probably get richly flamed for this post, but I think on-line voting is a valuable step in the future of the internet, the future of government and in the social well-being of the country.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
I see what Katz is saying here in regards to online communities. Back when I had no life and plenty of spare time as an undergrad, I wasted a couple of hundred hours on a MUD, and a couple of thousand on IRC. Flamers and newbies often got noticed by being outrageous and obnoxious. But experienced people could not only control the flamers, but tame the reactions of net.regulars. I led some pretty decent flamewarz when I first got on the net, then spent 2-3 years trying to stop them in a couple of forums.
Online communities are evolving to handle the new users. (See every other thread on the planet that has "Imminent Death of UseNET/IRC/Internet Predicted".) The AOL flood, the spam flood, now the WebTV flood - they bring in 10 people who flame and fade away, and leave 1 person who really gives a crap.
But to my point: Katz tries to extrapolate out that we're all java-writing code punks who sit amongst year-old pizza boxes and empty bags of Cheetos, flaming away at him instead of playing Duke Nukem. (This reply puts aside the journalistic and scientifically poor decision to write about his own personal experiences...) Ok, so I know people like that, too. I think we all do, or we've seen them in places other than movies. But while some of my friends had that life for a while, they discovered the business side of the web. You remember - the dot.com revolution? The key: There are rewards for civility!
Those people quickly discovered that being a sloth and coding may produce great work, but it does not impress a client. Those who would rather be eccentric, angry artists have been fired by clients who just don't put up with that crap. The mainstream of business still wants the blue suits and respect. Look at the recent Apple Computer press conferences... While suits may be a little extreme for most coders, but I've seen some of the new techo-elite in the coffeehouses, and it's their wardrobe.
So, I'll leave Katz's complaints to the invisible hand of the market. Slowly, those flamers will need jobs and will be compelled to learn civility. Otherwise they will be forced to give up their access due to unemployment, or because the men with the white coats are taking them away.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
That really has to be the underlying theme. This press conference had almost no lead time, and the annoucement was so suspicious that the AP Wire put it up on the top of the important annoucements. The implication from the resignation is that the negotiations with DOJ over the breakup are not going well.
Of course Gates and Ballmer will trumpet that they have done nothing wrong, and that the breakup would be horribly bad. But this is kinda like bankruptcy planning - if you see doom on the horizon, there is nothing illegal about getting your money put away (in certain ways - other ways are called 'fraud' {g}). I think Bill is just aiming to be sitting in the right chair when the music stops.
Of course, he has been Microsoft CEO for nearly 25 years, and he has a huge image problem. Maybe the conspiracy theory *is* garbage, and he just wants to do something else. That wouldn't be the first time that happened in the software industry.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
The internet thrives on connectivity. Time Warner's theories on openness leave a lot to be desired - look at their Pathfinder service. They've run their cable companies with an iron fist, and now they'll have control of AOL?
Oh yeah, and they're for openness, but only in broadband. What about in cable?
Someone previously mentioned the committment to broadband choice - that's just someone writing comedy into the press release. Vinton Cerf has said that broadband PROVIDERS are driving that revolution - AOL is just going to have to sit and watch unless they buy a provider. There is no incentive for me to put up a fat pipe to your house unless I can sell you the service that is going to run down that pipe. AOL wants access without doing any of the work or investing any of the money.
Someone needs to ask AOL since they are into open broadband, are they willing to open their instant message standard? Demanding openness all depends on whether you're at the short end of the equation.
In short, I think this is a power issue. AOL/TW will have far to much discretionary control over too many media outlets. I saw a syndicated column this morning in The Arizona Republic that mentioned how control of media outlets shapes public opinion, like in the 50s when the major networks supported the Korean War, and in the 60's when they opposed Vietnam. Who knows when that'll be exercised again...
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Not being an expert in Uruguian law or even in the whole of International Law, but being a fan of the Conflicts area of law...
It all will eventually return to enforcement, even assuming just for the sake of argument (big leap) that the claim to the name Linux is valid. Countries are always debating about the power of each others laws when applied extra-territorially. My Conflicts law book had a picture inside the front cover (a dedication of sorts - pictures are rare in law books) of an obscure Caribbean island's (perhaps Trinidad) capital building. The picture was captioned with a quotation from an English Lord that the laws of Trinidad cannot bind the entire world. It's a principal of self-determination that runs against this Uruguan's claim.
There is a longstanding international organization that handles these things: the World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.org. And since I really don't know enough about it offhand to even speak ineloquently about it, I'll just leave that URL there for your own personal investigation into international trademark law. Whatever the outcome, I think it's a long time off - these kind of disputes never move quickly, especially across hemispheres.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
From the Battle of New Orleans:
"Damn the firewall, full speed ahead!"
From the Philippines, WWII:
"I shall redial."
From Dec. 7 1941:
"A day that will live in cache."
General Patton:
"Now I want you to remember that no hacker ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb hacker die for his country."
From Berlin, 1961:
"Eich ein cDc."
Khruschev at the UN:
"We will DoS you!"
Winston Churchill:
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never order pizza."
President Reagan, circa 1983:
"I've signed legislation outlawing Microsoft. We begin hacking in 5 minutes."
===
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
I'll nominate for Domain Name Bully WhatsHappenin.com for their silly lawsuit against QuePasa.com. The internet is NOT english only.
The Cluestick award should go to 2600 Magazine. When will they take down the "Free Kevin" crap? Not only did Mitnick ask for a bunch of the delays in his case, HE PLEAD GUILTY. Biggest media punt of the year.(puts on asbestos underwear)
I nominated for everything but Best Dressed... hmm... maybe Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee?
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Getting the wrong drug is gonna happen in any pharmacy, and will probably happen whenever a human is ever involved in the process. This is aimed at screening for the drug that's gonna hurt you - the drug that a doctor or knowledgable pharmacist wouldn't have given you. That's (in theory) what the FDA is all about.
T
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
So...... unless you can say with a straight face that people are accidentally writing viruses, their criminal act is a superceding cause that breaks the chain of causation from the vendor.
People aren't accidentally writing viruses, but viruses ARE being distributed accidentally. All it takes is one moron accidentally opening an attachment, and some virus springs forth to infect others. It's hard to argue that the guy clicking on the attachment has criminal intent.
The criminal act of writing the virus is removed from the actual infection. This creates a causation problem in your superceding cause, and defeats the argument. Unless your infector is directly causing the problem (no intermediate accidents), I'd think your argument is structurally unsound.
Indeed, I think quite the opposite. Viruses are so commonplace, and virus scanners so ubiquitous (and even free in some cases) that they are part of the landscape. It's as if you designed a house that looked great in the sun, but collapsed upon the first drop of rain. Sure, the rain is an intervening cause, but you should have planned for it.
As long as net.newbies are in healthy supply, and virus writers still exist, I think you need to incorporate some form of virus protection into your system. Anyone can be infected, and to deny the possibility is to accept some degree of responsibility.
T
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."