The shift proposed by these bills is radical: all technology that is not expressly permitted becomes forbidden.
This should come as no surprise. After all, the US is edging fast and furious toward a country where any freedom no expressly permitted becomes forbidden. So make sure you read the small print before you buy into the "land of the free" label.
This seems to be the tendency of all civilizations, eventually. After all, power corrupts. But perhaps what is different in this new world is that instead of being enslaved to tyrants and other humans and has been the case throughout history, we are becoming enslaved to corporations, composed of humans. Corporations are devoid of any of the human-characteristics which otherwise might slow or change this progression. Or doesn't it make any difference?
The scary thing about this is that US laws are now increasingly oppressive to the point that their enforcement in an arbitrary fashion seriously degrades the fabric of society.
You can't have a rule-of-law which doesn't apply equally to everyone. I mean, I guess we knew that since well before the OJ trial, but here's a case where a seemingly innocuous crime has unreasonably harsh punishment. Kill a man, get off. Endanger corporate intellectual property, be punished eternally.
But then, I guess even something as simple as speeding could potentially be applied arbitrarily. But we know that cops would never engage in profiling, right?
History has shown that *all* governments tend to opress their citizens eventually. The US is about to learn that big-time.
"So, what you are saying is that us humans ignore our conscious? Knowing what is right and wrong, we often/sometimes choose wrong? Wow, where did you get that one? Who is right concerning this issue?"
Yes. I am saying that we often make our decisions based on something other than that which would keep our conscience clearest. Be it money, fame, or power, we usually have other influences guiding our decisions. Very rarely will we clearly state our conflicts of interest in the open.
"Your 'enlightened' take on human nature is way to simplistic."
Perhaps. But it probably reflects my opinion that, despite our amazing sophistication, we all share very simple motivations: Our human nature drives us toward a "survival of the fittest" goal, rather than than having us believe that ultimately, we are all created equal.
I imagine that we are probably in agreement that there is no room in the world for suicide bombers. But, IMHO, the solution can't be to "blow them up before they blow us up". Look through history and tell me how this creates a stable civilization?
The only difference now, is that our amazing technology (the world, not just the US) brings that much more amazing destruction.
In some sad way, I'm comforted by the fact that this war confirms that human nature is very consistent. Power corrupts humans, regardless of what religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or political leaning.
The whole situation leading up to the war is obviously complex, with all parties (eg, Iraq, US, UN, UK, France, Turkey, etc.) pushing their own agenda while claiming that they do what they do in the name of [choose one] humanity, religion, security, etc. Ultimately, though, we do what we do because it is human nature:
Despite knowing right from wrong, we will usually choose what feels good. Mostly that means the one with the biggest stick wins.
While Google's technology is excellent, their domination is due to their credibility. The competition undermines itself again and again by considering pay-for-placement of search results, but Google has understood from the start that they are only as good as their perceived credibility.
After all, who would willingly choose to use a library where the librarians have a clear economic or political slant when a free alternative exists without the slant.
While Google has proven that they can build good technology, they quickly grasped a lesson that we/. readers should remember:
The are sometimes policy solutions to technology problems. There are never technology solutions to policy problems.
Google first keeps ahead of the policy dilemmas (ensuring credibility, complying with various regulations, etc.) and then, second, builds excellent technology to support good policy.
"I am a grad student that just finished writing my thesis on the conflict that now exists in this information/information technology arena (which can ONLY be characterized as political, unfortunately)."
Exactly! We (the slashdot public) *love* technology... but for better or worse, technology (yes, *all* technology) is amoral. It is the policies which we humans make regarding this technology that determines how we use it.
It brings to light this key fact:
"Privacy is not now and never has been primarily a technical problem; rather, it is a management problem. There are sometimes management solutions to technical problems; there are never technical solutions to management problems."
The US was founded on the recognition that all governments tend, sooner or later, to oppress their citizens. Thus, the only government which wouldn't be oppressive is one that is of, by, and for its citizens ("the people").
We're at a pretty critical crossroads now, where the rights of large organizations (corporate and governmental) are at a precarious balance with the rights of individual citizens. In particular, democracy coming into direct conflict with safety, and, in other arenas (such as intellectual property issues [eg, RIAA, MPAA]), clashing directly with capitalism.
If the government feels that the best way to ensure safety is to prevent the unfettered, unmonitered flow of individuals, then one has to ask how true democracy can really be practiced.
The "war on terrorism" threatens to turn us from a nation-of-rules to a nation-of-men. Once we entrust *any* group of people to regulate us with minimal checks and balances, then any sense of democracy will is doomed. I can't think of a better environment for abuse then monitoring virtually all electronic communications between private citizens.
Imperfect security is the price we pay for our democratic ideals. This is a price I think most of us are willing to pay for our freedom.
