I'm not so keen on this idea, since it gives people the opportunity to vote on legislation without giving them time to consider it. However, I would love to have a "People's House" organized something like this:
Members are chosen at random from registered voters, serving staggered six-year terms, like Senators, but with the same salaries and perks as Representatives. By a two-thirds vote, they can veto (as a whole, or line-by-line) any piece of legislation that Congress has proposed, with the same time frame as the President's veto power.
This would put a brake on legislation that is mere pork or log-rolling, without creating the "tyranny of the majority" risks involved in simple direct democracy. --
Every language has some things that you communicate through the grammar, some things that you communicate through word choice, and some things that are usually picked up through context. (American Sign Language, for example, has a large number of verb inflections -- conveyed by modulating the motion of the hands -- that English only expresses through adverbs.)
I can imagine this conversation between two native speakers of Japanese:
"English is a really ambiguous language. It doesn't have words for politeness levels."
"Actually, it does have words like 'sir', 'madam', and 'boy', but for some reason, people don't use them. I guess they just deduce the politeness level from context."
And if this were the 1980s rather than the 2000s, the conversation could go on: "Maybe that's why Japanese manufacturing firms are kicking the Americans' butts -- since the English language doesn't mark politeness distinctions clearly, American workers don't respect their bosses as much as Japanese workers do." --
With respect [to Prof. Touretzky], the law does not treat instructions to machines in the same way as it treats political or academic discussions of those instructions, just as it distinguishes between illicit dealing in firearms and literary discussion of committing a crime. No matter how clever one may be in converting code to English or translating it into any other language, DeCSS itself (whether as an executable utility or in source code) is still just a set of unscrambling instructions to a machine, as inexpressive as the numeric combination to the locks to a bank vault. See also Universal City Studios, 82 F. Supp. 2d at 222 ("Executable computer code of the type at issue in this case does little to further traditional First Amendment interests.") And since Professor Touretzky's testimony established that the source code can be readily converted to object code which, in turn, can be used to create the executable utility, the DeCSS source code is just as much a "technology," "device" or "component, or part thereof" within the meaning of the DMCA as is the executable utility. See 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2). [excerpt from the plaintiffs' brief, at II. B.]
--
I suspect that many (most?) people out there, given a choice between "enough money to do X" and "the power to order someone to do X-1", will choose power. Seeing people follow one's orders appeals to a deeper part of the brain than seeing a large number in one's bank statement.... --
First of all, the #1 cardinal criteria for getting hired at PaxDigita:
Smart, and
Gets Things Done.
That's it. That's all we're looking
for. Memorize that. Recite it to yourself before you go to bed every night. Our goal is to
hire people with aptitude, not a particular skill set. Any skill set that people
can bring to the job will be technologically obsolete in a couple of years, anyway, so
it's better to hire people that are going to be able to learn any new technology
rather than people who happen to know SQL programming right this minute....
Even if the people directing the FBI are all perfectly honest and law-abiding, what about the thousands of people who work for the FBI?
Imagine an ISP (with a Carnivore box) that has the ex-spouse of an FBI agent as a customer. What prevents the agent from gathering information about the ex-spouse?
Imagine an FBI agent who has access to a Carnivore box bucking for a promotion. What prevents the agent from making fishing expeditions, and then presenting the information gained as tips from an anonymous source?
Imagine a loan shark who has loaned tens of thousands of dollars to an FBI agent with access to a Carnivore box. What prevents the agent from getting information (credit card numbers, blackmail-worthy details, information on the loan shark's enemies, etc.) through the box that will make the loan shark willing to forgive the debt?
Imagine an FBI agent whose spouse manages a business. What prevents the agent from using the Carnivore box to spy on the spouse's competitors or customers?
there are some major flaws in their reasoning. Particularly when they essentially argue that fair use cannot apply to music. Read it carefully.
