Crypto helps pedophiles hide their kiddie pr0n. And it helps theives hide their stolen data (Kevin Mitnick's encrypted 20,000 credit card number list).
You supporting that, freedom boy?
Yeah, those damn pedophiles are sending their filth to each other through the postal service too, and they gett away with by using envelopes. There should be higher penalties for criminals who use envelopes.
I am probably not the only person who found it interesting that maps, by banning an IP because of a company selling software to spam, is the moral equivalent to the MPAA suing and taking down sites that host DeCSS. Do we go after the tools to do "bad things" or do we go after those who do the "bad things".
Not really, because all MAPS are doing is providing a list of people that they consider to be encouraging spam. It is up to individual administrators whether or not to use the MAPS service.
I'm sure that nobody would object to the MPAA creating a list of sites that it didn't like, although they might have a tougher time persuading admins to use it.
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
We built it, it's our home, and I think we're due some consideration for that fact.
You might think that, but they damn well don't and you are not going to change things by posting here. There seem to be many people who complain that writing to their elected representatives is not worth the effort, but I wonder how many of them have actually tried it.
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
My MP certainly replied to me when I wrote to him about the RIP bill. He also forwarded my letter on to the government minister responsible for the legislation and returned his reply to me too.
If more people had bothered to get off their arses, maybe things would have turned out differently.
Re:Is this the suit/geek showdown?
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
Do they really think that we can't see how the crappy old world works? I thought the whole raison d'etre for geekdom was a retirement from the real world - I certainly have no desire to get sucked into the suits world!
Just because you don't take an interest in politics, don't expect that politics will not take an interest in you. You are already in their world whether you like it or not. What are you going to do about it?
This sort of stuff always reminds me of the Frank Zappa album "Joe's Garage":
"This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to *The Death Penalty* (or affect your parents' credit rating)."
A new survey shows that Australia's new censorship laws are an overwhelming hit amongst young male internet users. Surprisingly few of the young people surveyed stated that they felt the laws had restricted their Internet use, and many felt it had actually been enchanced.
One teen (who wished to remain anonymous) said "I think these laws are great. Until recently, my parents wouldn't have dreamed of allowing me to have unrestricted access to the Internet. But now that Senator Alston has convinced them that there is no offensive material any more, I now have my own PC in my room and I can look at all the pornography I want."
If someone had posted the company's copyrighted software or they held patents on the software, they might have a point. All that happened was that somebody figured out how to decode the output of this thing.
As far as I can see (IANAL) the DMCA won't help them either, since this device is not protecting a copyrighted work (the device is a bar code scanner and the company does not own the copyright to information stored on barcodes). Reverse engineering is still not a crime, and if no copyrights, patents or trademarks were violated then they don't seem to have a legitimate claim.
IANAL, but there seems to be a distinct discrepancy between their advertising and the license agreement.
This page says that you "get your new:CRQ system including the:CueCat reader free". This would seem to me that these things become your property when they are delivered. The licensing agreement states that it is on loan from them and may be recalled at any time.
I can't see how they could use the DMCA to defend their claims. The DMCA protects against access to copyrighted works without the authority of the copyright holders. So unless the majority of barcodes are copyrighted and permission to read these barcodes is restricted to the:CRQ software, I can't see how it is relevant. They may be encrypting the output of these bar code readers, but they don't own the copyright on the bar code contents.
NYT article by Peter Wayner
on
Free For All
·
· Score: 5
This guy also wrote this article for the New York Times. It's pretty scathing of the WIPO and the MPAA. Good to see that this message is being published in the mainstream press.
(don't forget that if you want to avoid NYT registration there's always username:cypherpunks, password:cypherpunks)
"We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC."
It reminded me more of the Winston Churhill quote: "...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
This article in the LA times says that the recording industry is already starting to hurt because they are having difficulty recruiting talented tech workers.
From the article:
No one knows that better than Clarke. At a recent technology conference in San Diego, the creator of FreeNet told a packed lecture hall that the record industry needs more than money to lure savvy computer workers.
Clarke seemed bemused by the suggestion that a major label should have recruited him. "Like I'd take a job with them," Clarke later scoffed. "Like anyone with any sense would do that."
Notice that the question "Is regional coding encryption?" (on page 30) is followed by about 10 pages marked confidential. Is there something about region encoding that they want to hide from the public?
Source code isn't just instructions on how to make a bomb tho, it's also the materials to make the bomb. This should put it in a completely different (and possibly unique) category.
I disagree with this analogy. If you liken source code to the instructions for bomb making, then the materials are the compiler, operating system and hardware. Admittedly you probably already have these materials, but you also might have the materials to make explosives in your kitchen cupboards.
I wonder what the responses would be to this type of questioning:
"I'm going to read a statement and I want you to tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree" Statement: Increased competition in the technology industry will lead to better products and consumers paying lower prices.
Question: Do you think that increased competition will have a negative or positive effect on high tech companies to bring reliable high quality products to consumers?
Question: Some people say Microsoft has stifled competition with it's business practices. Other people say that consumers benefit from the reliability of their products. Which do you agree with more?
