This article seems to confuse the distinction between monitoring, censorship, and invasive monitoring.
I have no problem with the government search websites and public areas of the internet. But, the line has to be drawn there. Without a warrant, the policing authorities should have the same right as an individual, as in looking into what is clearly visible. But, getting into snooping e-mail or hacking systems they must have a warrant, issued by a judge without rubber stamp.
This is clearly different from censorship which is the prevention of publication of materials. Of course, you have a potential for censorship where you allow for a non-checked police checking identities of posters.
From the sounds of it, SCO's attorneys have not properly investigated their case before filing a lawsuit. Where SCO's attorneys failed to properly investigate, they would be subject to rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivilous case. There was a case in California where an attorney was sanctioned over $500k for filing and continuing a frivilous case.
Not just that, IBM can go after SCO for intentional interference, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.
For you who hate Microsoft and hate the abuse of patents, do you know which side to take?
Keep in mind, that if Microsoft is screwed over with abuse of a patent, you might be next.
Same thing with the abuse of any right or law. Keep in mind when the law is abused or a right trampled on, even for a good cause, the next time it may not be a good cause or it could be you that is being abused.
What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?
That would come from investigations. If they have information about something, then you as the defense, will have to determine where the information came from and if they broke the law.
OTOH, do I want the police to have to wait to get a warrant before they can use this technology to trace, say, an actual violent criminal?
An accused violent criminal. Keep in mind, this is happening before the guilt is determined.
This information must be accurate to facilitate service of process against spammers and domain squatters.
I have filed a lawsuit against Sobonito Investments, the people who have the domains sexaffair.org, fantasymatch.com, xxxdate.com, bangmatch.com, for spamming. By not having entirely truthful information in the whois database, it makes it much more difficult to effect service against these spammers.
The only charges we have are occasional ones such as when they built a new expensive bridge across a harbour, you had to pay $1 when you want across. Now that they've regained all the money, you don't have to pay anymore.
In Mass. they were supposed to take the tolls down from the Mass. pike over 20 years ago. The Turnpike Authority kept avoiding that by aking out more loans to extend their life.
Sometimes the government implement stupid taxes. They don't think about logistics and efficiencies when implementing the taxes. Here, the gas tax makes much more sense then bugging everyone's cars. In Mass. they have an excise tax on cars that is fixed statewide, that one must pay every year, which goes to the city, why not just collect it with the car registration payment, and have the state send the money to the city. They do that in Texas. And those toll roads where people have to be paid $18/hour to collect $.50 from each car that stops -- which also raises safety issues.
Me thinks that the government is only interested in how much they can pick from our pockets.
Lets allow spammers to be hit with a cane for every 250 spams that they send. Then allow people to pay $5 for for the privilege of being allowed to hit the spammers.
That could pay for the war in IRAQ. It also remands me of the scene on Airplane where everyone was lined up to slap the screaming woman.
When was that? Before they wired all the dorms with ethernet? You mentioned clusters so I am guessing you were there after they moved the computer center out of building 39 and into the builidng fishbowl on the infinete corridor and the Athena cluster in the SCC.
I think MIT when downhill after students were not encouraged to sleep in the SCC library.
When they say resale for commercial purpose means, that you can't resell to be used for rental or public display. I don't believe that they mean (or can be allowed) to restrict the DVDs/CDs to another private party.
How about a few hundred times a day? And that is not the only thing, there is also the issue of overloading the mail server, the amount of time to read each e-mail before hitting the delete.
Since they are connected to the internet, they ask for it. If they didn't want the files taken, then they would have diconnected their system from the internet and hit the delete key.
Of course when you connect to the internet, you are asking for people to go through your system and taking your files.
Jim Tyre wrote a brief on this for the DeCSS case which espouses a similar idea to Salin's letter. I don't recall that Salin's letter being mentioned mentioned in any of the DeCSS related or the CHBreak cases. I wonder if the PTO or anyone else has paid attention to it?
You don't only go after the person who originates the spam, but link in the chain. If someone hires a spammer to "market" for them, you go after them under agency theory.
