I have a feeling that if the UCITA passes that a lot more children will be buying 1000 dollar software suites, if their under 18 the legal system would be hard pressed to enforce any contract they entered into, including the shrink wrap contracts. I can see it now:
Father: "Alright now son, go into Discount Computer Store and buy daddy the Mega-Debugger Suite Advanced 2001 Professional Addition." Father shows his son the picture in the add. Child: "Otay daddy" Child Walks into the Discount Computer Store Store Clerk: "Are you lost little boy, where is your daddy?" Child: "I wanna buy dat!" Child Points to the Mega-Debugger Suite Advanced 2001 Professional Addition box. Store Clerk: "Um... do you know what that is?" Child: "Un-uh. Dat is Mega-Debuuga Sweeet Adwanced two-tousand 'en one, Professional Ah-ddition." Store Clerk: "Do you know what it does?" Child: "Nope. But I wanna buy it, will dis be enough mister?" Child pulls out large wad of cash, the store clerk eyes light up.
Do you consider yourself to be a hacker, and do you think that the negative stereotypes fasley assosiated with the term "hacker" have effected how the government has handled itself in your case.
This whole fiasco and the whole millenium copyright act are the products of what happens when people who are ignorant of something try to regulate it. Congressmen do not understand this technology, a recent report showing that some of them don't even have working e-mail accounts proves this. Big companies don't understand technology either, or else they would realize that people being able to decode and play their movies on currently unsupported platforms increases the number of people who can use, and thus buy their product.
Of course this is true, the gov't could _easily_ break encryptions. That is why the US gov't built their original computers, so I have no doubt that they can break most homemade encryption.
The other danger with this is that with the all of the attention that this is getting could it be possable for other organizations to track you using double click's cookie?
In order for this to work, that means that the university has the right to regulate what you do with your private property (ie computer). If a university can do this they have the presedence to regulate what else we do with our private property, like tell us we can't put Free Kevin bumper stickers on our case, or on our backpacks, or a poster on the wall of a dorm room.
I think that the effect on the internet as a whole will be negligable at best. One of the writers above mentioned danger to niche sites. People who use those sites now won't stop, and given the rather broadscope of traditional media, and their ignorance on several subjects, niche sites will still be neccesary. Large corporations that have to serve a wide audience can not concentrate vital recources on a small group of consumers. Unlike say, slashdot, which is only concerned with the vital 'Techno-Geek' market, allowing slashdot to send all of its time and recources on things of intrest to them.
The AFA, is one of those people friend. Check out their web site. They are lobbying amazon to censor out books that don't fit to their agenda. How do they decide what to ban? Amazon.com book reviews, how do I know? They say so
Yes! The bill of rights was added to the constitution for that very reason. To protect the minority from the majority (who decide who rules). Everyone from *-Americans, to computer geeks, to everyone!
I went and surfed the AFA website, and I found something shocking. Not also do they promote censorship of books, as well as the internet, but they have NEVER read the books they read, reffering to reviews on Amazon.com. Saddly there are many people in america who think like this, that they have the right to suffocate the views of others, even when they don't know what those views are.
Well as a local member of the ACLU I am not going to complain. You have the right to say what ever the hell you want and we have the right to read it, or ignore it, our choice. All we are asking is that everyone be given the choice to decide for themselves.
I was reading their panthlet. And from it I found something very disturbing. The AFA literature seems to indicate that they want to band books that they do not agree with, and which conflict with some political agenda. Any organization who supports Democracy in America as classic but demands that we ban books need to learn something. How can we hope to keep the internet free of censorship when people are still demanding tyranical censorship laws on more 'main stream' media.
I hate to say this, but the governmet really shouldn't be breaking up microsoft. Any monopoly microsoft does have is a monopoly given to them by the US government, via patent laws. And as much as I don't like the law, it is still the law, and a court has too follow it. If government can break up microsoft, then they invalidate all patent laws by showing that having a patent is a monopoly.
About a year ago in North Carolina, a county library tried to move copies of playboys to censor them from children. In order to do this the tax payers had to vote on it. In each similiar case of censorship in public libraries I have seen it comes to a referendum of specific items. Since books are just a delivery tool for information (text and pictures mostly) and websites are also tools for information (text and pictures mostly again) it seems to me that in order to properly implement censorship of the internet requires a vote by the tax payers on each site to be banned. In order for that to work there must be full disclosure.
The way I see it is that what you do on the computer should have the same constituional protections as what you do 'in real life', for lack of a better phrase. Anyways, the government has a long history of not following this doctrince, creating a double standard. For instance, by the way the law is worded, and according to court rulings, your e-mail basically has nill protection against search and seizure by the government, even if you haven't recieved it. The only reason people are in an uproar now is that the government is trying to deny us our rights by action, as opposed to inaction. So we need to write our congresspeople, write the newspapers, etc and demand that computer users be given the same rights as everyone else. Computers and computer users make an easy target for someone with an agenda, it is time we rallied and made an agenda of our own.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a feeling that if the UCITA passes that a lot more children will be buying 1000 dollar software suites, if their under 18 the legal system would be hard pressed to enforce any contract they entered into, including the shrink wrap contracts. I can see it now:
... do you know what that is?"
Father: "Alright now son, go into Discount Computer Store and buy daddy the Mega-Debugger Suite Advanced 2001 Professional Addition."
Father shows his son the picture in the add.
Child: "Otay daddy"
Child Walks into the Discount Computer Store
Store Clerk: "Are you lost little boy, where is your daddy?"
