Please, be courteous and polite in your responses to Mr. Billington. No one ever convinced anyone they were wrong by shouting and using obscenities. Politely suggest that he reconsider the internet as a valuable tool, that it is the mission of the LOC to make information accessible to the public through every means possible, and that we, too, are anti-censorship advocates. If you are angry right now, think of what might have happened between Tim O'Reilly and Jeff Bezos as a model -- and what might have happened had O'Reilly instead said, "You cocksucking moron, how could you be such a jackass? Are you fucking nuts?"
In other words, be nice.
No e-mail address given, just that of the webmaster of the LOC.
Phone: (202) 707-5205 Note: This should be the number for his office, but I've been wrong before.
Snail mail: James H. Billington Mail Stop 1001 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20540
That's right, a TI-99/4, the one with the chiclet keyboard and the space bar that always bounced off its hinges making double-spaces on the screen (thank goodness it had a "Space" key), not the more advanced TI-99/4a.
That was my first computer. After that, I had an Apple//e with Apple ][ DOS 3.3, and later ProDOS.
Hey, I was nerd before nerd was cool.:)
The point is the same...DOS wasn't the first computer for many of us. Even in the cases where it was, is that a sign of it not sucking ass? My first computer was a piece of crap in most ways! I have no allegiance to TI because of that computer, nor will I cut them any slack. I'm an engineer. I rave over the best technology. All else is vanity.
Yeah, I too noticed the absence of nVidia from the list of companies supporting the new standard. Just about everybody else, however, is supporting it -- and it's highly likely that this group will be able to get developer support, which is what matters most.
I remember a time when 3dfx was slow to support OpenGL. Now, with V4/V5 appearing in stores within the next few weeks, they've put a full, working, better-than-standard OpenGL ICD in there finally. The reason for being slow was that they had to keep supporting Glide. Now, is it nVidia that's going to be slow to support developers' needs, now that they're in bed with MSFT?
The worst part is that once again people are going to have to be hurt by something before they realize its bad - much like a toddler burning their hand on a stove to find out that its hot.
Well, firstly, considering the fact that such anonymous reporting hotlines have existed for a long time, I think it's reasonable to say that we're already at the toddler-burning-his-hand-stage.
But more importantly, there is something we can do. Let's not despair; it is clear to me that despite the myriad differences between us, most of us have this cause in common. We are numerous, intelligent, and capable. We can easily overcome this obstacle. How? Jon Katz himself told us how:
Corporatism (which is not the same thing as capitalism or corporations) has one ideology: successful, profitable marketing.
Corporatism doesn't like controversy, because it, potentially at least, can scare off or offend potential customers. That's why I was there. I would be reminded of this 20 times over the next few hours. Ethical arguments, like peas off an M-1 tank, failed to penetrate.
In a sense, the Pinkertons are even more naive than we are for believing that we could change their minds about the business -- because they are naive enough to think that if they address some of our concerns, that we'll just go away. That was their goal with the meeting -- to address the concerns so that we wouldn't affect their bottom line. Our response should be obvious: Attack their bottom line.
Controversy is our ally. Our outrage is our ally. You know how much we despise FUD when it's used against us? Well, consider the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt that WAVE brings us, and let's share our fears with the world! American media loves nothing more than bad news -- and WAVE, from our perspective, is wonderfully, awfully, fear-inspiringly, paper-and-tv-ad-sellingly BAD news!
Here are some things worth considering. First, most people are not normal. Normal is abnormal. The reason Revenge of the Nerds was such a great movie for most people is more people can relate to being outcasts than can relate to being popular. How many `popular' kids were there in your entire High School? Maybe 1% of the entire school population? The rest of us were outcasts.
Begin by asking the public, "What does WAVE want with our children?" Immediately, the question does several things: One, it demands attention. Everyone gets concerned when their children are involved, and especially when there is the hint of a threat. Of course, we know that it's more than just a HINT of a threat. Two, it makes WAVE the center of the issue. Three, it demands an answer.
Some of us reading and posting here are the oddest of the odd, the most ostracized of the outcasts; however, realize that when it comes to being oddballs or outcasts MOST people relate better with this than they do with being the Prom Queen.
This is our advantage, our controversy, and our defense.
