A lot of the postings in this discussion focus on property law. Information is not property the way a car or a banana might be. The main point is this: the government could easily give back Mitnick's data and retain a copy.
A lot of us think he shouldn't have been sent down in the first place, and would change IP law, but the relevant legal arguments are going to center around what the data represents, as in, the data is a tool to do things. They wont focus on whether the data is speech or who it belongs to.
If Kevin had invented super weapons (which, in some people minds he did), and noone else could figure out how to work them, and he took them and killed someone (but noone knew how he managed to do it, just that he did), and got put away for 10 years, he couldnt come back and ask for their return. So I think hes gonna lose this one.
Nobody's forcing anyone to use any particular scheme, right?
I think this misses the point. The point seems to be that (at least right now) there isn't any *reasonable* scheme that anyone has figured out how to use to copyright digital media. So there is no choice. And the industry has turned to the legal system and repressive arms of government to enforce what they cannot technologically achieve -- copy protection.
Personally, I am against all copyright law. If you can "protect" your intellectual property and really think its worth it, or necessary, by all means, go ahead. But you have no right telling me how to use my mind, and my resources as long as I am not hurting anybody else. Thats what a free, open society requires. This idea of people having an implicit "right to profit" off ideas is BS, and it would behoove people to recognize what the kind of environment that awaits those who embrace the ideology of intellectual property (micro$oft is a big beneficiary, par example). Oh, and I know this might sound hypocritical in a forum of people who make a living by thinking, but it's not. Intellectual property is more about the right to keep making money off old thoughts once the thinking stops, and my guess is most people here make their way by constantly working to solve problems, rather than coming up with an idea or a solution, patenting it, and living off the royalties.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours. You can try and hide your actions by cloaking it in phrases like 'making a backup', or it 'they won't notice' or whatever, but there can be no argument that it is theft.
Um, right. And god forbid you have a good memory, and you memorize a poem. Or learn how to play a song on your guitar. Right? Or write down a passage you like out of a book... or....
So the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone. To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
The big deal is that what is "legal" and what is "property" is determined by a legal system which is constructed and maintained by human beings, all of whom are fallible and corruptible, and to the extent that these weaknesses manifest themselves in the system, other human beings have every right (and perhaps even a responsibility) to comment.
Pardon me for replying to my own post, but I'd just like to add that one of the main reasons there isnt a huge uproar about white supremacist spam -- most fringe groups dont tend to post their "noxious personal opinions all over the web" because they like to cluster with like-minded people in safe forums -- is precisely because forums like alt.politics.white-power exist for them to vent their stupidity on themselves.
Consider a group basically everyone despises: white supremacists. If an ISP were to rise up, comprised entirely of Aryan Nation skinheads, and if their thousands of clients were to post every day their noxious personal opinions all over the web, there is a smal but real possibility that some news admins would call for a UDP against the service. There is also the possibility that this UDP would go into effect, although no actual crime or harm had been committed, and the silenced participants were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.
ummm, ever hear of alt.politics.white-power? There's a newsgroup for white supremacists, but you could see a UDP against a "white-power" service provider for reasons of political speech censorship? I dunno.....
By the way, don't insult me by calling me a libertarian because I believe in free speech and self-government. Most libertarians think they do, but they really don't.
Consider a group basically everyone despises: white supremacists. If an ISP were to rise up, comprised entirely of Aryan Nation skinheads, and if their thousands of clients were to post every day their noxious personal opinions all over the web, there is a smal but real possibility that some news admins would call for a UDP against the service. There is also the possibility that this UDP would go into effect, although no actual crime or harm had been committed, and the silenced participants were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.
ummm, ever hear of alt.politics.white-power? There's a newsgroup for white supremacists, but you could see a UDP against a "white-power" service provider for reasons of political speech censorship? I dunno.....
No, I'm not paranoid. I know that whatever they can do, they won't agree on what to do.
Except when "they" are being funded by the same advertiser, or "they" consolidate a monopoly (as "they" are well on "their" way to doing now. Insidious conspiracy it isn't. Good, common business sense is what it is. Call the cynics clued-in or paranoid, the bottom line is, the cynics got one thing right ---> Anyway "they" can screw you for a buck, "they" will.
Oh, and another thing. So, when, and if Fox says CNN faked something (and doesnt get sued), CNN fires back with "Fox is lying to cover up the truth", who do you believe? The network that brought you "World's Wildest Police Videos" owned by filthy media monopolist Rupert Murdoch, or the network owned by ruthless megalopoly AOL-Time-Warner? Me, I'll turn to independent media outlets (like slashdot), if they haven't been made illegal, because most likely neither Fox nor CNN will be reporting well on anything worth my time.