But you're missing the point... As technology becomes ever more integrated with our lives, the option of "just turn it off" becomes increasingly less possible. No, not from a technical perspective, but from a *social* perspective.
Sure, you could turn your cell phone off when you're not making a call so that telco's and gov can't triangulate your position, but do you?
Sure, you could pay for everything in cash instead of credit to avoid an electronic trail, but do you?
Sure, you could wait 10 minutes at the bridge instead of using a new electronic toll payment system, but do you?
Smart agents and networked technologies like this erode our privacy. But do we get enough in return?
"This event is called the "Singularity" by analogy with the singularity at the center of a black hole - just as our current model of physics breaks down when it attempts to describe the center of a black hole, our model of the future breaks down once the future contains smarter-than-human minds. Since technology is itself the product of intelligence, the Singularity is an effect that snowballs once it occurs - the first smart minds can create smarter minds, and smarter minds can produce still smarter minds. "
Whe we are no longer the smartest on the planet, then I suppose that we deserve the same treatment that we currently give to creatures of lesser intelligence: eat them, keep them alive for entertainment, or kill them for sport...
>Seriously though, this is a good reminder that there are billions of people on this planet that don't have the right to freely share ideas.
Don't deceive yourself. There are many corporate interests within the US which actively curtail our ability to freely exchange ideas. Unfortunately, since the "war on terrorism", it has become much easier to strip away free speech by saying it is necessary for security.
What with the advent of the US Patriot Act and other such measures, we are well on our way toward government control like China (both online and offline). It just hasn't gotten quite so bad, yet...
Our constitution promotes democracy, not capitalism. Unfortunately, these two are usually considered equivalient for some bizarre reason. Until people realize that democracy is what makes us great, expect your liberties to erode. Watch what happens in China closely.
These platforms allow you to use your favorite java tools IDE (eg, Jbuilder) and give you a lean VM that runs on the palm. There are some tradeoffs and the UI libraries are differe,t but IMHO the simplicity of these platforms and the open-source nature make them very attractive.
These platforms have also been ported to Palm, WinCE, Zaurus, TI-calculator (really!), Newton, 386, etc, as well as running under standard java as an applet. Many alternatives.
His resignation is admirable, but such an act needs to be followed with a show of solidarity if it is to be meanginful. A good place to start would be pointing your uninformed friends to boycottadobe.com
As other slashdotters have pointed out, mere compaining is not likely to do anything in particular. An organized show of support against adobe, and against the DMCA is much more likely to be effective.
What is the best approach to organizing against adobe and the DMCA? Letter writing? Boycott? Something else?
What about flooding local editorial pages of newspapers with well written letters describing the dangers of the DMCA so that our non-linux guru friends (and the media) can understand and support the cause?
>Why do you think people are so unwilling to pay for content (without all of the "information wants to be free" arguments, please).
If you eliminate all the 'information wants to be free' arguments, then all you're left with is justifications that 'information is worth paying for.'
Don't gripe to me when we end up with a social structure which is tied to an individuals relative ability to pay for information (take a look at the falling through the net studies from the US NTIA)
Choosing to eliminate arguments based on the free-flow of information is a *very* dangerous idea! I would have thought (hoped) that you guys would be a bit more careful...
Given the poor consumer relations and business practices of digital convergence, I think our course of action (as a group) is clear and probably even legal:
1) Obtain and "misuse" as many cuecat's as possible - Do not sign anything at RS when you pick it up, and certainly don't open that useless software with the EULA on it. Suggested uses for CueCat are: generic barcode reader, cat toy, paperweight, etc. Anything *except* uses which aid digital convergence's business model.
2) Tell people what you are doing and why... it doesn't help unless they can see what their silly letter has brought upon them. Tell forbes, digital convergence, radioshack, etc.
There does seem to be too much hype and too few details to the story. A questionable point in my mind: Just how does one track a user to an IP address based on email? Unless you control the originating SMTP server (hence you could cull the logs), it must be very difficult to resolve a user down to an IP... in this story, the return domain was forged but the originating SMTP was stolen from an unrelated service, so how is the spammer IP address resolved?
While warning viewers about the presence of potentially offensive content might be good netiquette, the act of unplugging someone, in part, for not posting such a warning can be characterized as nothing other than *censorship*.
As you point out, confusion about domain names was the primary reason for the (inappropriate) legal action of etoys.com. Their attempt to *protect* the net community from etoy, however, is analogous to my going directly to the police and having them confiscate your stereo rather than a simple warning directly to you...
Maybe if you had my $1,000,000 webTV box, that might be justified, but IMHO, etoys action smells of censorship and intimidation. I wholeheartedly support a boycott of this $3b (and falling) gorilla.