So, if you're lurking, it's time to talk. If you are a regular poster, get moving! Start posting on other websites you visit about this. Call a town meeting where you live. Make posters and put them up around campus and around town advertising anti-WAVE websites. Oh yeah, make an anti-WAVE website, too. If you're a student, form a political action group (you'd be amazed how easy these are to form!) and begin protest marches on campus. Talk to anyone you know personally who has a child who is in high school or about to be in high school about this! Anyone you can talk to, any message you can send, send it. Get the word out beyond the confines of the slashdot.org domain. Speak to people!
I'm going to start by talking with my supervisor at work, who has three kids in high school. I'm going to tell him how if other kids decide they don't like his kids, they can just call up and make up whatever stories they want anonymously...and get a pat on the back for being ``good citizens'' while his kids' names get passed along to the authorities for the suspicion of crimes they didn't commit. I'm going to tell him about the atmosphere in public school administrations since Columbine, and how anonymously-given lies will be taken seriously. I'm going to point him to slashdot to read more about it. I'm going to make HIM concerned. I'm going to do this with my boss, too. I'm going to make connections to the novel of the same name to make sure he has the same connotations in mind. Then I'm going to move to the next person, and to the next. Whenever I get into conversations with people who have children, I'm going to bring up the subject..."Have you heard about this WAVE program that's starting in North Carolina, and is going national? It's a lot like this book I heard about..."
Arm yourself with knowledge, and fight with words. The pen (and the tongue) really is mightier than the sword.
I can live with the anti-conservative, anti-religion, anti-Microsoft atmosphere. I at least agree with one of those three. I'm profoundly anti-censorship and pro-democracy and those two ideals require learning how to live with people who disagree with you.
The way you fight back ignorance is with patience and facts. It doesn't always work, but it's the only thing that works. All other methods just make enemies.
It sounds like you're agreeing, for the most part, with what I said. I guess one could read into my comments that I was putting the blame more on journalists than on the publishers (and having known people who worked as journalists, I understand how the boss can be sometimes). But I am definitely referring more to the publishers and station managers, not to the reporters and journalists when I said, "highly-paid." And since you validate that they are the ones putting the pressure on for more stuff that sells and less research done, you probably understand, then, why this can make things better for journalists in the long run -- without an easy feed, the publishers and station managers are the ones who have to accept giving the journalists and reporters more time to do real research.
No, that doesn't worry me. What does my opinion on the subject matter? If I'm a juror, THEN and ONLY then do I need to be informed on the matter. Otherwise, all the information I need to know, crime statistics for my area and the like, is still a matter of public record and I can get that information. Journalistic sensationalism doesn't inform, it misinforms; it's not designed to provide facts, only entertainment and opinion.
Again -- a journalist who is determined and dedicated to seeking the truth is not going to be stonewalled by the police voluntarily being silent. It's only the yellow journalists who want to publish whatever sells papers cheaply who are suffering.
Yes, but you're talking about a court case. Outside of court, the rules are different. THIS ISN'T A COURT OF LAW! This is reality. Police are still accountable for their deeds to the community. This isn't going to stifle the watchdogs any. They are the sort of journalists who will stick to a story and do the investigating they need to do.
...but this isn't about the courts. This isn't about keeping trials public or open. This is a matter of the press asking the police before a case even comes to trial the details of the case...something that is the job of an attorney during a trial, not a bottom-feeder looking for an easy story.
And your analogy doesn't work. The military is on our payroll, too, but they can't tell just any wahoo everything about their technology. It's like the moronic questions the press asked the military before Desert Storm, "Yeah, uhm, so, where are all our troops going to be at this moment in time?" Yeah, let's tell 'em where they are and broadcast it so that the enemy can find them too!
This is similar yet different. Journalists don't use this information to watchdog the police. They use it to sell papers with stories of crime and blood and violence, with a clear enemy and victim. It's never that simple, and the suspects may not be guilty, but the press isn't interested in such things.
...because by having the police clam up, the innocents are allowed a chance that Richard Jewell and others did not have. It isn't the police's job to be honest and open-minded when talking to reporters. As you said, they have an emotional stake in seeing the person convicted; if they don't give out information, they would protect the rights of the citizens in spite of themselves.
