Actually, it was named after the River (Columbia) which was named after the United States ship "Columbia" that sailed into the estuary at one point, firing cannons at approaching native canoes.
Between 1805 and 1808, it was known as New Caledonia (New Scotland, Caledonia being the Roman's name for Scotland). This name was given it by Simon Fraser. In 1858, legislation was introduced to make the area a crown colony under British law. Since the French already had a colony in the South Pacific of that name, New Caledonia's name was changed to British Columbia on August 2, 1858.
I'm saddened to think that you believe that English canada is 'northern US'. This is certainly *more* true in the east.. come out west, and see.
As for the whole english/french canadian thing.... do you (being french canadian) realize that me, and everyone like me, grew up (B.C.) thinking that french canada was this cool place we wanted to visit, and we thought poeple speaking french all the time was cool.
Then, of course, I got older, watched the news, and realized that, becaues of stupid politics, French Canada was taught to 'hate' english canada, and they they looked at me like their 'oppressor' or a 'threat' to their society. A society that I really looked up to. So.. now I don't find 'french' canada cool anymore...
Canada was a British territory, and is still part of the British commonwealth (hence, the word 'British'), and 'Columbia' refers to the 'Columbia River', which we share with our American neighbors.. not to the south-american 'Colombia'.
I'm not sure that ISP's are really *common carrier*. I realize that they are generally assumed to be, but I'm not sure they have the legal designation.
After all, my ISP has a transparent proxy on my web traffic. That's not 'common carrier'. That's interfering.
Common carrier means that they simply move data, and have 0% responsibility as to what kind of data, or where it goes. @home telling me *don't run a server* and scannign me for servers is *NOT* the behavior of a common carrier, as they are dictating what types of traffic I may produce.
pointed out (so I'm stealing their post to a degree) that there is a difference between security and privacy.
Should you use encryption, to keep your data secure? *YES* absolutely. Should your ISP be forced to keep your surfing habits private? *ABSOLUTELY* Should they be allowed to log as much data as they want for their own analysis later? *ABSOLUTELY*. Why? Because they *can*. It's *THEIR* network. If we say 'they can't' they can just put it in the contract; you want to use @home, you agree that we may log as much information about packet flow as we want. Period.
Re:that's a pretty narrow view...
on
Endgame For SCO
·
· Score: 2
Because. The corporation is required to act in the interests of it's shareholders. This may be more important than you think. They are *REQUIRED* to do this by law. If they were to give it away, they would have to be able to show how they were gaining shareholder value. Frankly, it would look like they were simply *giving* away something that belongs to the shareholdres. Yes. The shareholders *DO* own the company.
From a purely legal perspective; if it is illegal to publish and sell a book about manufacturing illegal drugs, perhaps it should also be illegal to publish it anywhere.
Personally, from an ethics point of view, I think I see no problem with publishing such information. If the government (the people) want this information to be taken correctly, they must use their own counter-information. THe best way to do this is with *real* information. Not 'Weed makes you go nuts and kill people a-la reefer madness', but real scientific information.
ONe major problem with the war on drugs is that, although the war on drugs gives kids sociological facts, it does give them little scientific facts. Illicit drug papers give them many true scientific facts, but without the appropriate details.
Educate the kids. Educate the public. Don't just tell them 'this is bad for you'. Tell them why. After all.. the internet is here.. fuckin use it.
Should an ISP be required to 'block' access to foreign sites? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Just because some guy put a gambling site on the internet somewhere should not put *any* obligation on an unrelated ISP.
Should an ISP be allowed to host gambling sites within the US? OF course not! not if it's illegal!
I think the supermarkets should be required to disclose what it is they are doing with that information.
IF they say 'In our database, we only want the demographics; we won't actually tie your name to what you bought, or ever use that information together' that's fine. I mean, I have no problem with them finding out some demographics.. 26 year old male buying food..
I've said it before, and I've said it again...
on
The CPO Cometh
·
· Score: 5
We need some kind of blanket privacy law that guarantees the minimum expected privacy, namely:
When information is given in the course of business, that information may only be used for the purposes it was given. NOt simply 'not sold' but 'not used' for any other purpose. So... if I give my name and address to the car dealership.. well.. I undertand that this is because I may owe them some money, and because they need to notify me of recall, etc. I could not deny that this is what I feel I have given them this information for. THey would be unable, however, to start sending me junkmail about anything else, or to give my information away, even to another, new department of the same company. The video store could take your name and address so they can track down their videos when you don't return them.. but they could *not* give the information to anyone. They could *NOT* even start sending you junkmail.
Now.. all *any* company has to do is *ask* and they may use your information for other things. But we must make the law force them to ask. THis is called consumer protection.
