If I posted bomb threats sure but if everyone who ever called Bush an arsehole had been banned from boarding an aircraft the airline industry would be non-existent by now.
If I as a user posted "The Senate Majority Leader and his family were killed in a car accident this morning!" on this site would it be remotely reasonable to prosecute the owners of slashdot?
Are you seriously saying it would be ok for the government to prosecute the owners of slashdot because I as a user posted "The Senate Majority Leader and his family were killed in a car accident this morning!" on this site?
And we shouldn't dismiss it as perfectly ok just because lots of countries have suffered from oppressive governments in the past. If anything we should learn from our own history and the mistakes made in our own past and oppose suppression of free speech from the get go.
he isn't going after the people who posted the rumours. (which were not defamation, they were rumours that some ministers had been assassinated.) He is going after the owners of a site which had an online forum which someone posted rumours on. It kills open online boards because if you can be prosecuted for whatever your users post then you cannot run an open online forum.
For reference if I posted "chavez was killed by an angry swarm of bees today" on slashdot then the owners of slashdot would be held responsible by Chavez for their malicious rumor spreading.
Or just because it's Chavez who does that then it is suddenly evil and anti-democratic?
If this was a coalition of Jesus, Buddha, and Santa doing this I'd be opposed. You however seem to believe he can do no wrong.
news just in:McCarthyism was a very very bad thing. Are you really trying to say that Chavez suppressing dissent is fine because the US has some black spots? if anything that's a reason why he needs to be stopped now before it gets worse.
Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if Chavez only censors people who oppose him strongly. If there are 10 people talking, 1 opposed, 8 neutral and 1 in favour and Chavez only has the 1 person who's opposed silenced then in Scrameustache's mind that means he isn't really censoring people much since 9 out of 10 weren't censored.
Opposed only to the democratically elected government
That's the whole point of freedom of speech. that you can voice opposition to your government even if it is democratically elected. If I can't call for my government to be dissolved/overthrown/deposed and replaced by another form of government then I don't have freedom of speech.
Chavez does not like free speech. He wants to restrict it to only things he agrees with.
If it's illegal to talk about rumours in public then anything that's bad for the government will be called a rumour.
no no. If I put up a forum and some random forum user posted saying that the US VP died in a freak accident involving a pie-eating contest and a pair of suspenders nobody but the most psychotically credulous would even think about taking it seriously.
It was some forum user that posted it not the site owners.
And nothing is going to happen. If Obama could show some real financial harm from my claim he might be able to get some money out of me but the very fact that I'm powerless and not an authority protects me because my claims can be taken with a grain of salt.
on the other hand if I were in Venezuela and posted this:
"News just in!Chavez caught fucking a goat!!!"
then the owners of slashdot would have commited a crime for spreading false rumours.(probably false anyway)
because that's what this is all about: Some forum users on that site posted a rumor and now chavez wants the Internet controlled so that people can't start rumours.
If you had done 10 seconds research you'd have noticed that this wasn't about a news story posted on the website. It was some random users posting a rumour on the forums. Not the website owners.
Essentially he wants to kill open online forums.
From google translate:
On the evening of Saturday, the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez has asked the Attorney General's Office and the Minister Diosdado Cabello take legal action against this site by false rumors posted two new forumers in one of our forums and concerned the alleged murder of two ombudsmen linked to the Government.
Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him. Can we just accept that he's evil yet? he's been making the effort to convince us all for a while but some people don't seem to want to listen.
On the evening of Saturday, the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez has asked the Attorney General's Office and the Minister Diosdado Cabello take legal action against this site by false rumors posted two new forumers in one of our forums and concerned the alleged murder of two ombudsmen linked to the Government.
Yes. Chavez wants this site shut down and the internet controlled because of some rumour posts on the sites forum by some randomers.
And I know people who've had almost identical experiences trying to get software built in this country. This is not an Indian thing. This is a crappy company thing and those are global.
Well if I'm writing my virus from scratch then it doesn't really matter since the AV won't detect my virus until the company detects it, analyses it and adds it to their definitions. So the 95% of the market it is.
And as a bonus if any employees of any large high value companies use their infected PC's to log in remotely then you can sell those logins to the guys who want to penetrate those high value networks.
Or perhaps stop using losing strategies like Default Permit when it comes to security.