Ummm... where do they say that? I saw them cite all of the legal considerations that go into a fair-use decision, and then say for each of them, "this doesn't apply for Napster." They didn't try to argue that fair use is inapplicable for music in general. --
The RIAA's brief responded to this argument. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) doesn't save Napster, they say, because:
"Digital audio recording device" is narrowly defined by the law, and a computer with Napster doesn't qualify. (This, ironically, is the same argument that saved the Diamond Rio from being covered by the AHRA.)
People who distribute MP3s through Napster expect to get other MP3s through the same service. (If Napster subscribers could only send files through Napster and never receive, who would bother?) Even though no money is changing hands, there's something going on that, in legal terms, is commercial activity.
The authors of the AHRA, in authorizing noncommercial copying, were thinking of sharing music with one's family and circle of friends -- not with thousands of strangers who happen to subscribe to the same online service.
the right to have an insecure-but-harmless system
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 2
In some neighborhoods (I'm told -- I've never lived in one:-), the community is so friendly and close-knit that people leave their front doors unlocked. A malicious stranger could drive into such a neighborhood, waltz into a house, and rob/rape/murder freely.
Suppose that I seek out such neighborhoods by going from house to house, trying front doors to see if they're unlocked -- and then leave notes in people's houses saying that if they don't improve their security, I'm going to put their addresses on a billboard facing the nearest highway. Am I providing a public service, or am I the sort of malicious stranger that the community should protect itself against? --
YA "here's what seems to be going on" comment
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 5
Hmm. It looks like:
ORBS has systems that probe hosts all over the Net to test whether or not they are open relays. If a host blocks the ORBS probe, ORBS will note this fact, and some ISPs that subscribe to ORBS will block that host, even if that host is not really an open relay. (By comparison, the MAPS systems will only probe a host after someone has complained about getting spam from it.)
Some of MAPS's own mail servers refuse connections from ORBS's probes. Therefore, ironically, ORBS blocks MAPS.
Above.net has decided that the probes from ORBS violate the above.net Acceptable Usage Policy. Therefore, the hosts that send out these probes are blocked from the whole above.net network.
MAPS uses above.net as an ISP, and Paul Vixie is one of the big wheels at both MAPS and above.net.
Manawatu Internet Services (MIS), an ISP that serves other ORBS machines, uses NZ Telecom as an ISP, and NZ Telecom uses above.net as an upstream provider.
NZ Telecom set up its routing tables incorrectly; they could and should have set them up so that MIS could access ORBS machines through another upstream ISP.
Some folks at ORBS noticed that they were having trouble with their email (as in, it was taking over a week to get from Europe to NZ), and a cursory check suggested that above.net was sabotaging their email traffic.
[pulls string on talking Barbie] "Network administration is hard." --
that "seemingly clueful post"...
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 2
...said that the misdirected routing information was coming from NZ Telecom, the ISP that ORBS is using, and not above.net.
Can some technically clueful and politically neutral person investigate and report what's happening?
For an ISP to misroute traffic bound for its competitor is indeed a sleazy tactic -- but since it's sleazy and likely to be discovered tactic, the damage to the perpetrator's reputation would probably not be worth the benefit. Therefore, I would give MAPS and above.net the benefit of the doubt until more information comes in. --
I followed the link above, and saw an article describing Garbus's cross-examination of Michael Shamos. Nothing there about the judge refusing the motion. --
A similar situation: the TiVo uses GPL'd software, but they don't give you access to the binaries - only the output from them.
They sell you a machine containing the binaries, don't they? Even if it's technically difficult for you to read those files, as far as copyright law is concerned, that's distribution of copyright material. If they didn't give you access to the source, then the FSF's lawyers could call up TiVo and say, "ahem, either share your source code, or don't use our code in the machines that you distribute."
On the other hand, if (say) CBS used a modified version of Linux to produce one of their TV shows, they would not have to offer their source code to anyone who watched the show, since the show does not contain anything derived from GPL'ed software. --
If this catches on, Napster will need to implement some sort of moderation scheme.