Today, I decided not to tell my boss that I was sleeping with my girlfriend last night. A few days ago, I could have called Mom and told her how I was feeling, but I didn't. And when I was contacted by a headhunter a couple of weeks ago, I chose to remain silent about my job status and told her to call me again in six months.
Come to think of it, there's a lot of information I've voluntarily withheld. How horrible to think that I'm denying others their first amendment rights!
Whoops...again, I realize I should have read posts before writing mine. I forgot that his name was Richard Jewell.
But you're absolutely right about the ones who are not convicted, and that's exactly why the judge ruled the way he did. It's to protect the innocent from bad reporters, parasites who feed off crime reports from the police.
Bingo. I should have read your comments before I posted mine, because you said exactly what I said. The media is seeing one of their cheap and easy ways of selling papers go down the drain in Illinois: You listen to a scanner, you talk to the cops, you tell the story and play like you're judge and jury and the exciting write-up sells papers with little or no involvement. It takes time, energy, effort, and financing for a reporter to actually take the time to talk to the parties involved and get ALL of the facts. Even if they do, balanced stories don't sell -- people want a hero and a villain in their stories. Yes, this is BAD news for the media. But no law has been made governing freedom of the press in this case. They're still free to ask and report on whatever information they're given. They just have to dig a little more. On top of that, this is GOOD news for those of us who might one day find ourselves falsely accused.
All police activities must be made public (if requested) in court. I agree that we must be able to watch the police...that's why police scanners must remain legal. We can hear and watch, and we can tell people what we saw.
But an equally important aspect of free speech is the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. The police are exercising that right. They're citizens, too.
It's not like the judge is preventing the newspapers from reporting information. It's not the case that the police are being forced to be silent.
What's happening here is that the police have voluntarily decided not to give out this information, and the newspapers are pissed that they can't sell crime any more. Hey, bad news sells newspapers, and if they can't get the bad news, they can't get the paper! This has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with the media's bottom lines.
It's all about greenbacks.
This is great news, if you ask me. The media takes great delight in making and breaking heroes and zeros by basically being highly-paid ambulance-chasers. Consider the story of Chuck Jewell and the Atlanta bombing. That wasn't news; that was libel. The media made him into the criminal (with prodding from the police) without a trial.
This forces newspapers and TV stations to get involved with a story if they want to cover it. No longer can they just skim the surface, quickly condemn whoever looks guilty and call it a done deal. Now they have to actually do some investigation and REAL JOURNALISM to get facts to sell their papers! How novel.
There's a big difference between what's happening in Illinois and what's happening with things like the CDA from a couple of years ago; the difference is, the police chose this route. We just have a lot of publishers about to lose their bread-and-butter business, and so they're crying about it.
Because they can listen to us all day without hearing us.
It's entirely possible they're just grabbing Pinkerton to say, "And what are the names and addresses of these 1,000 people who posted, so that we may report them? You DO keep them on record, don't you?"
America suffers from a dangerous case of "It can't happen here" syndrome. We still talk about Nazi concentration camps while simultaneously forgetting about what we did to innocent Japanese-Americans here. Also, forget about this issue for a second and consider the slow erosion of freedom of speech that's occurring in the country.
I read one book of a fabulous series of books on the fall of democracy in various countries. One volume alone, written by Arturo Valenzuela, is about the fall of democracy in Chile, about Pinochet's coup. I know a lot of people on one side of the issue blame the CIA's intervention, but the truth is that the CIA only supported a movement that was happening anyway.
The problem there, as also is here, is that the "silent majority" cannot remain silent. MOST OF US WERE NOT NORMAL. I'm not just talking about geeks. Not everyone can be beautiful and popular, and most kids aren't -- why else do you think Marilyn Manson reaches kids so well?
The real problem is that mainstream America isn't informed of these matters, and then when it is, it believes that these things Can't Happen Here, and it doesn't do anything about it.
But once in a while...a bullet zings too close to one of these folks' heads, and they go on a rant. Right now, however, they're ranting against the wrong thing. They should be fixing the way parents raise children, not fixing the way children treat each other. That will never change.
