From the ISP's standpoint, I can understand that they don't want DoS attacks affecting their machines because most of their users also going to be affected.
However, if the DoS attacks originated from inside the ISP, then they (the ISP) should have taken action against the individuals who attacked the user -- not vice versa.
It's not the user's fault that someone else found their material objectionable. The ISP should take steps to prevent future attacks by securing their systems or blocking the attackers, not by dropping innocent users.
Self regulation equates to: if it's going to cost me (the business owner) money, then it's going to be cheap as hell; Customers will have to pay for increased privacy.
Government regulation: add 5 parts red tape with 1 heaping tablespoon of buearocratic non-sense and beat until e-commerce is dead.
When you've got a name/IP association, you are no longer anonymous.
True: if someone wants to track you, they can and will -- the resources are endless.
However: this doesn't justify tracking everyone on the internet all the time. IPs are (usually) assigned dynamically and ISPs are not required by law to keep their logs for any given period of time. (How much HD space to you want to give to logs?)
Right now, you are anonymous to Joe Idiot AOL User and 99% of the other muck on the internet. Let's keep it that way.
If the RIAA had it's way, car stereo manufacturers would be required to build special collection systems so that every time you wanted to listen to a CD, you'd have to insert a quarter.
geesh! Do I have to have a license for everything?
So if, at any time, Network Solutions or it's political constituants disagree with the position that you are taking on your website under their domain name, then they have the right to withdraw that domain name from you?
This tactic totally pisses me off! What gives them the right to "police" Napster to determine who is trading what?
Locally, there are a few strip clubs under the same assault -- by church organizations. They sit outside of the strip club and gather the license plate numbers of people who frequent the establishment and film them with video cameras. They say that they are tracking the habits of the "offenders." Does the fact that they cannot win their case in a court of law give them permission to take law into their own hands?
I digress: Metallica shouldn't be attacking the very people who listen to their music; ie: bite the hand that feeds! Instead, they should just continue with their lawsuit against Napster and leave the end-user alone. It isn't up to their lawyers to pass judgement before judgement is due!
Society's fascination with crime brought us America's Most Wanted and Cops; our fascination with danger brought us the slew of FOX Worlds Most / Scariest shows. In reaction to our fascination (obsession?) with privacy, we now have shows like Big Brother and desktop cameras everywhere.
As long as I'm not forced to watch another sham wedding on television...
Slashdot Mirror
From the ISP's standpoint, I can understand that they don't want DoS attacks affecting their machines because most of their users also going to be affected.
However, if the DoS attacks originated from inside the ISP, then they (the ISP) should have taken action against the individuals who attacked the user -- not vice versa.
It's not the user's fault that someone else found their material objectionable. The ISP should take steps to prevent future attacks by securing their systems or blocking the attackers, not by dropping innocent users.
dc
--
No, but rather a business will not be looking out for your best interests unless it's free or they can make money off of it.
dc
--
What ruling body can declare that links are legal/illegal? Last I checked, the Internet was a global thing.
Does this mean that AltaVisa, Northernlight, Excite and all the rest of the search engines can be sued for 'linking' to questionable material?
dc
--
Self or Government Regulation?
Self regulation equates to: if it's going to cost me (the business owner) money, then it's going to be cheap as hell; Customers will have to pay for increased privacy.
Government regulation: add 5 parts red tape with 1 heaping tablespoon of buearocratic non-sense and beat until e-commerce is dead.
We're damned if we do...damned if we don't!
dc!
--
When you've got a name/IP association, you are no longer anonymous.
True: if someone wants to track you, they can and will -- the resources are endless.
However: this doesn't justify tracking everyone on the internet all the time. IPs are (usually) assigned dynamically and ISPs are not required by law to keep their logs for any given period of time. (How much HD space to you want to give to logs?)
Right now, you are anonymous to Joe Idiot AOL User and 99% of the other muck on the internet. Let's keep it that way.
#!/don/carnage
--
Loose your anomynity and they promise to stop crime.
Try to be anonymous and you're a criminal.
#!/don/carnage
--
If the RIAA had it's way, car stereo manufacturers would be required to build special collection systems so that every time you wanted to listen to a CD, you'd have to insert a quarter.
geesh! Do I have to have a license for everything?
#!/dc--
So if, at any time, Network Solutions or it's political constituants disagree with the position that you are taking on your website under their domain name, then they have the right to withdraw that domain name from you?
So who owns freedom dot com?
dc
--
hmphf...I never even noticed.
--
This tactic totally pisses me off! What gives them the right to "police" Napster to determine who is trading what?
Locally, there are a few strip clubs under the same assault -- by church organizations. They sit outside of the strip club and gather the license plate numbers of people who frequent the establishment and film them with video cameras. They say that they are tracking the habits of the "offenders." Does the fact that they cannot win their case in a court of law give them permission to take law into their own hands?
I digress: Metallica shouldn't be attacking the very people who listen to their music; ie: bite the hand that feeds! Instead, they should just continue with their lawsuit against Napster and leave the end-user alone. It isn't up to their lawyers to pass judgement before judgement is due!
--
dc
--
- Software developers
- Every consumer advocacy organization that has looked at it
- Large software customers
- Librarians
- Other independent information content developers (writers, photographers)
- Entertainment industry
- Magazine and newspaper publishers
- Many lawyers and law professors
- UCITA has been sharply criticized by the United States' Federal Trade Commission.
erm...who is for it then?--
If I'm not mistaken, the PII had some sort of "id" built into it's instruction set. eh?
--
woohooo! plumbers can work on computers now!
...micro$oft universe: what do you want us to own today?
With this Playstation 2, Pinky, I can finally complete my thermo-nuclear balistic missile and rule the world!
NARF!
well...they're bastards.
Society's fascination with crime brought us America's Most Wanted and Cops; our fascination with danger brought us the slew of FOX Worlds Most / Scariest shows. In reaction to our fascination (obsession?) with privacy, we now have shows like Big Brother and desktop cameras everywhere.
As long as I'm not forced to watch another sham wedding on television...