Child: "I wanna buy dat!"
Child Points to the Mega-Debugger Suite Advanced 2001 Professional Addition box.
Store Clerk: "Um
Child: "Un-uh. Dat is Mega-Debuuga Sweeet Adwanced two-tousand 'en one, Professional Ah-ddition."
Store Clerk: "Do you know what it does?"
Child: "Nope. But I wanna buy it, will dis be enough mister?"
Child pulls out large wad of cash, the store clerk eyes light up.
------------------
Hephaestus_Lee
How does it feel at the age of 16 to be at the center of such an important debate and to be a hero for so many of us here at slashdot.
--Hephaestus_Lee
Do you consider yourself to be a hacker, and do you think that the negative stereotypes fasley assosiated with the term "hacker" have effected how the government has handled itself in your case.
--Hephaestus_Lee
This whole fiasco and the whole millenium copyright act are the products of what happens when people who are ignorant of something try to regulate it. Congressmen do not understand this technology, a recent report showing that some of them don't even have working e-mail accounts proves this. Big companies don't understand technology either, or else they would realize that people being able to decode and play their movies on currently unsupported platforms increases the number of people who can use, and thus buy their product.
--Hephaestus_Lee
Of course this is true, the gov't could _easily_ break encryptions. That is why the US gov't built their original computers, so I have no doubt that they can break most homemade encryption.
Hepaestus_Lee
Just give blantantly false information. 0000's for any numbered field etc.
The other danger with this is that with the all of the attention that this is getting could it be possable for other organizations to track you using double click's cookie?
--Hephaestus_Lee
In order for this to work, that means that the university has the right to regulate what you do with your private property (ie computer). If a university can do this they have the presedence to regulate what else we do with our private property, like tell us we can't put Free Kevin bumper stickers on our case, or on our backpacks, or a poster on the wall of a dorm room.
--Hephaestus_Lee
I think that the effect on the internet as a whole will be negligable at best. One of the writers above mentioned danger to niche sites. People who use those sites now won't stop, and given the rather broadscope of traditional media, and their ignorance on several subjects, niche sites will still be neccesary. Large corporations that have to serve a wide audience can not concentrate vital recources on a small group of consumers. Unlike say, slashdot, which is only concerned with the vital 'Techno-Geek' market, allowing slashdot to send all of its time and recources on things of intrest to them.
I WAS BEING SARCASTIC! But anyways here is another question for you. If women are
Woman is Man's helpmeet and companion. I've never heard anyone suggest that women might have free will.
What if I said that I was a women?
They did win a case against internet censorship. Hunt down on their website (http://www.aclu.org) try the cyberliberties button I think.
So you want the government to force YOUR free will on us, now I see! I guess women shouldn't have free will either?
You've asked for an argument so I will summarize what court rulings AGAINST censorware have said:
You can't censor library computers because it restricts access by adults to a lot of legitimate (aka not porn) sites.
"Trust, love an respect, the true family values."
-- Me
The AFA, is one of those people friend. Check out their web site. They are lobbying amazon to censor out books that don't fit to their agenda. How do they decide what to ban? Amazon.com book reviews, how do I know? They say so
Yes! The bill of rights was added to the constitution for that very reason. To protect the minority from the majority (who decide who rules). Everyone from *-Americans, to computer geeks, to everyone!
Oh I see sir. So you think the government should force our free will on us then?
I went and surfed the AFA website, and I found something shocking. Not also do they promote censorship of books, as well as the internet, but they have NEVER read the books they read, reffering to reviews on Amazon.com. Saddly there are many people in america who think like this, that they have the right to suffocate the views of others, even when they don't know what those views are.
Well as a local member of the ACLU I am not going to complain. You have the right to say what ever the hell you want and we have the right to read it, or ignore it, our choice. All we are asking is that everyone be given the choice to decide for themselves.
I was reading their panthlet. And from it I found something very disturbing. The AFA literature seems to indicate that they want to band books that they do not agree with, and which conflict with some political agenda. Any organization who supports Democracy in America as classic but demands that we ban books need to learn something. How can we hope to keep the internet free of censorship when people are still demanding tyranical censorship laws on more 'main stream' media.
... aren't conservatives for LESS government?
I hate to say this, but the governmet really shouldn't be breaking up microsoft. Any monopoly microsoft does have is a monopoly given to them by the US government, via patent laws. And as much as I don't like the law, it is still the law, and a court has too follow it. If government can break up microsoft, then they invalidate all patent laws by showing that having a patent is a monopoly.
About a year ago in North Carolina, a county library tried to move copies of playboys to censor them from children. In order to do this the tax payers had to vote on it. In each similiar case of censorship in public libraries I have seen it comes to a referendum of specific items. Since books are just a delivery tool for information (text and pictures mostly) and websites are also tools for information (text and pictures mostly again) it seems to me that in order to properly implement censorship of the internet requires a vote by the tax payers on each site to be banned. In order for that to work there must be full disclosure.
The way I see it is that what you do on the computer should have the same constituional protections as what you do 'in real life', for lack of a better phrase. Anyways, the government has a long history of not following this doctrince, creating a double standard. For instance, by the way the law is worded, and according to court rulings, your e-mail basically has nill protection against search and seizure by the government, even if you haven't recieved it. The only reason people are in an uproar now is that the government is trying to deny us our rights by action, as opposed to inaction. So we need to write our congresspeople, write the newspapers, etc and demand that computer users be given the same rights as everyone else. Computers and computer users make an easy target for someone with an agenda, it is time we rallied and made an agenda of our own.