Let's face it. We find things like WAVE terrifying and spiteful. Obviously, they find us terrifying. So let's report on ourselves.
Let's look at some of these "Early Warning Signs."
Hits or bullies others -- no, not really...although sometimes I do on USENET or internet BBSes.
Expresses uncontrolled anger -- I express it, but usually only in the privacy of my own home when no one's around. (Still, it's not the sort of thing you leave to chance, is it?)
Has unlawful possession and use of firearms -- nope, I haven't chosen to exercise my 2nd amendment right yet.
Displays intense intolerance or prejudice -- guilty! towards censor-mongers.
Has unlawful possession and use of firearms -- haven't we been here before?
Has excessive feelings of isolation or rejection -- here I am, trapped in my office at work, all alone...just me and my internet connection, left to my own devices...
Conveys violence in writings and/or drawings -- and I'll kill the first person who tells me I can't.
Uses drugs or alcohol on campus -- yeah, but I'm of the drinking age, so doesn't that count?
Makes threats -- frequently.
Suddenly has bad grades or little interest in school -- yeah, I totally lost interest in school once I got my Master's degree and a job.
Is easily angered by minor things -- you mean, like people trying to take away my ability to get porn on the web? Absolutely!
...I was reading this and realized, "Hey, that's ME he's talking about."
Yes...I am a civilian working for the Navy. (I feel like I'm at Defense Contractor's Anonymous...) In fact, I'm with a group of folks responsible for writing the software that is the official NATO test for military communications equipment.
[aside] Do you have any idea what the NDA for this company looks like? How many NDAs did you sign that said, "If you talk about the wrong things to the wrong people, or even to the right people at the wrong time, or even to the right people, at the right time, but in the wrong place, OR EVEN the right people at the right time at the right place but when that other person didn't Need To Know the information, we'll throw you behind bars with your new "husband" for the next 10 to 15 years!"??? *sigh*)
Well, anyhow, what I can talk about and is unclassified is that most of the military communications formats are encrypted, jamproof and in many ways just really dang hard to deal with. There are two exceptions. One of them is used to control airplanes remotely (usually for Automatic Takeoff and Landing, for carriers). It's not encrypted. Granted, the format of these communications isn't something the average joe can get a hold of easily. And there's probably a way for a pilot to shut down the communications.
But the unencrypted nature of this, not to mention the fact that it can be used to control a plane, handled cleverly, could be a risk. It's like the risk in Star Wars..."I've analzyed their attack, sir, and there IS a danger..."
Hmmm, I seem to have wandered off the point of the post I'm responding to...I know I had something relevant to this post to say...oh yeah, it was this: Even the civilians are underfunded. You'd be amazed at the crap our team here has to dig through. Our solution is that we're always having to reuse old code, rather than hacking an off-the-shelf product. But if you've been on a project where you've tried to reuse code and merely update a system over time, you know how nasty things can get...well, we've been updating the same code pretty much since...1993 or so. Seven years makes code fugly.
It's not an issue as far as weapon systems go. But what about the plane itself? The plane contains how much fuel, flies how fast, and has how much mass? I imagine an F-14 hijacked and sent into the bridge of a carrier would be BAD.
And if you know enough to talk about what you talked about, you also know enough to know that what I suggest can happen. And you also ought to know that it isn't all encrypted.
The idea behind Open Source is that code and information should be free. Not just free as in "at no cost," but free as in "free flowing." But the Open Source mindset that is required to have a successful project can't also agree with the idea of censorship in the first place. They are contradictory ideals.
The whole reason censorship is wrong is that no two people can agree on what should or should not be censored. The reason OS works for software is that a bug's discovery or feature's implementation will be obvious to someone, given a large enough sample set. An open source censorware program would have people simultaneously working towards contradictory ends -- every site will offend someone, and every site should be read by someone. So the sum total of all people will want to block everything, while the rest are trying to unblock everything!
This is why we must defend everyone's right to say whatever they want to say, no matter how much we detest it -- including things said by those who support censorship. It's why the price of freedom is ever-present vigilance.
Censorship and Open Source are contradictory aims and an Open Source censorware program could never succeed. Censorware itself is a "Cathedral" mindset -- where the "priests" hand down to us "laypersons" what is and is not acceptable, and if we don't like it, the best we're allowed is to hope for a change in the next revision.