AV software is just an example of Enumerating Badness which in the long run is a very very bad strategy.
Penetration testing is useless as anything other than a metric of how well the system is set up. If penetration testers check your network and find 100 vulnerabilities and you dutifuly fix them all you're barely more secure than before because the problems that lead to those security holes being there in the first place haven't been addressed and it's almost a certainty that there are many many more. It's an example of "Penetrate and Patch" which is a terrible way to do security.
The problem isn't windows. the problem is that people keep using terrible strategies. AV software is useless against a custom virus I write just for attacking your system. Blacklists aren't much good since an attacker only has to get through once. Penetration testing is cool but it's not a way to secure your network.
and yet these things are the standard for approaching security.
And if china requires a "report dissent" button so that Chinese teenagers can report people for calling for a free tibet etc. A few years later you're catching a connecting flight through a Chinese airport....
It's not that hard to teach your kids basic net safety. It's just a pity that social networks fly in the face of it.
I grew up with the simple rules of :
Never give out your real name. Never tell people where you live.
Now of course I worry about my younger cousin since those rules seem to have gone out of fashion to be replaced by it being the norm to post photographs of yourself, post up your full name, full address, date of birth and then post on friends pages about which paths you like to take home from school.
I'm in my early 20's, I'm part of the post endless September generation but pre social networking generation. The I can't decide if the social media generation is retarded or just less paranoid.
Slashdot Mirror
If I posted bomb threats sure but if everyone who ever called Bush an arsehole had been banned from boarding an aircraft the airline industry would be non-existent by now.
Ok in that case:
If I as a user posted
"The Senate Majority Leader and his family were killed in a car accident this morning!"
on this site would it be remotely reasonable to prosecute the owners of slashdot?
Which assertion?
That their audience has been reduced and as such far fewer people can hear what they have to say?
Are you seriously saying it would be ok for the government to prosecute the owners of slashdot because I as a user posted
"The Senate Majority Leader and his family were killed in a car accident this morning!"
on this site?
And we shouldn't dismiss it as perfectly ok just because lots of countries have suffered from oppressive governments in the past.
If anything we should learn from our own history and the mistakes made in our own past and oppose suppression of free speech from the get go.
Don't worry, he's working on the internet.
so as long as you allow people to keep talking but very quietly where not very many people can hear then you're not censoring them.
Riiight.
I happen to live in a country which has not started with that "free speech zones" crap.
Are you honestly saying that Chavez suppressing dissenting opinions is perfectly ok because some other countries abuse freedom of speech as well?
wow
wow.
just wow.
How blinkered can you be?
he isn't going after the people who posted the rumours.
(which were not defamation, they were rumours that some ministers had been assassinated.)
He is going after the owners of a site which had an online forum which someone posted rumours on.
It kills open online boards because if you can be prosecuted for whatever your users post then you cannot run an open online forum.
For reference if I posted "chavez was killed by an angry swarm of bees today" on slashdot then the owners of slashdot would be held responsible by Chavez for their malicious rumor spreading.
Or just because it's Chavez who does that then it is suddenly evil and anti-democratic?
If this was a coalition of Jesus, Buddha, and Santa doing this I'd be opposed.
You however seem to believe he can do no wrong.
news just in:McCarthyism was a very very bad thing.
Are you really trying to say that Chavez suppressing dissent is fine because the US has some black spots?
if anything that's a reason why he needs to be stopped now before it gets worse.
Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if Chavez only censors people who oppose him strongly.
If there are 10 people talking, 1 opposed, 8 neutral and 1 in favour and Chavez only has the 1 person who's opposed silenced then in Scrameustache's mind that means he isn't really censoring people much since 9 out of 10 weren't censored.
Opposed only to the democratically elected government
That's the whole point of freedom of speech.
that you can voice opposition to your government even if it is democratically elected.
If I can't call for my government to be dissolved/overthrown/deposed and replaced by another form of government then I don't have freedom of speech.
Chavez does not like free speech.
He wants to restrict it to only things he agrees with.
If it's illegal to talk about rumours in public then anything that's bad for the government will be called a rumour.
no no.
If I put up a forum and some random forum user posted saying that the US VP died in a freak accident involving a pie-eating contest and a pair of suspenders nobody but the most psychotically credulous would even think about taking it seriously.
