This would be true if the definition of date rape were to continue to shift the way you suggest; but it won't, because the problem with date rape is mostly an epistemological one: many, perhaps even most, date-rape and date-rape-like scenarios include a girl who has been raped and a guy who hasn't raped anyone, because they have different definitions of what constitutes rape.
The scenario you posit, "her feeling uncomfortable," is not a position advocated by anyone who I am aware of across the entire field of rape jurisprudence or literature. You are taking a position far beyond that being advocated for and saying that the policy shift will necessarily consider to that extreme, which is a very weak argument.
Your idea that it is "about time the girls started taking some of the responsibility for the outcome of the evening" is also a misplaced concern. Historically, women take almost all of the responsibility for the outcome of the evening. It is only with some of the newer definitions of rape to include Date Rape (which is one of the most common kinds, to be fair) that men have been asked to take responsibility for the outcome of the evening. They may have been prosecuted before, but any rape prosecution used to be, and to some extent still is, about whether the victim deserved it. It's not supposed to be about that, but most of the case is about trying to make the woman seem to be not the victim, but someone who somehow invited rape.
The problem is how far the pendulum should swing, and the problem is how do we deal with a divide where, under the same circumstances, women believe that an event constitutes rape and that there was no consent whereas men believe that there was consent and therefore no rape?
You have to decide, as a policy matter, what standards you want there. For centuries the pendulum has been in favor of the alleged rapist's version of events. Now it's shifting the other way. Sometimes it will clearly shift too far. But that doesn't justify keeping it where it is forever.
I realize this is a very touchy subject, where many men innocently believe they're not guilty and many women are as certain that they are, and where people are legitimately concerned about women (or men) being unable to come forward because of fear that society will hold the victim responsible for the rape. But it's not a simple question.
The problem is that "Kids being kids" is effectively the same rationale used to rationalize all kinds of completely unacceptable behavior. Date rape? Just guys being guys. Beating the hell out of each other? Just kids being kids.
At least, that's one problem. The other is that people don't "grow up" if you don't tell them, for example, that it's wrong to go around calling people names.
We do have a real problem with outlawing "kids being kids," but it's less in the area of name-calling and more in the area of "a kid accidentally killed someone so let's prosecute him for it," and also in the area of putting cops in the schools and treating school discipline as something that should be criminalized right away. Google the school-to-prison pipeline for some ridiculous examples.
But if a kid is going around name-calling, that behavior has to stop. It helps him and it helps everyone else when he stops.
What you're talking about is, I think, not quite as bad. I assume you're thinking about the scenario where, basically, teachers may set ground rules (no ganging up, as fair a fight as you can have between the two people, and maybe no fight at all if it's clearly unfair).
The correct solution is to help kids deal with emotional and verbal abuse, not try to outlaw it.
The correct solution is to help emotional and verbal abusers stop emotionally and verbally abusing people, not try to outlaw it. Only helping kids deal with it is like only helping the victims of any crime--it doesn't actually disincentivize the behavior on the part of the abuser.
Just because someone should have a thick enough skin or enough self-confidence to shrug off a verbal attack does not mean that someone else should be making that attack.
Lots of people with jobs are still in financial difficulties. Many of them also help other people who are in financial difficulties. One person can have a great job and still be burning through savings trying to save a family member from losing his or her house.
True--but it is a lot for something whose intrinsic entertainment value is unproven, unlike the television. People will sometimes pay for cable TV and let their house fall apart because they get more enjoyment out of their TV.
He shouldn't be looking at information classified as above his level of clearance, regardless of the fact that is in the public domain. It is a question of professional integrity now.
Ideally, yes, but this guy was working at State, correct? Mightn't it be important for his job to know what information is now publicly available?
Realistically, the only thing looking at the information does is risk his commenting on the information, which could give credence or context, so he shouldn't be linking for it. But everyone in the other country already knows what it says, so not letting state or others read it would just put our guys at an information disadvantage.