The best way to fight back, if you ask me, is to use this fact to our advantage: No two censors agree on what should be censored, and what should not be censored. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This is, ultimately, why we will win the battle against censorship -- even though today things look bleak.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, be courteous and polite in your responses to Mr. Billington. No one ever convinced anyone they were wrong by shouting and using obscenities. Politely suggest that he reconsider the internet as a valuable tool, that it is the mission of the LOC to make information accessible to the public through every means possible, and that we, too, are anti-censorship advocates. If you are angry right now, think of what might have happened between Tim O'Reilly and Jeff Bezos as a model -- and what might have happened had O'Reilly instead said, "You cocksucking moron, how could you be such a jackass? Are you fucking nuts?"
In other words, be nice.
No e-mail address given, just that of the webmaster of the LOC.
Phone: (202) 707-5205
Note: This should be the number for his office, but I've been wrong before.
Snail mail:
James H. Billington
Mail Stop 1001
101 Independence Ave. S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20540
That was my first computer. After that, I had an Apple //e with Apple ][ DOS 3.3, and later ProDOS.
Hey, I was nerd before nerd was cool. :)
The point is the same...DOS wasn't the first computer for many of us. Even in the cases where it was, is that a sign of it not sucking ass? My first computer was a piece of crap in most ways! I have no allegiance to TI because of that computer, nor will I cut them any slack. I'm an engineer. I rave over the best technology. All else is vanity.
I remember a time when 3dfx was slow to support OpenGL. Now, with V4/V5 appearing in stores within the next few weeks, they've put a full, working, better-than-standard OpenGL ICD in there finally. The reason for being slow was that they had to keep supporting Glide. Now, is it nVidia that's going to be slow to support developers' needs, now that they're in bed with MSFT?
Guess so...
Well, firstly, considering the fact that such anonymous reporting hotlines have existed for a long time, I think it's reasonable to say that we're already at the toddler-burning-his-hand-stage.
But more importantly, there is something we can do. Let's not despair; it is clear to me that despite the myriad differences between us, most of us have this cause in common. We are numerous, intelligent, and capable. We can easily overcome this obstacle. How? Jon Katz himself told us how:
In a sense, the Pinkertons are even more naive than we are for believing that we could change their minds about the business -- because they are naive enough to think that if they address some of our concerns, that we'll just go away. That was their goal with the meeting -- to address the concerns so that we wouldn't affect their bottom line. Our response should be obvious: Attack their bottom line.
Controversy is our ally. Our outrage is our ally. You know how much we despise FUD when it's used against us? Well, consider the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt that WAVE brings us, and let's share our fears with the world! American media loves nothing more than bad news -- and WAVE, from our perspective, is wonderfully, awfully, fear-inspiringly, paper-and-tv-ad-sellingly BAD news!
Here are some things worth considering. First, most people are not normal. Normal is abnormal. The reason Revenge of the Nerds was such a great movie for most people is more people can relate to being outcasts than can relate to being popular. How many `popular' kids were there in your entire High School? Maybe 1% of the entire school population? The rest of us were outcasts.
Begin by asking the public, "What does WAVE want with our children?" Immediately, the question does several things: One, it demands attention. Everyone gets concerned when their children are involved, and especially when there is the hint of a threat. Of course, we know that it's more than just a HINT of a threat. Two, it makes WAVE the center of the issue. Three, it demands an answer.
Some of us reading and posting here are the oddest of the odd, the most ostracized of the outcasts; however, realize that when it comes to being oddballs or outcasts MOST people relate better with this than they do with being the Prom Queen.
This is our advantage, our controversy, and our defense.
So, if you're lurking, it's time to talk. If you are a regular poster, get moving! Start posting on other websites you visit about this. Call a town meeting where you live. Make posters and put them up around campus and around town advertising anti-WAVE websites. Oh yeah, make an anti-WAVE website, too. If you're a student, form a political action group (you'd be amazed how easy these are to form!) and begin protest marches on campus. Talk to anyone you know personally who has a child who is in high school or about to be in high school about this! Anyone you can talk to, any message you can send, send it. Get the word out beyond the confines of the slashdot.org domain. Speak to people!