Then the RIAA can just compile a list of all Napster users, sort them by karma, and go after the high-karma users who are making copyrighted material available without permission. --
Once upon a time, back when there was a Soviet Union, they had a secret ballot, sort of. When you showed up to vote, you could either fill out your ballot in front of a Communist Party apparatchik, or go into the curtained booth at the end of the room and fill it out in private. Guess which option most voters picked?
So if Internet voting becomes widespread, you could either click on your choice as your precinct captain / pastor / PHB looks on, or choose to vote in private (electronically or on paper). I don't want to find out how many people would end up picking the first option. --
How can people who don't live near a reservation help out through email or IRC? --
Re:Public needs to stop pretending there is no iss
on
CNet On Online Freedom
·
· Score: 2
Utility companies are working to improve their metering and billing systems, so they can (a) work better in a deregulated environment, and (b) offer customers the same kinds of fine-grained pricing schemes that phone companies offer. (Right now, most utility companies are sloppy about reading meters and are happy to give you an estimated bill, but that's because most utilities are monopolies that wouldn't benefit from more precise bookkeeping.)
If I could crack, say, a regional water utility, and download a database with a couple of years' worth of usage records, I could call my friendly neighborhood mobster and arrange a very lucrative consulting contract.
My employer sells billing systems to phone companies and is starting to break into the utility market. When I went to a presentation describing these exciting new trends in metering and billing, I asked about the privacy implications. The lecturer said that (in the USA) state public-utilities commissions were responsible for privacy-related utility regulation. This somehow did not fill me with confidence. --
For example, let's take Google. They know that they link to illegal stuff. MP3s, warez, pr0n that is someone else's property, etc. etc. Are they also guily of contributory infringement?
To quote cshotton above, Google has a "legitimate, non-infringing" excuse for linking to illegal MP3s. They link to everything, and it would cost too much for them to identify and filter out the illegal stuff; having links to illegal content in their database is just a side-effect of their business.
Likewise, I think it's reasonable for a news site (such as Slashdot) to publish links to a site with illegal content, because such links only show up on Slashdot when the other site is newsworthy.
On the other hand, if you have a Web service whose primary business is providing links to illegal MP3s, then you have a much weaker case. (And judging from all their obnoxious banner ads, mp3board.com is trying to make a business out of this service.)
Now, suppose someone wrote a Perl script that scanned the Web for illegal MP3s, and then posted random comments to Slashdot containing links to those MP3s. Most of the comments would get busted to "-1, Offtopic", but if the script put some identifying keywords in the Subject line, it would be easy to search for the links in Slashdot's archives. Would Slashdot have a legal obligation to delete these comments from its servers? --
The reference manual is a 277-page Word document that's been bottled up as a self-extracting archive. I suppose HTML or PDF would be too much to ask for, but why don't they just distribute this as a plain.zip file? I assume that anyone capable of understanding a Microsoft language reference manual also has access to WinZip... --
I've been using MS Visual Studio for a couple of years now, and I really like it. It's quite stable, I can't remember ever having the IDE crash, and it's very powerful.
I started using Visual Studio in February, for a C++ class I was taking, and the IDE crashed at least three times. It wasn't even compiling anything when it crashed -- in the middle of an editing session, it just rolled over and died. --
Most of the Justices were appointed during the Reagan era.
(So was Judge Jackson, by the way.) I'm not sure how much you can deduce from this fact. In the US, Federal judges serve for life, which means that once you get appointed, you're free to annoy whatever political faction supported you. For example, the late Justice Earl Warren was appointed by Nixon, but he led the Court through a very "liberal" period.
Although they are conservative judges who most likely want to help big business, they also know that monopolies hurt business and hurt the economy and therefore are more likely to side against a monopoly.