If professional integrity includes not looking at classified materials *that have been released to the general public*, then the ethics of the profession need to be seriously evaluated from a standpoint of logic. It is possible that someone feels this will have a deterrent effect on future would-be offenders, but it smacks more of wounded pride, which is not what we need determining the national security implications of our secrets.
Why would it need a "right to leave its systems vulnerable to penetration?" You could as easily say that "customers of hosting providers don't have a right to rely on the security of providers." You have to pick where to allocate responsibility. As the hosting provider usually writes the contract, guess where responsibility usually lies?
TCP/IP is a protocol--actually two protocols, one over the other.
You can fake packets in it. So what? That doesn't automagically give you root on anything.
Now if there's actually enough of an error in the TCP/IP code to give you kernel control from there, sure, you've rooted only *half* of the internet (or whatever percentage run the same kernel code). But (1) that code is looked over once or twice by security people and (2) that code is such a headache that even with the source code, almost all crackers would prefer to find a much easier target to deal with, and (3) the last time I looked at the code, around 2004, the comments on it, on the apple side, had not been updated since the mid-eighties, IIRC. Maybe the early nineties. (Although the code had changed.) Which doesn't exactly make it easier. (4) Such an error is unlikely to be found there to begin with. But not impossible.
TCP/IP Kernel code is kind of like Buckaroo Banzai doing neurosurgery. [To Jeff Goldblum]: "Don't tug on that, you never know what it might be attached to."
Losing his job for looking at it would be stupid, since it's been leaked. Losing his job for linking to it, on the other hand, is a completely different situation, because it means someone cleared for the information was pointing someone else to it when it was still classified--and because IIRC, pretty much everyone in government was warned not to do it.
Frankly, a very strong reprimand and instruction to take it down is the minimum punishment is order. A reduction in security clearance might be appropriate. Prosecution seems a little harsh to me, since in this particular case everybody knew about the leaked information anyway, but it wouldn't seem at all harsh to the people responsible for maintaining secrecy.
If someone threatens the life of another by preaching hatred, then no, the cop cannot shoot the person preaching hatred. The cop may be able to arrest him if the preaching is over a line that basically is open rebellion (you'd have to check the conlaw to be sure), but shooting him is not usually okay.
They are also bound by the constitution. The military does not have the right to violate it, although the courts would give them a lot of leeway to bend it if they claimed they had to. (See, e.g., the Korematsu case.)
US soil doesn't make a difference on Due Process, I think. According to the media, the judge in the case said that if he wanted due process, he could hand himself in, but otherwise the courts shouldn't step in. What bothers me is that his dad had to sue to get it before a judge in the first place--it seems to me that there should be at least a magistrate or neutral arbiter involved, and that you should have the same constitutional standards you do for convicting someone of treason--or at least probable cause of treason.
"I do not hava a science degree, and I do not really believe that mankind is capable of altering the Earth's climate and God promised there would never be another great flood, and if we were to do anything it would be bad for the economy..."
Yes, sadly presenting evidence is just preaching to the choir. Perhaps adding the cleaving of the shelf released golden plates that you the translated with the help of an angel who told you not to show the plates to anyone would make it more compelling. It's worked before.
Having a science degree does not make a person right, and not having one doesn't make a person wrong. Not all degrees are equal and not all people are equal. Sometimes the smartest person in the world knows less about a topic than a penniless old grandmother with no formal education who grew up in some place so obscure its practically off the map.
In this case, of course, the economy thing is silly. If we didn't have the clean air act we would have had easily tens of thousands of pollution deaths by now, for example, as opposed to the relatively small number we've had. And it doesn't take a biblical flood to require flood preparations--look at Katrina. Consider how low-lying the coastal cities are.
there is a point where i agree that the programmers should be liable for their code - to the extent that it shows negligence.