I'm going to start by talking with my supervisor at work, who has three kids in high school. I'm going to tell him how if other kids decide they don't like his kids, they can just call up and make up whatever stories they want anonymously...and get a pat on the back for being ``good citizens'' while his kids' names get passed along to the authorities for the suspicion of crimes they didn't commit. I'm going to tell him about the atmosphere in public school administrations since Columbine, and how anonymously-given lies will be taken seriously. I'm going to point him to slashdot to read more about it. I'm going to make HIM concerned. I'm going to do this with my boss, too. I'm going to make connections to the novel of the same name to make sure he has the same connotations in mind. Then I'm going to move to the next person, and to the next. Whenever I get into conversations with people who have children, I'm going to bring up the subject..."Have you heard about this WAVE program that's starting in North Carolina, and is going national? It's a lot like this book I heard about..."
Arm yourself with knowledge, and fight with words. The pen (and the tongue) really is mightier than the sword.
That's deep, man. Maybe this isn't poetic justice, but that post was pretty damned poetic.
I can live with the anti-conservative, anti-religion, anti-Microsoft atmosphere. I at least agree with one of those three. I'm profoundly anti-censorship and pro-democracy and those two ideals require learning how to live with people who disagree with you.
The way you fight back ignorance is with patience and facts. It doesn't always work, but it's the only thing that works. All other methods just make enemies.
George has stated publicly that he supports efforts to break up trusts.
I really hate the fact that Bush is now going to be connected with Gates by the implication, especially in the light of Bush's position on the issue.
That's what Bush said. Just because you've hired the man's consulting firm doesn't put you in bed with him.
Nice to know that at least one of the candidates sees the light.
It sounds like you're agreeing, for the most part, with what I said. I guess one could read into my comments that I was putting the blame more on journalists than on the publishers (and having known people who worked as journalists, I understand how the boss can be sometimes). But I am definitely referring more to the publishers and station managers, not to the reporters and journalists when I said, "highly-paid." And since you validate that they are the ones putting the pressure on for more stuff that sells and less research done, you probably understand, then, why this can make things better for journalists in the long run -- without an easy feed, the publishers and station managers are the ones who have to accept giving the journalists and reporters more time to do real research.
No, that doesn't worry me. What does my opinion on the subject matter? If I'm a juror, THEN and ONLY then do I need to be informed on the matter. Otherwise, all the information I need to know, crime statistics for my area and the like, is still a matter of public record and I can get that information. Journalistic sensationalism doesn't inform, it misinforms; it's not designed to provide facts, only entertainment and opinion.
Again -- a journalist who is determined and dedicated to seeking the truth is not going to be stonewalled by the police voluntarily being silent. It's only the yellow journalists who want to publish whatever sells papers cheaply who are suffering.
Yes, but you're talking about a court case. Outside of court, the rules are different. THIS ISN'T A COURT OF LAW! This is reality. Police are still accountable for their deeds to the community. This isn't going to stifle the watchdogs any. They are the sort of journalists who will stick to a story and do the investigating they need to do.
And your analogy doesn't work. The military is on our payroll, too, but they can't tell just any wahoo everything about their technology. It's like the moronic questions the press asked the military before Desert Storm, "Yeah, uhm, so, where are all our troops going to be at this moment in time?" Yeah, let's tell 'em where they are and broadcast it so that the enemy can find them too!
This is similar yet different. Journalists don't use this information to watchdog the police. They use it to sell papers with stories of crime and blood and violence, with a clear enemy and victim. It's never that simple, and the suspects may not be guilty, but the press isn't interested in such things.
...because by having the police clam up, the innocents are allowed a chance that Richard Jewell and others did not have. It isn't the police's job to be honest and open-minded when talking to reporters. As you said, they have an emotional stake in seeing the person convicted; if they don't give out information, they would protect the rights of the citizens in spite of themselves.
Today, I decided not to tell my boss that I was sleeping with my girlfriend last night. A few days ago, I could have called Mom and told her how I was feeling, but I didn't. And when I was contacted by a headhunter a couple of weeks ago, I chose to remain silent about my job status and told her to call me again in six months.