What about credit reporting? Sure.. that's fine. I mean, if I borrow money, and I give you my name, I expect that I'm giving it to you so you can identify me if I skip. You can just have it in the contract.
This is not 'evil' or 'anti-capitalist' or 'commie'.. this is simply consumer protection. Just as we have laws regarding the rights consumers have on newly purchased 'things'. We have 'implied warranties' (it is expected that the 'thing' you bought does what it says it does when you get it home.)
It has long been viewed in north america (though the US changed it's law for some reason or other) that the public airwaves were just that; public. We regulated who could use what spectrum for what in order to make everybody happy. (if everyone fought, radio would be useless).
Then, one day.. along came the cellular telephone. Lo-and-behold, these phones used standard FM in their allocated bands. So.. people with radio scanners could listen to phone calls. Now..in the US.. it is now a crime to have a scanner that can listen in on cellular calls (let alone actually doing it). However.. when the same was proposed in canada.. the crtc said this: The airwaves are a public resource; they always have been and they always will be. The celluular providers had *NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY* for their calls. They were broadcasting in the clear. Remember, regulation states who can broadcast, not who can listen. So.. cellular providers deal with this up here by pushing digital.
How is the internet any different? You KNOW that you don't have control over your packets once they are out of your network. Perhaps your upstream has an agreement wiht you guaranteeing certain privacy.. but what about their upstream? What about everyone? By it's nature, the internet is not a single resource, but a vast collection of networks all hooked together, covering every juristiction and idology known to man.
Regardless of what the 'ignorant' public might think, there is *NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION* of privacy when putting packets on the internet, unless they are encrypted. Period.
I'm not saying the itnernet is a public resource, like the airwaves.... but you *know* you can't control where those packets go. So.. ENCRYPT.
If they bridge, even with filtering, you still can't block *all* non-local traffic and still have things work. some broadcast traffic must get through. ARP. etc. It's layer 2, after all...
The point of pppoe is to simply use the layer 2 infrastructure you built to tunnel PPP.
Multiple IP addresses are easy to stop with filters. And PPP servers don't usually log.. radius servers do.
Then.. the feds (or whoever, law enforcement) says 'hey.. would it be possible for us to listen to someone's phone call?'.. well.. technically it wasn't a challenge. So.. in the course of their investigation, they could make a court order the phone company to let them listen.. because *it was something they were capable of already, without difficulty*.
It was just evidence gathering.
Can anyone see how this is a world different than the feds saying 'you may not build a phone system unless we can wiretap it?'. It's a very different scenario. The first was simply evidence gathering based on what was available, the second is an actual attack on privacy, or, in other words, 'we forbid you from making a secure, private system'.
Isn't it funny how we keeep hearing the following?
a) technology workers are in demand. b) Technology workers are overworked.
Folks.. when your trade is in demand, it's an employee's market.. you can CHOOSE where to work, and BARGAIN for the deal you want.
The problem? Simply that a great deal of these workers are TOO YOUNG. Do I mean they have no skill? No.. I Just mean they are inexperienced at life, and don't realize the importance of treating yourself right.
I once asked my guru what it meant to him to be doing his job right. (this man has more degrees than I can count, and is the best programmer I"ve ever seen. THe things he thinks about for fun boggle my mind.). His words to me were 'do your job correctly, but do it from 9 - 5.'. In other words.. finishing that piece of code on time for your project is good, but finishing it without dedicating your life to it is better. It's a job.
The only thing that is a bit different with today's dsl providers (and perhaps cable soon) is their use of PPPOE. (ppp over ethernet). The reason? They bring things out to the home at layer 2 (ethernet), rather than the more traditional layer 3, but want to really give you a layer 3 anyway. In other words, they don't wanna waste address space building infrastructure.
This is actually a good thing.. it's just a bit different.
In the case of consumers, very binding. Even if there is no specific contract,if the company asked for the information, and was publicly stating that it would never be sold to anyone else, that is all that is needed.
But.. Umm.. Adobe *knew* that *nobody* who hadn't signed an NDA should have copies of their software, and the fact that someone reviewed something that they *could not have legally had, in any way* means their copyrights *were* violated.
tcp is neither anonymous nor onymous. It is a session protocol. Period. It is layer 4. Tracking down a user (IP) is layer 3. They are not directly related at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it was named after the River (Columbia) which was named after the United States ship "Columbia" that sailed into the estuary at one point, firing cannons at approaching native canoes.
Between 1805 and 1808, it was known as New Caledonia (New Scotland, Caledonia being the Roman's name for Scotland). This name was given it by Simon Fraser.
In 1858, legislation was introduced to make the area a crown colony under British law. Since the French already had a colony in the South Pacific of that name, New Caledonia's name was changed to British Columbia on August 2, 1858.