This has good and bad points. A few things of note:
1) One major function of tort-liability is cost-shifting--the programmer's negligent behavior causes an actual cost to the business owner who uses his software, and maybe the programmer should have to reimburse him. If the programmer does, then this means that a part of the total cost of making that particular software--the part otherwise paid by the loss the business owner suffers--gets built into the expected costs of making the software on the part of the developer, rather than being foisted on the unsuspecting buyer. This results, in theory, in the software not getting made if it costs more (to society) than it benefits society, since profits no longer artificially exceed costs due to unaccounted-for externalities.
2) It actually doesn't go far enough, in theory, since strict liability is necessary to truly internalize the costs.
3) But the real world is very different than the theory. Transaction costs--the costs of litigation and the deterrence effects of the risk of litigation and of a jury holding the wrong way--can be massive. The threat of litigation leads to a huge amount of wasted time in the medical community, and a lesser amount of wasted money, and a lot of malpractice (falsification and deliberate omissions from patient records).
4) On the bridge question: It depends on state law. Consult a lawyer in your state. YMMV. Obviously, that is an extreme case, and most software is not designed with the expectation of having lives depend on it. Just like you have different standards for military grade hardware and consumer hardware. There are a lot of options we have as a society in deciding how to treat risk.
Sure, it's all theater, but I have a high opinion of theater. Shakespeare is theater. Ibsen. Beckett. F-35s, green berets and stealth bombers are theater too, but I don't hear the same criticism leveled against them.
Shakespeare is cooler. So are stealth bombers.
And nobody criticizes Green Berets because of the Droid-Wookie analogy.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be true if the definition of date rape were to continue to shift the way you suggest; but it won't, because the problem with date rape is mostly an epistemological one: many, perhaps even most, date-rape and date-rape-like scenarios include a girl who has been raped and a guy who hasn't raped anyone, because they have different definitions of what constitutes rape.
The scenario you posit, "her feeling uncomfortable," is not a position advocated by anyone who I am aware of across the entire field of rape jurisprudence or literature. You are taking a position far beyond that being advocated for and saying that the policy shift will necessarily consider to that extreme, which is a very weak argument.
Your idea that it is "about time the girls started taking some of the responsibility for the outcome of the evening" is also a misplaced concern. Historically, women take almost all of the responsibility for the outcome of the evening. It is only with some of the newer definitions of rape to include Date Rape (which is one of the most common kinds, to be fair) that men have been asked to take responsibility for the outcome of the evening. They may have been prosecuted before, but any rape prosecution used to be, and to some extent still is, about whether the victim deserved it. It's not supposed to be about that, but most of the case is about trying to make the woman seem to be not the victim, but someone who somehow invited rape.
The problem is how far the pendulum should swing, and the problem is how do we deal with a divide where, under the same circumstances, women believe that an event constitutes rape and that there was no consent whereas men believe that there was consent and therefore no rape?
You have to decide, as a policy matter, what standards you want there. For centuries the pendulum has been in favor of the alleged rapist's version of events. Now it's shifting the other way. Sometimes it will clearly shift too far. But that doesn't justify keeping it where it is forever.
I realize this is a very touchy subject, where many men innocently believe they're not guilty and many women are as certain that they are, and where people are legitimately concerned about women (or men) being unable to come forward because of fear that society will hold the victim responsible for the rape. But it's not a simple question.
The problem is that "Kids being kids" is effectively the same rationale used to rationalize all kinds of completely unacceptable behavior. Date rape? Just guys being guys. Beating the hell out of each other? Just kids being kids.
At least, that's one problem. The other is that people don't "grow up" if you don't tell them, for example, that it's wrong to go around calling people names.
We do have a real problem with outlawing "kids being kids," but it's less in the area of name-calling and more in the area of "a kid accidentally killed someone so let's prosecute him for it," and also in the area of putting cops in the schools and treating school discipline as something that should be criminalized right away. Google the school-to-prison pipeline for some ridiculous examples.
But if a kid is going around name-calling, that behavior has to stop. It helps him and it helps everyone else when he stops.