Come to think of it, there's a lot of information I've voluntarily withheld. How horrible to think that I'm denying others their first amendment rights!
But you're absolutely right about the ones who are not convicted, and that's exactly why the judge ruled the way he did. It's to protect the innocent from bad reporters, parasites who feed off crime reports from the police.
Bingo. I should have read your comments before I posted mine, because you said exactly what I said. The media is seeing one of their cheap and easy ways of selling papers go down the drain in Illinois: You listen to a scanner, you talk to the cops, you tell the story and play like you're judge and jury and the exciting write-up sells papers with little or no involvement. It takes time, energy, effort, and financing for a reporter to actually take the time to talk to the parties involved and get ALL of the facts. Even if they do, balanced stories don't sell -- people want a hero and a villain in their stories. Yes, this is BAD news for the media. But no law has been made governing freedom of the press in this case. They're still free to ask and report on whatever information they're given. They just have to dig a little more. On top of that, this is GOOD news for those of us who might one day find ourselves falsely accused.
All police activities must be made public (if requested) in court. I agree that we must be able to watch the police...that's why police scanners must remain legal. We can hear and watch, and we can tell people what we saw.
But an equally important aspect of free speech is the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. The police are exercising that right. They're citizens, too.
It's not like the judge is preventing the newspapers from reporting information. It's not the case that the police are being forced to be silent.
What's happening here is that the police have voluntarily decided not to give out this information, and the newspapers are pissed that they can't sell crime any more. Hey, bad news sells newspapers, and if they can't get the bad news, they can't get the paper! This has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with the media's bottom lines.
It's all about greenbacks.
This is great news, if you ask me. The media takes great delight in making and breaking heroes and zeros by basically being highly-paid ambulance-chasers. Consider the story of Chuck Jewell and the Atlanta bombing. That wasn't news; that was libel. The media made him into the criminal (with prodding from the police) without a trial.
This forces newspapers and TV stations to get involved with a story if they want to cover it. No longer can they just skim the surface, quickly condemn whoever looks guilty and call it a done deal. Now they have to actually do some investigation and REAL JOURNALISM to get facts to sell their papers! How novel.
There's a big difference between what's happening in Illinois and what's happening with things like the CDA from a couple of years ago; the difference is, the police chose this route. We just have a lot of publishers about to lose their bread-and-butter business, and so they're crying about it.
Let them cry.
Yes, I hope they hear us.
Because they can listen to us all day without hearing us.
It's entirely possible they're just grabbing Pinkerton to say, "And what are the names and addresses of these 1,000 people who posted, so that we may report them? You DO keep them on record, don't you?"
America suffers from a dangerous case of "It can't happen here" syndrome. We still talk about Nazi concentration camps while simultaneously forgetting about what we did to innocent Japanese-Americans here. Also, forget about this issue for a second and consider the slow erosion of freedom of speech that's occurring in the country.
I read one book of a fabulous series of books on the fall of democracy in various countries. One volume alone, written by Arturo Valenzuela, is about the fall of democracy in Chile, about Pinochet's coup. I know a lot of people on one side of the issue blame the CIA's intervention, but the truth is that the CIA only supported a movement that was happening anyway.
The problem there, as also is here, is that the "silent majority" cannot remain silent. MOST OF US WERE NOT NORMAL. I'm not just talking about geeks. Not everyone can be beautiful and popular, and most kids aren't -- why else do you think Marilyn Manson reaches kids so well?
The real problem is that mainstream America isn't informed of these matters, and then when it is, it believes that these things Can't Happen Here, and it doesn't do anything about it.
But once in a while...a bullet zings too close to one of these folks' heads, and they go on a rant. Right now, however, they're ranting against the wrong thing. They should be fixing the way parents raise children, not fixing the way children treat each other. That will never change.
Let's face it. We find things like WAVE terrifying and spiteful. Obviously, they find us terrifying. So let's report on ourselves.
Let's look at some of these "Early Warning Signs."
Hits or bullies others -- no, not really...although sometimes I do on USENET or internet BBSes.
Expresses uncontrolled anger -- I express it, but usually only in the privacy of my own home when no one's around. (Still, it's not the sort of thing you leave to chance, is it?)