I placed the orders not for the product, but to track the spammers. The vigra is not returnable, but you must consider the cost of the pills, kits, etc. as a cost of going after the spammer (like the filing fees, service, etc) and figure that into the amount that you may consider settling for.
For example, I bought penis enlargment pills from a company in California, then returned them in person with a witness along with my demand letter. They kept spamming, but I have not gotten another spam from them after they were served with a lawsuit last Monday.
When the jugheads at Archie comics realized what PR mess they stepped into when they threated the domain dedicated to a 2 y/o girl named Veronica, they backed down.
The law is not restricting your online activities. The law is restricting how you use other people's servers. All it is saying is that if you are using other peoples servers to send advertising for porn, that you must tell them that is what you are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with the government search websites and public areas of the internet. But, the line has to be drawn there. Without a warrant, the policing authorities should have the same right as an individual, as in looking into what is clearly visible. But, getting into snooping e-mail or hacking systems they must have a warrant, issued by a judge without rubber stamp.
This is clearly different from censorship which is the prevention of publication of materials. Of course, you have a potential for censorship where you allow for a non-checked police checking identities of posters.
That is not correct. It can apply to both criminal and civil cases. See the Lectric Law Library
Not just that, IBM can go after SCO for intentional interference, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.
Keep in mind, that if Microsoft is screwed over with abuse of a patent, you might be next.
Same thing with the abuse of any right or law. Keep in mind when the law is abused or a right trampled on, even for a good cause, the next time it may not be a good cause or it could be you that is being abused.
That would come from investigations. If they have information about something, then you as the defense, will have to determine where the information came from and if they broke the law.
An accused violent criminal. Keep in mind, this is happening before the guilt is determined.
I have filed a lawsuit against Sobonito Investments, the people who have the domains sexaffair.org, fantasymatch.com, xxxdate.com, bangmatch.com, for spamming. By not having entirely truthful information in the whois database, it makes it much more difficult to effect service against these spammers.
In Mass. they were supposed to take the tolls down from the Mass. pike over 20 years ago. The Turnpike Authority kept avoiding that by aking out more loans to extend their life.
Me thinks that the government is only interested in how much they can pick from our pockets.
That could pay for the war in IRAQ. It also remands me of the scene on Airplane where everyone was lined up to slap the screaming woman.
I think MIT when downhill after students were not encouraged to sleep in the SCC library.
I guess that China's GNP is going to drop by 25% as one of the biggest Chinese exports. I wonder where Ralsky will go?
When they say resale for commercial purpose means, that you can't resell to be used for rental or public display. I don't believe that they mean (or can be allowed) to restrict the DVDs/CDs to another private party.
Spamming is theft, plain and simple.
Make money at home with your computer...sue spammers.
Of course when you connect to the internet, you are asking for people to go through your system and taking your files.
Jim Tyre wrote a brief on this for the DeCSS case which espouses a similar idea to Salin's letter. I don't recall that Salin's letter being mentioned mentioned in any of the DeCSS related or the CHBreak cases. I wonder if the PTO or anyone else has paid attention to it?
Me thinks that your sarcasm detector is broken.
You don't only go after the person who originates the spam, but link in the chain. If someone hires a spammer to "market" for them, you go after them under agency theory.
It is called agency! The tenet of agency theory is that a principal is liable for the acts of its agents.
Even so, let a judge and jury tell the spammers they are wrong!
Make money from home with your computer....sue a spammer!
For example, I bought penis enlargment pills from a company in California, then returned them in person with a witness along with my demand letter. They kept spamming, but I have not gotten another spam from them after they were served with a lawsuit last Monday.
For more information on my spam fighting activities.
When the jugheads at Archie comics realized what PR mess they stepped into when they threated the domain dedicated to a 2 y/o girl named Veronica, they backed down.
He could ask to be taken off of the caller's call list. Just like the opt-out, ask everyone with your e-mail to opt-out you.
Didn't you forget about the battle with the two year old over the domain Veronica.org?
The law is not restricting your online activities. The law is restricting how you use other people's servers. All it is saying is that if you are using other peoples servers to send advertising for porn, that you must tell them that is what you are doing.