What you're talking about is, I think, not quite as bad. I assume you're thinking about the scenario where, basically, teachers may set ground rules (no ganging up, as fair a fight as you can have between the two people, and maybe no fight at all if it's clearly unfair).
The correct solution is to help kids deal with emotional and verbal abuse, not try to outlaw it.
The correct solution is to help emotional and verbal abusers stop emotionally and verbally abusing people, not try to outlaw it. Only helping kids deal with it is like only helping the victims of any crime--it doesn't actually disincentivize the behavior on the part of the abuser.
Just because someone should have a thick enough skin or enough self-confidence to shrug off a verbal attack does not mean that someone else should be making that attack.
Oh nice, another company influencing government.
When can I get a PAC of my own?
When you are very rich, or when you are modestly rich and agree with an existing PAC.
Yeah, encrypting a backup tape might take another hour or two to configure... not at all reasonable overhead for 4.9 million patient records
Lots of people with jobs are still in financial difficulties. Many of them also help other people who are in financial difficulties. One person can have a great job and still be burning through savings trying to save a family member from losing his or her house.
True--but it is a lot for something whose intrinsic entertainment value is unproven, unlike the television. People will sometimes pay for cable TV and let their house fall apart because they get more enjoyment out of their TV.
Yes, but they are not the early adopters. In this economy, a lot of people don't have a spare $200 to spend on a shiny new toy.
In all of Shakespeare's works, which character would you most enjoy playing, and why?
Cue the privacy protest in 3, 2...
(Note: See Florida v. Riley, IIRC, for a case on law enforcement flying overhead to spot crime). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
He shouldn't be looking at information classified as above his level of clearance, regardless of the fact that is in the public domain. It is a question of professional integrity now.
Ideally, yes, but this guy was working at State, correct? Mightn't it be important for his job to know what information is now publicly available?
Realistically, the only thing looking at the information does is risk his commenting on the information, which could give credence or context, so he shouldn't be linking for it. But everyone in the other country already knows what it says, so not letting state or others read it would just put our guys at an information disadvantage.
If professional integrity includes not looking at classified materials *that have been released to the general public*, then the ethics of the profession need to be seriously evaluated from a standpoint of logic. It is possible that someone feels this will have a deterrent effect on future would-be offenders, but it smacks more of wounded pride, which is not what we need determining the national security implications of our secrets.
Well, perhaps I didn't see it that way because it wasn't analagous, and so took it as if serious. =)
A hosting provider is, on average, much more vulnerable than TCP/IP code.
Why would it need a "right to leave its systems vulnerable to penetration?" You could as easily say that "customers of hosting providers don't have a right to rely on the security of providers." You have to pick where to allocate responsibility. As the hosting provider usually writes the contract, guess where responsibility usually lies?
WTF does that even mean?
TCP/IP is a protocol--actually two protocols, one over the other.
You can fake packets in it. So what? That doesn't automagically give you root on anything.
Now if there's actually enough of an error in the TCP/IP code to give you kernel control from there, sure, you've rooted only *half* of the internet (or whatever percentage run the same kernel code). But (1) that code is looked over once or twice by security people and (2) that code is such a headache that even with the source code, almost all crackers would prefer to find a much easier target to deal with, and (3) the last time I looked at the code, around 2004, the comments on it, on the apple side, had not been updated since the mid-eighties, IIRC. Maybe the early nineties. (Although the code had changed.) Which doesn't exactly make it easier. (4) Such an error is unlikely to be found there to begin with. But not impossible.
TCP/IP Kernel code is kind of like Buckaroo Banzai doing neurosurgery. [To Jeff Goldblum]: "Don't tug on that, you never know what it might be attached to."
Losing his job for looking at it would be stupid, since it's been leaked. Losing his job for linking to it, on the other hand, is a completely different situation, because it means someone cleared for the information was pointing someone else to it when it was still classified--and because IIRC, pretty much everyone in government was warned not to do it.