Slashdot Mirror
The shift proposed by these bills is radical: all technology that is not expressly permitted becomes forbidden.
This should come as no surprise. After all, the US is edging fast and furious toward a country where any freedom no expressly permitted becomes forbidden. So make sure you read the small print before you buy into the "land of the free" label.
This seems to be the tendency of all civilizations, eventually. After all, power corrupts. But perhaps what is different in this new world is that instead of being enslaved to tyrants and other humans and has been the case throughout history, we are becoming enslaved to corporations, composed of humans. Corporations are devoid of any of the human-characteristics which otherwise might slow or change this progression. Or doesn't it make any difference?
The scary thing about this is that US laws are now increasingly oppressive to the point that their enforcement in an arbitrary fashion seriously degrades the fabric of society.
You can't have a rule-of-law which doesn't apply equally to everyone. I mean, I guess we knew that since well before the OJ trial, but here's a case where a seemingly innocuous crime has unreasonably harsh punishment. Kill a man, get off. Endanger corporate intellectual property, be punished eternally.
But then, I guess even something as simple as speeding could potentially be applied arbitrarily. But we know that cops would never engage in profiling, right?
History has shown that *all* governments tend to opress their citizens eventually. The US is about to learn that big-time.
"So, what you are saying is that us humans ignore our conscious? Knowing what is right and wrong, we often/sometimes choose wrong? Wow, where did you get that one? Who is right concerning this issue?"
Yes. I am saying that we often make our decisions based on something other than that which would keep our conscience clearest. Be it money, fame, or power, we usually have other influences guiding our decisions. Very rarely will we clearly state our conflicts of interest in the open.
"Your 'enlightened' take on human nature is way to simplistic."
Perhaps. But it probably reflects my opinion that, despite our amazing sophistication, we all share very simple motivations: Our human nature drives us toward a "survival of the fittest" goal, rather than than having us believe that ultimately, we are all created equal.
I imagine that we are probably in agreement that there is no room in the world for suicide bombers. But, IMHO, the solution can't be to "blow them up before they blow us up". Look through history and tell me how this creates a stable civilization?
The only difference now, is that our amazing technology (the world, not just the US) brings that much more amazing destruction.
In some sad way, I'm comforted by the fact that this war confirms that human nature is very consistent. Power corrupts humans, regardless of what religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or political leaning.
The whole situation leading up to the war is obviously complex, with all parties (eg, Iraq, US, UN, UK, France, Turkey, etc.) pushing their own agenda while claiming that they do what they do in the name of [choose one] humanity, religion, security, etc. Ultimately, though, we do what we do because it is human nature:
Despite knowing right from wrong, we will usually choose what feels good. Mostly that means the one with the biggest stick wins.
Sucks to be human sometimes...
While Google's technology is excellent, their domination is due to their credibility. The competition undermines itself again and again by considering pay-for-placement of search results, but Google has understood from the start that they are only as good as their perceived credibility.
/. readers should remember:
After all, who would willingly choose to use a library where the librarians have a clear economic or political slant when a free alternative exists without the slant.
While Google has proven that they can build good technology, they quickly grasped a lesson that we
The are sometimes policy solutions to technology problems. There are never technology solutions to policy problems.
Google first keeps ahead of the policy dilemmas (ensuring credibility, complying with various regulations, etc.) and then, second, builds excellent technology to support good policy.
"I am a grad student that just finished writing my thesis on the conflict that now exists in this information/information technology arena (which can ONLY be characterized as political, unfortunately)."
Exactly! We (the slashdot public) *love* technology... but for better or worse, technology (yes, *all* technology) is amoral. It is the policies which we humans make regarding this technology that determines how we use it.
It brings to light this key fact:
"Privacy is not now and never has been primarily a technical problem; rather, it is a management problem. There are sometimes management solutions to technical problems; there are never technical solutions to management problems."
The US was founded on the recognition that all governments tend, sooner or later, to oppress their citizens. Thus, the only government which wouldn't be oppressive is one that is of, by, and for its citizens ("the people").
We're at a pretty critical crossroads now, where the rights of large organizations (corporate and governmental) are at a precarious balance with the rights of individual citizens. In particular, democracy coming into direct conflict with safety, and, in other arenas (such as intellectual property issues [eg, RIAA, MPAA]), clashing directly with capitalism.
If the government feels that the best way to ensure safety is to prevent the unfettered, unmonitered flow of individuals, then one has to ask how true democracy can really be practiced.
The "war on terrorism" threatens to turn us from a nation-of-rules to a nation-of-men. Once we entrust *any* group of people to regulate us with minimal checks and balances, then any sense of democracy will is doomed. I can't think of a better environment for abuse then monitoring virtually all electronic communications between private citizens.