Also not necessarily true. Over the past twenty years, a number of conservative legal scholars and economists have been arguing that true monopolies hardly ever exist, and therefore antitrust law against monopoly misbehavior should hardly ever be applied. One of the most influential of these scholars is Judge Robert Bork, who wrote The Antitrust Paradox -- and, ironically, who supports the government's side in US v. Microsoft. (For more about this subject, read this Michael Kinsley essay. --
Slashdot Mirror
Members are chosen at random from registered voters, serving staggered six-year terms, like Senators, but with the same salaries and perks as Representatives. By a two-thirds vote, they can veto (as a whole, or line-by-line) any piece of legislation that Congress has proposed, with the same time frame as the President's veto power.
This would put a brake on legislation that is mere pork or log-rolling, without creating the "tyranny of the majority" risks involved in simple direct democracy.
--
A reliable anonymous source gave me an unconfirmed report that this rumor is true.
--
I can imagine this conversation between two native speakers of Japanese:
"English is a really ambiguous language. It doesn't have words for politeness levels."
"Actually, it does have words like 'sir', 'madam', and 'boy', but for some reason, people don't use them. I guess they just deduce the politeness level from context."
And if this were the 1980s rather than the 2000s, the conversation could go on: "Maybe that's why Japanese manufacturing firms are kicking the Americans' butts -- since the English language doesn't mark politeness distinctions clearly, American workers don't respect their bosses as much as Japanese workers do."
--
With respect [to Prof. Touretzky], the law does not treat instructions to machines in the same way as it treats political or academic discussions of those instructions, just as it distinguishes between illicit dealing in firearms and literary discussion of committing a crime. No matter how clever one may be in converting code to English or translating it into any other language, DeCSS itself (whether as an executable utility or in source code) is still just a set of unscrambling instructions to a machine, as inexpressive as the numeric combination to the locks to a bank vault. See also Universal City Studios, 82 F. Supp. 2d at 222 ("Executable computer code of the type at issue in this case does little to further traditional First Amendment interests.") And since Professor Touretzky's testimony established that the source code can be readily converted to object code which, in turn, can be used to create the executable utility, the DeCSS source code is just as much a "technology," "device" or "component, or part thereof" within the meaning of the DMCA as is the executable utility. See 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2). [excerpt from the plaintiffs' brief, at II. B.]
--
If you're interested in detailed, comprehensive, and well-thought-out arguments against libertarianism, I recommend this Web site.
--
I suspect that many (most?) people out there, given a choice between "enough money to do X" and "the power to order someone to do X-1", will choose power. Seeing people follow one's orders appeals to a deeper part of the brain than seeing a large number in one's bank statement....
--
--
Imagine an ISP (with a Carnivore box) that has the ex-spouse of an FBI agent as a customer. What prevents the agent from gathering information about the ex-spouse?
Imagine an FBI agent who has access to a Carnivore box bucking for a promotion. What prevents the agent from making fishing expeditions, and then presenting the information gained as tips from an anonymous source?
Imagine a loan shark who has loaned tens of thousands of dollars to an FBI agent with access to a Carnivore box. What prevents the agent from getting information (credit card numbers, blackmail-worthy details, information on the loan shark's enemies, etc.) through the box that will make the loan shark willing to forgive the debt?
Imagine an FBI agent whose spouse manages a business. What prevents the agent from using the Carnivore box to spy on the spouse's competitors or customers?
We don't know ... that's part of the problem.
--
The only digital-media distribution systems that make sense are RMS's tax-based proposal, the Street Performer Protocol, and the electronic tip jar. All of these schemes share two traits:
- they don't prevent people from copying a digital work and not paying
- over 90% of the money that the customer pays or gives in these schemes goes directly to the artist
The RIAA would rather have a scheme that:- includes some form of copy protection or watermarking
- maximizes the baksheesh that record companies can get from the blockbusters they push
I think they're going after a chimera, but the people running the RIAA have a powerful incentive to believe otherwise.--
--
--
See this "Roundtable" on copright, from the archives of The Atlantic Monthly. John Perry Barlow and Lawrence Lessig are among the participants.