It was some forum user that posted it not the site owners.
here is the difference:
In America I can post this:
"News just in! Obama caught fucking a goat!!!"
And nothing is going to happen.
If Obama could show some real financial harm from my claim he might be able to get some money out of me but the very fact that I'm powerless and not an authority protects me because my claims can be taken with a grain of salt.
on the other hand if I were in Venezuela and posted this:
"News just in!Chavez caught fucking a goat!!!"
then the owners of slashdot would have commited a crime for spreading false rumours.(probably false anyway)
because that's what this is all about:
Some forum users on that site posted a rumor and now chavez wants the Internet controlled so that people can't start rumours.
If you had done 10 seconds research you'd have noticed that this wasn't about a news story posted on the website.
It was some random users posting a rumour on the forums.
Not the website owners.
Essentially he wants to kill open online forums.
From google translate:
On the evening of Saturday, the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez has asked the Attorney General's Office and the Minister Diosdado Cabello take legal action against this site by false rumors posted two new forumers in one of our forums and concerned the alleged murder of two ombudsmen linked to the Government.
Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Can we just accept that he's evil yet?
he's been making the effort to convince us all for a while but some people don't seem to want to listen.
Since the summary and TFA don't seem to mention this little tipbit:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=es|en&u=http://www.noticierodigital.com/&prev=/translate_s%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DNoticierodigital%26sl%3Den%26tl%3Des
On the evening of Saturday, the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez has asked the Attorney General's Office and the Minister Diosdado Cabello take legal action against this site by false rumors posted two new forumers in one of our forums and concerned the alleged murder of two ombudsmen linked to the Government.
Yes.
Chavez wants this site shut down and the internet controlled because of some rumour posts on the sites forum by some randomers.
Can't we all just accept that he's evil yet?
Is Google actually delivering on their "Don't be evil" thing?
And I know people who've had almost identical experiences trying to get software built in this country.
This is not an Indian thing.
This is a crappy company thing and those are global.
and regulation/licensing on medical devices.
That's a really expensive one.
First we save money by outsourcing to other companies and then a few years later we'll save even more money by in-sourcing!
It's brilliant!
Well if I'm writing my virus from scratch then it doesn't really matter since the AV won't detect my virus until the company detects it, analyses it and adds it to their definitions.
So the 95% of the market it is.
And as a bonus if any employees of any large high value companies use their infected PC's to log in remotely then you can sell those logins to the guys who want to penetrate those high value networks.
Just for reference:
This is why the current AV model is ultimately hopeless in the long run:
"Reliable Identification of Bounded-length Viruses is NP-complete "
http://dmst.aueb.gr/dds/pubs/jrnl/2002-ieeetit-npvirus/html/npvirus.html
Or perhaps stop using losing strategies like Default Permit when it comes to security.
AV software is just an example of Enumerating Badness which in the long run is a very very bad strategy.
Penetration testing is useless as anything other than a metric of how well the system is set up.
If penetration testers check your network and find 100 vulnerabilities and you dutifuly fix them all you're barely more secure than before because the problems that lead to those security holes being there in the first place haven't been addressed and it's almost a certainty that there are many many more.
It's an example of "Penetrate and Patch" which is a terrible way to do security.
The problem isn't windows. the problem is that people keep using terrible strategies.
AV software is useless against a custom virus I write just for attacking your system.
Blacklists aren't much good since an attacker only has to get through once.
Penetration testing is cool but it's not a way to secure your network.
and yet these things are the standard for approaching security.
If you're writing a virus do you go after 5% of the market or 95%?
And if china requires a "report dissent" button so that Chinese teenagers can report people for calling for a free tibet etc.
A few years later you're catching a connecting flight through a Chinese airport....
It's not that hard to teach your kids basic net safety.
It's just a pity that social networks fly in the face of it.
I grew up with the simple rules of :
Never give out your real name.
Never tell people where you live.
Now of course I worry about my younger cousin since those rules seem to have gone out of fashion to be replaced by it being the norm to post photographs of yourself, post up your full name, full address, date of birth and then post on friends pages about which paths you like to take home from school.
I'm in my early 20's, I'm part of the post endless September generation but pre social networking generation.
The I can't decide if the social media generation is retarded or just less paranoid.