Point being, "competition" wont (and hasn't been, if you've been paying attention) prevent these problems the way you insinuate it would.
Voting (in the US) is a means of coercion. One faction within society tries to force its will onto another. If you participate in the process, you accept its logical outcome, just as you should accept the outcome if you choose to gamble at the casino, bet at the races, invest in a company, etc. No different.
Your argument assumes that there is (a) a legitimate way to participate in the process of voting if you are disgusted with the choices or the concept (b) some way to get your vote counted as "none of the above" without legitimizing the process by turning out.
Anyway, people who choose not to vote ought to talk about their choice with others, but I don't think that you can tell me that 48% turnout in presidential elections doesnt hurt and isnt felt! It exposes the US as the laughing stock it is (some "democracy", when the majority feels disenfranchised enough not to participate). It matters not (think of an outsider observing this process) whether the US citizen doesnt vote out of apathy or disgust. What is conveyed is that the government has failed to instill its "values of citizenship" in its own people, and that is a big failure for a state to endure! As those values disappear, the state must turn more and more to oppressive tactics to achieve control that once was voluntarily submission, and eventually suffers a revolution when people get sick of not being represented. The point is: the burden of "proof" is on the part of the state -- because the social contract is "entered into" involuntarily, the state relies on the citizenry to actively affirm it. And the claim that not voting affirms the status quo is nothing more than an echo of the propaganda fed to high school students.
I'm not advocating not voting as a form of protest, even though I don't and I consider my actions a protest. I'm pointing out that you are going to have to make a much more convincing argument to prove that my actions enforce a status quo and don't prove injurious to the power structure that exists.
Also: They require law enforcement to prevent fraud and theft, for one. They require intellectual property rights to prevent losing market share to copycats. They require road/airport infastructure for delivery services. They require the legal system to maintain corporate order (suing people, being sued, lawyers, contracts, etc). The list goes on and on....
As a form of protest, not voting is about as effective as taking a vow of silence. All it does is not get your voice heard.
Patently false. The old guard in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc knew the destabilizing effect of poor voter turnout. Hence the one party elections (read your high school "government" book). Today's Indian government knows and fears the commonplace election boycots. Why? Because the mandate to govern in a democracy comes only from the results of elections, and so legitimacy is directly proportional to turnout.
Most people's lives are enveloped in a social contract they did not agree to ahead of time, and had no part in engineering. If they refrain from *actively* acknowledging that social contract, they weaken the fabric of their society. This is a strong form of protest, because it hastens change. And while we are on the topic of "vows of silence", a vow of silence is actually a pretty big deal. Try a "vow-of-silence" next time you encounter a cop. All vows of non-participation in discourse, be it political, military, economic, etc, prove to be incredibly powerful forms of protest, because discourse is a prerequisite to any form of compliance.
You know its because so many people like you don't vote and don't care that they system is so messed up. Why do you think Special intrests are so powerfull. Its because the folks who support them go out and *VOTE*. Basicly what your post says is that you want to opt out of the Democratic proccess. So what you end up with is what someone else wants
I disagree. Special interests are so powerful because people/corporations with money fill their coffers. You want change and/or representation in this system? Money talks. Once the tight-fisted nouveau-riche sicon valley types start throwing their money around, maybe your interests will be tended to (why do you think MS lasted this long!). Till then? I think not.
Technology changes fast enough that we can't etch a law into stone before the technology makes the law obsolete (not to mention the technology!).
Exactly. And the only legal solution is to pass MORE NEW LAWS. This is unfortunately the case with much more than just technology law.
Personally, I think it is dumb to claim that one field is more difficult to master. There is a great deal of similarity between the fields of law and technology, in that in order to truly excel in either, knowledge of current developments isn't enough. That is to say, the material is cumulative.... You need to know the history of the field to truly appreciate and understand what is going on on the front lines.
I suppose you haven't been following the discussion. By the way, are you a historian? Do you even know what you are talking about when you say "sitting back on their laurels" (you mean "resting on..." by the way). Can you be a bit more specific about this supposed complacency? My suspicion is that you cannot, because you are as clueless about what you are talking about, as you are about what was being discussed here. But, since you bring it up, and since you obviously need the vocabulary lesson, what you are talking about in yout post is PATRIOTISM and not morality. You think joining your military is important in that "nations fall" when they let their guard down. So if you care about your country, and you want to support your government, whatever they represent, join your military in peacetime. Sure. And remember that loyalty to your nation is patriotism, and not morality, as many a former Nazi patriot can tell you.