Frankly, a very strong reprimand and instruction to take it down is the minimum punishment is order. A reduction in security clearance might be appropriate. Prosecution seems a little harsh to me, since in this particular case everybody knew about the leaked information anyway, but it wouldn't seem at all harsh to the people responsible for maintaining secrecy.
If someone threatens the life of another by preaching hatred, then no, the cop cannot shoot the person preaching hatred. The cop may be able to arrest him if the preaching is over a line that basically is open rebellion (you'd have to check the conlaw to be sure), but shooting him is not usually okay.
Very good point.
They are also bound by the constitution. The military does not have the right to violate it, although the courts would give them a lot of leeway to bend it if they claimed they had to. (See, e.g., the Korematsu case.)
US soil doesn't make a difference on Due Process, I think. According to the media, the judge in the case said that if he wanted due process, he could hand himself in, but otherwise the courts shouldn't step in. What bothers me is that his dad had to sue to get it before a judge in the first place--it seems to me that there should be at least a magistrate or neutral arbiter involved, and that you should have the same constitutional standards you do for convicting someone of treason--or at least probable cause of treason.
"I do not hava a science degree, and I do not really believe that mankind is capable of altering the Earth's climate and God promised there would never be another great flood, and if we were to do anything it would be bad for the economy..."
Yes, sadly presenting evidence is just preaching to the choir. Perhaps adding the cleaving of the shelf released golden plates that you the translated with the help of an angel who told you not to show the plates to anyone would make it more compelling. It's worked before.
Having a science degree does not make a person right, and not having one doesn't make a person wrong. Not all degrees are equal and not all people are equal. Sometimes the smartest person in the world knows less about a topic than a penniless old grandmother with no formal education who grew up in some place so obscure its practically off the map.
In this case, of course, the economy thing is silly. If we didn't have the clean air act we would have had easily tens of thousands of pollution deaths by now, for example, as opposed to the relatively small number we've had. And it doesn't take a biblical flood to require flood preparations--look at Katrina. Consider how low-lying the coastal cities are.
Does it need to be 1500 degrees? A little less than that is easily achievable inside a modern wood stove.
there is a point where i agree that the programmers should be liable for their code - to the extent that it shows negligence.
This has good and bad points. A few things of note:
1) One major function of tort-liability is cost-shifting--the programmer's negligent behavior causes an actual cost to the business owner who uses his software, and maybe the programmer should have to reimburse him. If the programmer does, then this means that a part of the total cost of making that particular software--the part otherwise paid by the loss the business owner suffers--gets built into the expected costs of making the software on the part of the developer, rather than being foisted on the unsuspecting buyer. This results, in theory, in the software not getting made if it costs more (to society) than it benefits society, since profits no longer artificially exceed costs due to unaccounted-for externalities.
2) It actually doesn't go far enough, in theory, since strict liability is necessary to truly internalize the costs.
3) But the real world is very different than the theory. Transaction costs--the costs of litigation and the deterrence effects of the risk of litigation and of a jury holding the wrong way--can be massive. The threat of litigation leads to a huge amount of wasted time in the medical community, and a lesser amount of wasted money, and a lot of malpractice (falsification and deliberate omissions from patient records).
4) On the bridge question: It depends on state law. Consult a lawyer in your state. YMMV. Obviously, that is an extreme case, and most software is not designed with the expectation of having lives depend on it. Just like you have different standards for military grade hardware and consumer hardware. There are a lot of options we have as a society in deciding how to treat risk.
But I'd *rather* be killed by someone who cares. :)
That's not really the worst case--the new legislation would need to *pass Congress* again, which would be really hard.
Sure, it's all theater, but I have a high opinion of theater. Shakespeare is theater. Ibsen. Beckett. F-35s, green berets and stealth bombers are theater too, but I don't hear the same criticism leveled against them.
Shakespeare is cooler. So are stealth bombers.
And nobody criticizes Green Berets because of the Droid-Wookie analogy.