I'm saddened to think that you believe that English canada is 'northern US'. This is certainly *more* true in the east.. come out west, and see.
As for the whole english/french canadian thing....
do you (being french canadian) realize that me, and everyone like me, grew up (B.C.) thinking that french canada was this cool place we wanted to visit, and we thought poeple speaking french all the time was cool.
Then, of course, I got older, watched the news, and realized that, becaues of stupid politics, French Canada was taught to 'hate' english canada, and they they looked at me like their 'oppressor' or a 'threat' to their society. A society that I really looked up to.
So.. now I don't find 'french' canada cool anymore...
Canada was a British territory, and is still part of the British commonwealth (hence, the word 'British'), and 'Columbia' refers to the 'Columbia River', which we share with our American neighbors.. not to the south-american 'Colombia'.
How is this flamebait? It's TRUE
Please.. tell me your geography isn't that bad.
Do you really think 'British Columbia' is in Britain?
I suggest you have a look at your map again, and notice the giant land mass between Washington state and Alaska....
I'm not sure that ISP's are really *common carrier*. I realize that they are generally assumed to be, but I'm not sure they have the legal designation.
After all, my ISP has a transparent proxy on my web traffic. That's not 'common carrier'. That's interfering.
Common carrier means that they simply move data, and have 0% responsibility as to what kind of data, or where it goes.
@home telling me *don't run a server* and scannign me for servers is *NOT* the behavior of a common carrier, as they are dictating what types of traffic I may produce.
pointed out (so I'm stealing their post to a degree) that there is a difference between security and privacy.
Should you use encryption, to keep your data secure? *YES* absolutely.
Should your ISP be forced to keep your surfing habits private? *ABSOLUTELY*
Should they be allowed to log as much data as they want for their own analysis later? *ABSOLUTELY*. Why? Because they *can*. It's *THEIR* network. If we say 'they can't' they can just put it in the contract; you want to use @home, you agree that we may log as much information about packet flow as we want. Period.
Because. The corporation is required to act in the interests of it's shareholders. This may be more important than you think.
They are *REQUIRED* to do this by law. If they were to give it away, they would have to be able to show how they were gaining shareholder value. Frankly, it would look like they were simply *giving* away something that belongs to the shareholdres. Yes. The shareholders *DO* own the company.
It's a public network. Use encryption. ISP's should log as much as they want.
Of course, what they do with this information is the important part.
From a purely legal perspective; if it is illegal to publish and sell a book about manufacturing illegal drugs, perhaps it should also be illegal to publish it anywhere.
Personally, from an ethics point of view, I think I see no problem with publishing such information.
If the government (the people) want this information to be taken correctly, they must use their own counter-information. THe best way to do this is with *real* information.
Not 'Weed makes you go nuts and kill people a-la reefer madness', but real scientific information.
ONe major problem with the war on drugs is that, although the war on drugs gives kids sociological facts, it does give them little scientific facts.
Illicit drug papers give them many true scientific facts, but without the appropriate details.
Educate the kids. Educate the public. Don't just tell them 'this is bad for you'. Tell them why. After all.. the internet is here.. fuckin use it.
Ban? It's sipmle.
Should an ISP be required to 'block' access to foreign sites? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Just because some guy put a gambling site on the internet somewhere should not put *any* obligation on an unrelated ISP.
Should an ISP be allowed to host gambling sites within the US? OF course not! not if it's illegal!
I think the supermarkets should be required to disclose what it is they are doing with that information.
IF they say 'In our database, we only want the demographics; we won't actually tie your name to what you bought, or ever use that information together' that's fine. I mean, I have no problem with them finding out some demographics.. 26 year old male buying food..
We need some kind of blanket privacy law that guarantees the minimum expected privacy, namely:
When information is given in the course of business, that information may only be used for the purposes it was given.
NOt simply 'not sold' but 'not used' for any other purpose. So... if I give my name and address to the car dealership.. well.. I undertand that this is because I may owe them some money, and because they need to notify me of recall, etc. I could not deny that this is what I feel I have given them this information for.
THey would be unable, however, to start sending me junkmail about anything else, or to give my information away, even to another, new department of the same company.
The video store could take your name and address so they can track down their videos when you don't return them.. but they could *not* give the information to anyone. They could *NOT* even start sending you junkmail.
Now.. all *any* company has to do is *ask* and they may use your information for other things. But we must make the law force them to ask. THis is called consumer protection.
What about credit reporting? Sure.. that's fine. I mean, if I borrow money, and I give you my name, I expect that I'm giving it to you so you can identify me if I skip. You can just have it in the contract.
This is not 'evil' or 'anti-capitalist' or 'commie'.. this is simply consumer protection. Just as we have laws regarding the rights consumers have on newly purchased 'things'. We have 'implied warranties' (it is expected that the 'thing' you bought does what it says it does when you get it home.)