Wake up and smell the roses, pal. The world isn't a nice place. There are nasty people out there, and to defend against them, the members of the armed forces have to be ready to do unpleasant things, while the rest of us sleep peacefully in our condos and semis. (a) If the world is a nasty place, what could possibly be the point of holding up the morality of the US armed forces actions in WWII and Kosovo (a dubious morality, very dubious) as a way of legitimizing their existence. Once you start talking about morality, you have to define your terms. The poster before you did give us a definition (as in: killing is wrong). You, did not (as in: killing is wrong, except when its right, and by the way, the world is evil, so who are you to complain, and, um, whatever.) (b) If the original poster is guilty of dealing in absolutes, you are equally as silly. Contrary to what many people think, soldiers, on the whole, don't look forward to going to war. Soldiers usually don't have any say in the matter. Its one thing to talk about WWII, when thousands signed up because they believed in the "cause" and the need to repel the Axis. My grandfather joined the French in WWII after politicians sold out his country (Czechoslovakia). I respect him for that, and he felt empowered and good about he was doing when he joined, because he knew what he was standing up for. But its another thing to talk about joinng the army in peacetime. In this case, losing your right to dictate what fight you join and how you fight is as good a reason as any not to join the armed forces. Basically, joining the army *IN PEACETIME* is an abdication of your own morality, and a promise to act in accordance with an official morality, whatever that ends up being. That means you do whatever the politicians say. Which is fine for some people, who are happy in their trust of the system and their belief that politicians represent us well. People with a more firm grip on reality and the ability to reason for themselves beyond a high school level tend to understand that the government does not do a very good job of being moral. And they know that when they are under that bridge in Korea, training a machine gun on hundreds of women and children who are innocent refugees, and the order comes down the pike to shoot, they will have to. And they won't feel to good about it on the plane home. I hope you are informed enough to get the reference, but I'm not going to hold my breath. -C
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the postings in this discussion focus on property law. Information is not property the way a car or a banana might be. The main point is this: the government could easily give back Mitnick's data and retain a copy.
A lot of us think he shouldn't have been sent down in the first place, and would change IP law, but the relevant legal arguments are going to center around what the data represents, as in, the data is a tool to do things. They wont focus on whether the data is speech or who it belongs to.
If Kevin had invented super weapons (which, in some people minds he did), and noone else could figure out how to work them, and he took them and killed someone (but noone knew how he managed to do it, just that he did), and got put away for 10 years, he couldnt come back and ask for their return. So I think hes gonna lose this one.
Nobody's forcing anyone to use any particular scheme, right?
I think this misses the point. The point seems to be that (at least right now) there isn't any *reasonable* scheme that anyone has figured out how to use to copyright digital media. So there is no choice. And the industry has turned to the legal system and repressive arms of government to enforce what they cannot technologically achieve -- copy protection.
Personally, I am against all copyright law. If you can "protect" your intellectual property and really think its worth it, or necessary, by all means, go ahead. But you have no right telling me how to use my mind, and my resources as long as I am not hurting anybody else. Thats what a free, open society requires. This idea of people having an implicit "right to profit" off ideas is BS, and it would behoove people to recognize what the kind of environment that awaits those who embrace the ideology of intellectual property (micro$oft is a big beneficiary, par example). Oh, and I know this might sound hypocritical in a forum of people who make a living by thinking, but it's not. Intellectual property is more about the right to keep making money off old thoughts once the thinking stops, and my guess is most people here make their way by constantly working to solve problems, rather than coming up with an idea or a solution, patenting it, and living off the royalties.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours. You can try and hide your actions by cloaking it in phrases like 'making a backup', or it 'they won't notice' or whatever, but there can be no argument that it is theft.
Um, right. And god forbid you have a good memory, and you memorize a poem. Or learn how to play a song on your guitar. Right? Or write down a passage you like out of a book... or....
So the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone. To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
The big deal is that what is "legal" and what is "property" is determined by a legal system which is constructed and maintained by human beings, all of whom are fallible and corruptible, and to the extent that these weaknesses manifest themselves in the system, other human beings have every right (and perhaps even a responsibility) to comment.