--
Suppose that I seek out such neighborhoods by going from house to house, trying front doors to see if they're unlocked -- and then leave notes in people's houses saying that if they don't improve their security, I'm going to put their addresses on a billboard facing the nearest highway. Am I providing a public service, or am I the sort of malicious stranger that the community should protect itself against?
--
- ORBS has systems that probe hosts all over the Net to test whether or not they are open relays. If a host blocks the ORBS probe, ORBS will note this fact, and some ISPs that subscribe to ORBS will block that host, even if that host is not really an open relay. (By comparison, the MAPS systems will only probe a host after someone has complained about getting spam from it.)
- Some of MAPS's own mail servers refuse connections from ORBS's probes. Therefore, ironically, ORBS blocks MAPS.
- Above.net has decided that the probes from ORBS violate the above.net Acceptable Usage Policy. Therefore, the hosts that send out these probes are blocked from the whole above.net network.
- MAPS uses above.net as an ISP, and Paul Vixie is one of the big wheels at both MAPS and above.net.
- Manawatu Internet Services (MIS), an ISP that serves other ORBS machines, uses NZ Telecom as an ISP, and NZ Telecom uses above.net as an upstream provider.
- NZ Telecom set up its routing tables incorrectly; they could and should have set them up so that MIS could access ORBS machines through another upstream ISP.
- Some folks at ORBS noticed that they were having trouble with their email (as in, it was taking over a week to get from Europe to NZ), and a cursory check suggested that above.net was sabotaging their email traffic.
[pulls string on talking Barbie] "Network administration is hard."--
Can some technically clueful and politically neutral person investigate and report what's happening?
For an ISP to misroute traffic bound for its competitor is indeed a sleazy tactic -- but since it's sleazy and likely to be discovered tactic, the damage to the perpetrator's reputation would probably not be worth the benefit. Therefore, I would give MAPS and above.net the benefit of the doubt until more information comes in.
--
I followed the link above, and saw an article describing Garbus's cross-examination of Michael Shamos. Nothing there about the judge refusing the motion.
--
On the other hand, if (say) CBS used a modified version of Linux to produce one of their TV shows, they would not have to offer their source code to anyone who watched the show, since the show does not contain anything derived from GPL'ed software.
--
--
So if Internet voting becomes widespread, you could either click on your choice as your precinct captain / pastor / PHB looks on, or choose to vote in private (electronically or on paper). I don't want to find out how many people would end up picking the first option.
--
How can people who don't live near a reservation help out through email or IRC?
--
If I could crack, say, a regional water utility, and download a database with a couple of years' worth of usage records, I could call my friendly neighborhood mobster and arrange a very lucrative consulting contract.
My employer sells billing systems to phone companies and is starting to break into the utility market. When I went to a presentation describing these exciting new trends in metering and billing, I asked about the privacy implications. The lecturer said that (in the USA) state public-utilities commissions were responsible for privacy-related utility regulation. This somehow did not fill me with confidence.
--
Likewise, I think it's reasonable for a news site (such as Slashdot) to publish links to a site with illegal content, because such links only show up on Slashdot when the other site is newsworthy.
On the other hand, if you have a Web service whose primary business is providing links to illegal MP3s, then you have a much weaker case. (And judging from all their obnoxious banner ads, mp3board.com is trying to make a business out of this service.)
Now, suppose someone wrote a Perl script that scanned the Web for illegal MP3s, and then posted random comments to Slashdot containing links to those MP3s. Most of the comments would get busted to "-1, Offtopic", but if the script put some identifying keywords in the Subject line, it would be easy to search for the links in Slashdot's archives. Would Slashdot have a legal obligation to delete these comments from its servers?
--
The reference manual is a 277-page Word document that's been bottled up as a self-extracting archive. I suppose HTML or PDF would be too much to ask for, but why don't they just distribute this as a plain .zip file? I assume that anyone capable of understanding a Microsoft language reference manual also has access to WinZip...
--
--
--