Coming from a Canadian point of view here....
.in the US.. it is now a crime to have a scanner that can listen in on cellular calls (let alone actually doing it). However.. when the same was proposed in canada.. the crtc said this:
.. ENCRYPT.
It has long been viewed in north america (though the US changed it's law for some reason or other) that the public airwaves were just that; public. We regulated who could use what spectrum for what in order to make everybody happy. (if everyone fought, radio would be useless).
Then, one day.. along came the cellular telephone. Lo-and-behold, these phones used standard FM in their allocated bands. So.. people with radio scanners could listen to phone calls.
Now.
The airwaves are a public resource; they always have been and they always will be. The celluular providers had *NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY* for their calls. They were broadcasting in the clear.
Remember, regulation states who can broadcast, not who can listen.
So.. cellular providers deal with this up here by pushing digital.
How is the internet any different? You KNOW that you don't have control over your packets once they are out of your network. Perhaps your upstream has an agreement wiht you guaranteeing certain privacy.. but what about their upstream? What about everyone? By it's nature, the internet is not a single resource, but a vast collection of networks all hooked together, covering every juristiction and idology known to man.
Regardless of what the 'ignorant' public might think, there is *NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION* of privacy when putting packets on the internet, unless they are encrypted. Period.
I'm not saying the itnernet is a public resource, like the airwaves.... but you *know* you can't control where those packets go. So
Most powerful = Fastests?
Yeah. THat's what I said, in less detail.
If they bridge, even with filtering, you still can't block *all* non-local traffic and still have things work. some broadcast traffic must get through. ARP. etc. It's layer 2, after all...
The point of pppoe is to simply use the layer 2 infrastructure you built to tunnel PPP.
Multiple IP addresses are easy to stop with filters.
And PPP servers don't usually log.. radius servers do.
about wiretaps is this.....
.. well.. technically it wasn't a challenge. So.. in the course of their investigation, they could make a court order the phone company to let them listen.. because *it was something they were capable of already, without difficulty*.
Originally, you have this telephone system.
Then.. the feds (or whoever, law enforcement) says 'hey.. would it be possible for us to listen to someone's phone call?'
It was just evidence gathering.
Can anyone see how this is a world different than the feds saying 'you may not build a phone system unless we can wiretap it?'. It's a very different scenario. The first was simply evidence gathering based on what was available, the second is an actual attack on privacy, or, in other words, 'we forbid you from making a secure, private system'.
People.. everyone *must* start using encryption!
Was that supposed to be a lesson in 'how not to admin a network?'
Backups that weren't backing everything up? And the admin wasn't aware?
Dissimilar tape drives? Donated tape drives?
Must not be a very serious business..
Isn't it funny how we keeep hearing the following?
a) technology workers are in demand.
b) Technology workers are overworked.
Folks.. when your trade is in demand, it's an employee's market.. you can CHOOSE where to work, and BARGAIN for the deal you want.
The problem? Simply that a great deal of these workers are TOO YOUNG. Do I mean they have no skill? No.. I Just mean they are inexperienced at life, and don't realize the importance of treating yourself right.
I once asked my guru what it meant to him to be doing his job right.
(this man has more degrees than I can count, and is the best programmer I"ve ever seen. THe things he thinks about for fun boggle my mind.).
His words to me were 'do your job correctly, but do it from 9 - 5.'. In other words.. finishing that piece of code on time for your project is good, but finishing it without dedicating your life to it is better. It's a job.
The only thing that is a bit different with today's dsl providers (and perhaps cable soon) is their use of PPPOE. (ppp over ethernet). The reason? They bring things out to the home at layer 2 (ethernet), rather than the more traditional layer 3, but want to really give you a layer 3 anyway. In other words, they don't wanna waste address space building infrastructure.
This is actually a good thing.. it's just a bit different.
I thought that 'xDSL' was just a generic term encompassing aDSL, sDSL, etc....
In the case of consumers, very binding.
Even if there is no specific contract,if the company asked for the information, and was publicly stating that it would never be sold to anyone else, that is all that is needed.
The consumer believes it, which is what matters.
But.. Umm.. Adobe *knew* that *nobody* who hadn't signed an NDA should have copies of their software, and the fact that someone reviewed something that they *could not have legally had, in any way* means their copyrights *were* violated.
tcp is neither anonymous nor onymous. It is a session protocol. Period. It is layer 4. Tracking down a user (IP) is layer 3. They are not directly related at all.
It must be emphasized: Until everyone starts using encryption and anonymizing tools... those who do will be seen as guilty. Period.
The question is no 'why should I encrypt' but 'why shouldn't I encrypt'?
It is your right. Use it.