Has unlawful possession and use of firearms -- nope, I haven't chosen to exercise my 2nd amendment right yet.
Displays intense intolerance or prejudice -- guilty! towards censor-mongers.
Has unlawful possession and use of firearms -- haven't we been here before?
Has excessive feelings of isolation or rejection -- here I am, trapped in my office at work, all alone...just me and my internet connection, left to my own devices...
Conveys violence in writings and/or drawings -- and I'll kill the first person who tells me I can't.
Uses drugs or alcohol on campus -- yeah, but I'm of the drinking age, so doesn't that count?
Makes threats -- frequently.
Suddenly has bad grades or little interest in school -- yeah, I totally lost interest in school once I got my Master's degree and a job.
Is easily angered by minor things -- you mean, like people trying to take away my ability to get porn on the web? Absolutely!
"I have a cause: Smut. I'm for it." --Tom Lehrer
...I was reading this and realized, "Hey, that's ME he's talking about."
Yes...I am a civilian working for the Navy. (I feel like I'm at Defense Contractor's Anonymous...) In fact, I'm with a group of folks responsible for writing the software that is the official NATO test for military communications equipment.
[aside] Do you have any idea what the NDA for this company looks like? How many NDAs did you sign that said, "If you talk about the wrong things to the wrong people, or even to the right people at the wrong time, or even to the right people, at the right time, but in the wrong place, OR EVEN the right people at the right time at the right place but when that other person didn't Need To Know the information, we'll throw you behind bars with your new "husband" for the next 10 to 15 years!"??? *sigh*)
Well, anyhow, what I can talk about and is unclassified is that most of the military communications formats are encrypted, jamproof and in many ways just really dang hard to deal with. There are two exceptions. One of them is used to control airplanes remotely (usually for Automatic Takeoff and Landing, for carriers). It's not encrypted. Granted, the format of these communications isn't something the average joe can get a hold of easily. And there's probably a way for a pilot to shut down the communications.
But the unencrypted nature of this, not to mention the fact that it can be used to control a plane, handled cleverly, could be a risk. It's like the risk in Star Wars..."I've analzyed their attack, sir, and there IS a danger..."
Hmmm, I seem to have wandered off the point of the post I'm responding to...I know I had something relevant to this post to say...oh yeah, it was this: Even the civilians are underfunded. You'd be amazed at the crap our team here has to dig through. Our solution is that we're always having to reuse old code, rather than hacking an off-the-shelf product. But if you've been on a project where you've tried to reuse code and merely update a system over time, you know how nasty things can get...well, we've been updating the same code pretty much since...1993 or so. Seven years makes code fugly.
Okay, I'm going to stop now.
It's not an issue as far as weapon systems go. But what about the plane itself? The plane contains how much fuel, flies how fast, and has how much mass? I imagine an F-14 hijacked and sent into the bridge of a carrier would be BAD.
And if you know enough to talk about what you talked about, you also know enough to know that what I suggest can happen. And you also ought to know that it isn't all encrypted.
The military is really way, way behind the times.
The idea behind Open Source is that code and information should be free. Not just free as in "at no cost," but free as in "free flowing." But the Open Source mindset that is required to have a successful project can't also agree with the idea of censorship in the first place. They are contradictory ideals.
The whole reason censorship is wrong is that no two people can agree on what should or should not be censored. The reason OS works for software is that a bug's discovery or feature's implementation will be obvious to someone, given a large enough sample set. An open source censorware program would have people simultaneously working towards contradictory ends -- every site will offend someone, and every site should be read by someone. So the sum total of all people will want to block everything, while the rest are trying to unblock everything!
This is why we must defend everyone's right to say whatever they want to say, no matter how much we detest it -- including things said by those who support censorship. It's why the price of freedom is ever-present vigilance.
Censorship and Open Source are contradictory aims and an Open Source censorware program could never succeed. Censorware itself is a "Cathedral" mindset -- where the "priests" hand down to us "laypersons" what is and is not acceptable, and if we don't like it, the best we're allowed is to hope for a change in the next revision.
The best way to fight back, if you ask me, is to use this fact to our advantage: No two censors agree on what should be censored, and what should not be censored. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This is, ultimately, why we will win the battle against censorship -- even though today things look bleak.