The ability of an individual to use one computer to conduct both lawful and unlawful activities or to store both contraband and legally possessed material presents another significant issue. Such commingling defies simple solutions. The fact is, one computer can be used simultaneously as a storage device, a communications device (e.g., to send, store, or retrieve e-mail), and a publishing device. Moreover, that same computer can be used simultaneously for both lawful and unlawful ventures, and the problem becomes more complex when a single machine is shared by many users.
For example, individuals who distribute child pornography or copyrighted software using their home computers may also publish a legitimate newsletter on stamp collecting or use an e-mail service with that same computer. By seizing the computer, law enforcement agencies can stop the illegal distribution of contraband, but may, at the same time, interfere with the legitimate publication of the newsletter and the delivery of e-mail, some of which may be between users who have no connection with the illegal activity. Similarly, a doctor who is illegally prescribing drugs over the Internet may not only have on her computer evidence relating to the illegal prescriptions, but files related to her lawfully treated patients. Likewise, an attorney accused of operating an Internet sportsbook may keep in the same folder on his computer materials relating to his gambling business and documents subject to the attorney-client privilege. Seizure of the doctor?s or the lawyer?s files in such circumstances could result in the seizure of legally privileged material.
First off READ THE document, it is very reasonable. Here are two of the relevant paragraphs from it.
These issues are frequently at the heart of legislative and investigative efforts. Although there have been proposals to build identification mechanisms into Internet protocols, such an approach would have to be supported by internationally-recognized, market-based, standards-making bodies whose agenda did not directly include public safety. Even if the market supported such an approach, however, such proposals are controversial, because there are strong reasons to allow anonymity in communications networks. For example, whistleblowers may wish to remain anonymous, as may a group of rape victims who wish to convene an electronic meeting to discuss their experiences without revealing their identities.
In an attempt to create a framework for evaluating identification mechanisms on the Internet, some have compared the Internet with other forms of communications, such as pay telephones and regular mail, which may offer users some degree of anonymity. Of course, the difference between these traditional means of communication and the Internet is significant, and attempting to solve Internet problems only by drawing analogies to existing technologies will often fail. The problem is that the analogies may capture some aspects of the new technology, but fail to capture others. For example, the telephone and mail systems cited above allow predominantly one-to-one communications. Although someone wishing to defame a public figure or harass others can, in theory, call thousands of people anonymously, the time and cost make this impractical. By contrast, the cost-free, simple, one-to-many nature of the Internet dramatically alters the scope and impact of communications. It is this difference which explains why children who would never spend their weekly allowance buying The Anarchist Cookbook at a college bookstore may download the same information from the Internet and possibly injure themselves or others testing a recipe for the making of a bomb. Given the complexity of this issue, balancing the need for accountability with the need for anonymity may be one of the greatest policy challenges in the years ahead.
If they continue to take steps realizing the importance of the issues we may not have to worry about losing anomynity. Andrew
I don't like this. The DVD-CCA says who can have DVD and now this! This will harm both consumers and small companies by creating artificial barriers to entry that in the end will harm competition and innovation. (Look Mr. Gates theres that word!) It is these things, the vary subtle things, that erode the governments power to protect the individual and create an government not For The People, but for For The Corporations. Which will hurt those who do not have the power to create influence the laws that are passed.
Will NGO's create the balance of power capable of defending the people? I dunno...
Money./. wants our readership. Good stories bring us here therefore they get more money. Simple as that. We really don't have that much to worry about. Granted some people might be worried that it will become less technical than it used to be but biased to companies? No, I'm not worried.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability of an individual to use one computer to conduct both lawful and unlawful activities or to store both contraband and legally possessed material presents another significant issue. Such commingling defies simple solutions. The fact is, one computer can be used simultaneously as a storage device, a communications device (e.g., to send, store, or retrieve e-mail), and a publishing device. Moreover, that same computer can be used simultaneously for both lawful and unlawful ventures, and the problem becomes more complex when a single machine is shared by many users.
For example, individuals who distribute child pornography or copyrighted software using their home computers may also publish a legitimate newsletter on stamp collecting or use an e-mail service with that same computer. By seizing the computer, law enforcement agencies can stop the illegal distribution of contraband, but may, at the same time, interfere with the legitimate publication of the newsletter and the delivery of e-mail, some of which may be between users who have no connection with the illegal activity. Similarly, a doctor who is illegally prescribing drugs over the Internet may not only have on her computer evidence relating to the illegal prescriptions, but files related to her lawfully treated patients. Likewise, an attorney accused of operating an Internet sportsbook may keep in the same folder on his computer materials relating to his gambling business and documents subject to the attorney-client privilege. Seizure of the doctor?s or the lawyer?s files in such circumstances could result in the seizure of legally privileged material.
Quite relevant to /.er's...
These issues are frequently at the heart of legislative and investigative efforts. Although there have been proposals to build identification mechanisms into Internet protocols, such an approach would have to be supported by internationally-recognized, market-based, standards-making bodies whose agenda did not directly include public safety. Even if the market supported such an approach, however, such proposals are controversial, because there are strong reasons to allow anonymity in communications networks. For example, whistleblowers may wish to remain anonymous, as may a group of rape victims who wish to convene an electronic meeting to discuss their experiences without revealing their identities.
In an attempt to create a framework for evaluating identification mechanisms on the Internet, some have compared the Internet with other forms of communications, such as pay telephones and regular mail, which may offer users some degree of anonymity. Of course, the difference between these traditional means of communication and the Internet is significant, and attempting to solve Internet problems only by drawing analogies to existing technologies will often fail. The problem is that the analogies may capture some aspects of the new technology, but fail to capture others. For example, the telephone and mail systems cited above allow predominantly one-to-one communications. Although someone wishing to defame a public figure or harass others can, in theory, call thousands of people anonymously, the time and cost make this impractical. By contrast, the cost-free, simple, one-to-many nature of the Internet dramatically alters the scope and impact of communications. It is this difference which explains why children who would never spend their weekly allowance buying The Anarchist Cookbook at a college bookstore may download the same information from the Internet and possibly injure themselves or others testing a recipe for the making of a bomb. Given the complexity of this issue, balancing the need for accountability with the need for anonymity may be one of the greatest policy challenges in the years ahead.
If they continue to take steps realizing the importance of the issues we may not have to worry about losing anomynity. Andrew
I don't like this. The DVD-CCA says who can have DVD and now this! This will harm both consumers and small companies by creating artificial barriers to entry that in the end will harm competition and innovation. (Look Mr. Gates theres that word!) It is these things, the vary subtle things, that erode the governments power to protect the individual and create an government not For The People, but for For The Corporations. Which will hurt those who do not have the power to create influence the laws that are passed.
Will NGO's create the balance of power capable of defending the people? I dunno...
It's kinda ironic to the Free Software community that the MPAA opposes UCITA.
Money. /. wants our readership. Good stories bring us here therefore they get more money. Simple as that. We really don't have that much to worry about. Granted some people might be worried that it will become less technical than it used to be but biased to companies? No, I'm not worried.
Andrew Shaw