Imperfect security is the price we pay for our democratic ideals. This is a price I think most of us are willing to pay for our freedom.
But you're missing the point... As technology becomes ever more integrated with our lives, the option of "just turn it off" becomes increasingly less possible. No, not from a technical perspective, but from a *social* perspective.
Sure, you could turn your cell phone off when you're not making a call so that telco's and gov can't triangulate your position, but do you?
Sure, you could pay for everything in cash instead of credit to avoid an electronic trail, but do you?
Sure, you could wait 10 minutes at the bridge instead of using a new electronic toll payment system, but do you?
Smart agents and networked technologies like this erode our privacy. But do we get enough in return?
How much would you sell *your* privacy for?
I suppose that we are far better predicting spam rates in 2007 than we were in 1997 at predicting 2002 spam rates.
Did our prediction accuracy increase when we could finally build a Quad 2GHz Xeon board?
C'mon people... in 2007 spam will take many other forms than just email.
"This event is called the "Singularity" by analogy with the singularity at the center of a black hole - just as our current model of physics breaks down when it attempts to describe the center of a black hole, our model of the future breaks down once the future contains smarter-than-human minds. Since technology is itself the product of intelligence, the Singularity is an effect that snowballs once it occurs - the first smart minds can create smarter minds, and smarter minds can produce still smarter minds. "
Whe we are no longer the smartest on the planet, then I suppose that we deserve the same treatment that we currently give to creatures of lesser intelligence: eat them, keep them alive for entertainment, or kill them for sport...
Scary thought!!!
>Seriously though, this is a good reminder that there are billions of people on this planet that don't have the right to freely share ideas.
Don't deceive yourself. There are many corporate interests within the US which actively curtail our ability to freely exchange ideas. Unfortunately, since the "war on terrorism", it has become much easier to strip away free speech by saying it is necessary for security.
What with the advent of the US Patriot Act and other such measures, we are well on our way toward government control like China (both online and offline). It just hasn't gotten quite so bad, yet...
Our constitution promotes democracy, not capitalism. Unfortunately, these two are usually considered equivalient for some bizarre reason. Until people realize that democracy is what makes us great, expect your liberties to erode. Watch what happens in China closely.
There are also java-like development platforms for the palm such as superwaba (www.superwaba.com) and waba (www.wabasoft.com).
These platforms allow you to use your favorite java tools IDE (eg, Jbuilder) and give you a lean VM that runs on the palm. There are some tradeoffs and the UI libraries are differe,t but IMHO the simplicity of these platforms and the open-source nature make them very attractive.
These platforms have also been ported to Palm, WinCE, Zaurus, TI-calculator (really!), Newton, 386, etc, as well as running under standard java as an applet. Many alternatives.
As other slashdotters have pointed out, mere compaining is not likely to do anything in particular. An organized show of support against adobe, and against the DMCA is much more likely to be effective.
What is the best approach to organizing against adobe and the DMCA? Letter writing? Boycott? Something else?
What about flooding local editorial pages of newspapers with well written letters describing the dangers of the DMCA so that our non-linux guru friends (and the media) can understand and support the cause?
If you eliminate all the 'information wants to be free' arguments, then all you're left with is justifications that 'information is worth paying for.'
Don't gripe to me when we end up with a social structure which is tied to an individuals relative ability to pay for information (take a look at the falling through the net studies from the US NTIA)
Choosing to eliminate arguments based on the free-flow of information is a *very* dangerous idea! I would have thought (hoped) that you guys would be a bit more careful...
1) Obtain and "misuse" as many cuecat's as possible - Do not sign anything at RS when you pick it up, and certainly don't open that useless software with the EULA on it. Suggested uses for CueCat are: generic barcode reader, cat toy, paperweight, etc. Anything *except* uses which aid digital convergence's business model.
2) Tell people what you are doing and why... it doesn't help unless they can see what their silly letter has brought upon them. Tell forbes, digital convergence, radioshack, etc.
How many cuecat's do YOU have?
There does seem to be too much hype and too few details to the story. A questionable point in my mind: Just how does one track a user to an IP address based on email? Unless you control the originating SMTP server (hence you could cull the logs), it must be very difficult to resolve a user down to an IP... in this story, the return domain was forged but the originating SMTP was stolen from an unrelated service, so how is the spammer IP address resolved?
As you point out, confusion about domain names was the primary reason for the (inappropriate) legal action of etoys.com. Their attempt to *protect* the net community from etoy, however, is analogous to my going directly to the police and having them confiscate your stereo rather than a simple warning directly to you...
Maybe if you had my $1,000,000 webTV box, that might be justified, but IMHO, etoys action smells of censorship and intimidation. I wholeheartedly support a boycott of this $3b (and falling) gorilla.