Pardon me for replying to my own post, but I'd just like to add that one of the main reasons there isnt a huge uproar about white supremacist spam -- most fringe groups dont tend to post their "noxious personal opinions all over the web" because they like to cluster with like-minded people in safe forums -- is precisely because forums like alt.politics.white-power exist for them to vent their stupidity on themselves.
Consider a group basically everyone despises: white supremacists. If an ISP were to rise up, comprised entirely of Aryan Nation skinheads, and if their thousands of clients were to post every day their noxious personal opinions all over the web, there is a smal but real possibility that some news admins would call for a UDP against the service. There is also the possibility that this UDP would go into effect, although no actual crime or harm had been committed, and the silenced participants were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.
ummm, ever hear of alt.politics.white-power? There's a newsgroup for white supremacists, but you could see a UDP against a "white-power" service provider for reasons of political speech censorship? I dunno.....
By the way, don't insult me by calling me a libertarian because I believe in free speech and self-government. Most libertarians think they do, but they really don't.
Consider a group basically everyone despises: white supremacists. If an ISP were to rise up, comprised entirely of Aryan Nation skinheads, and if their thousands of clients were to post every day their noxious personal opinions all over the web, there is a smal but real possibility that some news admins would call for a UDP against the service. There is also the possibility that this UDP would go into effect, although no actual crime or harm had been committed, and the silenced participants were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.
ummm, ever hear of alt.politics.white-power? There's a newsgroup for white supremacists, but you could see a UDP against a "white-power" service provider for reasons of political speech censorship? I dunno.....
so why don't you use emacs and write your own "context sensitive coloring" for those pragmas?
No, I'm not paranoid. I know that whatever they can do, they won't agree on what to do.
Except when "they" are being funded by the same advertiser, or "they" consolidate a monopoly (as "they" are well on "their" way to doing now. Insidious conspiracy it isn't. Good, common business sense is what it is. Call the cynics clued-in or paranoid, the bottom line is, the cynics got one thing right ---> Anyway "they" can screw you for a buck, "they" will.
Oh, and another thing. So, when, and if Fox says CNN faked something (and doesnt get sued), CNN fires back with "Fox is lying to cover up the truth", who do you believe? The network that brought you "World's Wildest Police Videos" owned by filthy media monopolist Rupert Murdoch, or the network owned by ruthless megalopoly AOL-Time-Warner? Me, I'll turn to independent media outlets (like slashdot), if they haven't been made illegal, because most likely neither Fox nor CNN will be reporting well on anything worth my time.
Point being, "competition" wont (and hasn't been, if you've been paying attention) prevent these problems the way you insinuate it would.
Voting (in the US) is a means of coercion. One faction within society tries to force its will onto another. If you participate in the process, you accept its logical outcome, just as you should accept the outcome if you choose to gamble at the casino, bet at the races, invest in a company, etc. No different.
Your argument assumes that there is (a) a legitimate way to participate in the process of voting if you are disgusted with the choices or the concept (b) some way to get your vote counted as "none of the above" without legitimizing the process by turning out.
Anyway, people who choose not to vote ought to talk about their choice with others, but I don't think that you can tell me that 48% turnout in presidential elections doesnt hurt and isnt felt! It exposes the US as the laughing stock it is (some "democracy", when the majority feels disenfranchised enough not to participate). It matters not (think of an outsider observing this process) whether the US citizen doesnt vote out of apathy or disgust. What is conveyed is that the government has failed to instill its "values of citizenship" in its own people, and that is a big failure for a state to endure! As those values disappear, the state must turn more and more to oppressive tactics to achieve control that once was voluntarily submission, and eventually suffers a revolution when people get sick of not being represented. The point is: the burden of "proof" is on the part of the state -- because the social contract is "entered into" involuntarily, the state relies on the citizenry to actively affirm it. And the claim that not voting affirms the status quo is nothing more than an echo of the propaganda fed to high school students.
I'm not advocating not voting as a form of protest, even though I don't and I consider my actions a protest. I'm pointing out that you are going to have to make a much more convincing argument to prove that my actions enforce a status quo and don't prove injurious to the power structure that exists.
Also: They require law enforcement to prevent fraud and theft, for one. They require intellectual property rights to prevent losing market share to copycats. They require road/airport infastructure for delivery services. They require the legal system to maintain corporate order (suing people, being sued, lawyers, contracts, etc). The list goes on and on....
Um, I dont think thats an unreasonable belief. How 'bout this response for stereotypical: "All power corrupts....."
As a form of protest, not voting is about as effective as taking a vow of silence. All it does is not get your voice heard.
Patently false. The old guard in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc knew the destabilizing effect of poor voter turnout. Hence the one party elections (read your high school "government" book). Today's Indian government knows and fears the commonplace election boycots. Why? Because the mandate to govern in a democracy comes only from the results of elections, and so legitimacy is directly proportional to turnout.
Most people's lives are enveloped in a social contract they did not agree to ahead of time, and had no part in engineering. If they refrain from *actively* acknowledging that social contract, they weaken the fabric of their society. This is a strong form of protest, because it hastens change. And while we are on the topic of "vows of silence", a vow of silence is actually a pretty big deal. Try a "vow-of-silence" next time you encounter a cop. All vows of non-participation in discourse, be it political, military, economic, etc, prove to be incredibly powerful forms of protest, because discourse is a prerequisite to any form of compliance.
You know its because so many people like you don't vote and don't care that they system is so messed up. Why do you think Special intrests are so powerfull. Its because the folks who support them go out and *VOTE*. Basicly what your post says is that you want to opt out of the Democratic proccess. So what you end up with is what someone else wants
I disagree. Special interests are so powerful because people/corporations with money fill their coffers. You want change and/or representation in this system? Money talks. Once the tight-fisted nouveau-riche sicon valley types start throwing their money around, maybe your interests will be tended to (why do you think MS lasted this long!). Till then? I think not.
Technology changes fast enough that we can't etch a law into stone before the technology makes the law obsolete (not to mention the technology!).
Exactly. And the only legal solution is to pass MORE NEW LAWS. This is unfortunately the case with much more than just technology law.
Personally, I think it is dumb to claim that one field is more difficult to master. There is a great deal of similarity between the fields of law and technology, in that in order to truly excel in either, knowledge of current developments isn't enough. That is to say, the material is cumulative.... You need to know the history of the field to truly appreciate and understand what is going on on the front lines.
I suppose you haven't been following the discussion. By the way, are you a historian? Do you even know what you are talking about when you say "sitting back on their laurels" (you mean "resting on..." by the way). Can you be a bit more specific about this supposed complacency? My suspicion is that you cannot, because you are as clueless about what you are talking about, as you are about what was being discussed here. But, since you bring it up, and since you obviously need the vocabulary lesson, what you are talking about in yout post is PATRIOTISM and not morality. You think joining your military is important in that "nations fall" when they let their guard down. So if you care about your country, and you want to support your government, whatever they represent, join your military in peacetime. Sure. And remember that loyalty to your nation is patriotism, and not morality, as many a former Nazi patriot can tell you.
Wake up and smell the roses, pal. The world isn't a nice place. There are nasty people out there, and to defend against them, the members of the armed forces have to be ready to do unpleasant things, while the rest of us sleep peacefully in our condos and semis. (a) If the world is a nasty place, what could possibly be the point of holding up the morality of the US armed forces actions in WWII and Kosovo (a dubious morality, very dubious) as a way of legitimizing their existence. Once you start talking about morality, you have to define your terms. The poster before you did give us a definition (as in: killing is wrong). You, did not (as in: killing is wrong, except when its right, and by the way, the world is evil, so who are you to complain, and, um, whatever.) (b) If the original poster is guilty of dealing in absolutes, you are equally as silly. Contrary to what many people think, soldiers, on the whole, don't look forward to going to war. Soldiers usually don't have any say in the matter. Its one thing to talk about WWII, when thousands signed up because they believed in the "cause" and the need to repel the Axis. My grandfather joined the French in WWII after politicians sold out his country (Czechoslovakia). I respect him for that, and he felt empowered and good about he was doing when he joined, because he knew what he was standing up for. But its another thing to talk about joinng the army in peacetime. In this case, losing your right to dictate what fight you join and how you fight is as good a reason as any not to join the armed forces. Basically, joining the army *IN PEACETIME* is an abdication of your own morality, and a promise to act in accordance with an official morality, whatever that ends up being. That means you do whatever the politicians say. Which is fine for some people, who are happy in their trust of the system and their belief that politicians represent us well. People with a more firm grip on reality and the ability to reason for themselves beyond a high school level tend to understand that the government does not do a very good job of being moral. And they know that when they are under that bridge in Korea, training a machine gun on hundreds of women and children who are innocent refugees, and the order comes down the pike to shoot, they will have to. And they won't feel to good about it on the plane home. I hope you are informed enough to get the reference, but I'm not going to hold my breath. -C