Question: The Department of Justice is deciding what, if any, regulations to pursue against Microsoft. If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would increase competition in the software industry, would you support or oppose it?
Question: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would reduce restrictive business practices, would you support or oppose the regulation?
If you had an unpublished technique and were prepared to publish it, then you got a 17 year monopoly on its use.
Hold on, isn't the CSS encryption method unpatented and wasn't it unpublished before DeCSS? Does that mean that before DeCSS someone could have patented the CSS encryption method and screwed the motion picture industry?
And then they go and patent the thing which was the product of their research, and take all the money to itselves?
From the article: "The patents, numbered GB 2318578 and GB 2331751, and are jointly owned by the Roslin Institute, the UK's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the government through its Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).
"The patents and the various commercial tie-ups agreed by Roslin will see substantial amounts of cash flow into the publicly-funded Scottish research centre. "
The problem is that there are a minority of very vocal disruptive individuals who are just seeking attention. Their gender and skin colour is irrelevent.
What John fails to realise is that the only effective way to deal with these people is to deprive them of the attention they are seeking. Adding new ways of moderating them out of discussions or trying to exclude them from certain forums just presents them with another technical challenge which they will eventually find a way around. I have seen an attempted newsgroup invasion defeated with this approach. The newsgroup regulars set up a temporary mailing list and used it to recommend filtering software (such as nfilter for windows users with crappy newsreaders)and discuss the problem. Anyone who asked what was going on was invited by e-mail on to the list, but no mention of it was made on the newsgroup. Everyone made an effort to continue using the group as if there was nothing happening. For a while the disruption increased, but when the idiots discovered that they were not going to get much of a reaction they moved on.
The only problem is that people who are new to online discussions generally aren't aware of the effectiveness of this approach. The best thing that more experienced members can do is to e-mail them and encourage them to also ignore the idiots. It's surprising how grateful most new users are when someone bothers to give them some reassurance.
If someone says something nasty about you on a public forum, it doesn't force you to take them seriously. You still have the freedom to continue posting. If you choose not to exercise that freedom then that is your own choice but the freedom has not been taken away from you.
The problem has two sides. One is the group of people who don't have the social skills to moderate their own speech. The other problem is the group of people who don't have the social skills required for reading unmoderated discussions.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright law is intended to protect forms of expressive speech.
Computer programs can be copyrighted (even in executable binary form).
Therefore it would seem reasonable to assume that the law treats computer programs are a form of expressive speech.
(OK, I know this is a simplified argument, but I would have thought there must be some mileage to be made in this argument).
You supporting that, freedom boy?
Yeah, those damn pedophiles are sending their filth to each other through the postal service too, and they gett away with by using envelopes. There should be higher penalties for criminals who use envelopes.
Not really, because all MAPS are doing is providing a list of people that they consider to be encouraging spam. It is up to individual administrators whether or not to use the MAPS service.
I'm sure that nobody would object to the MPAA creating a list of sites that it didn't like, although they might have a tougher time persuading admins to use it.
You might think that, but they damn well don't and you are not going to change things by posting here. There seem to be many people who complain that writing to their elected representatives is not worth the effort, but I wonder how many of them have actually tried it.
My MP certainly replied to me when I wrote to him about the RIP bill. He also forwarded my letter on to the government minister responsible for the legislation and returned his reply to me too.
If more people had bothered to get off their arses, maybe things would have turned out differently.
Just because you don't take an interest in politics, don't expect that politics will not take an interest in you. You are already in their world whether you like it or not. What are you going to do about it?
"This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to *The Death Penalty* (or affect your parents' credit rating)."
Teens approve of 'Censorship' Laws
A new survey shows that Australia's new censorship laws are an overwhelming hit amongst young male internet users. Surprisingly few of the young people surveyed stated that they felt the laws had restricted their Internet use, and many felt it had actually been enchanced.
One teen (who wished to remain anonymous) said "I think these laws are great. Until recently, my parents wouldn't have dreamed of allowing me to have unrestricted access to the Internet. But now that Senator Alston has convinced them that there is no offensive material any more, I now have my own PC in my room and I can look at all the pornography I want."
Sorry, I would have to disagree.
If someone had posted the company's copyrighted software or they held patents on the software, they might have a point. All that happened was that somebody figured out how to decode the output of this thing.
As far as I can see (IANAL) the DMCA won't help them either, since this device is not protecting a copyrighted work (the device is a bar code scanner and the company does not own the copyright to information stored on barcodes). Reverse engineering is still not a crime, and if no copyrights, patents or trademarks were violated then they don't seem to have a legitimate claim.
This page says that you "get your new :CRQ system including the :CueCat reader free". This would seem to me that these things become your property when they are delivered. The licensing agreement states that it is on loan from them and may be recalled at any time.
I can't see how they could use the DMCA to defend their claims. The DMCA protects against access to copyrighted works without the authority of the copyright holders. So unless the majority of barcodes are copyrighted and permission to read these barcodes is restricted to the :CRQ software, I can't see how it is relevant. They may be encrypting the output of these bar code readers, but they don't own the copyright on the bar code contents.
(don't forget that if you want to avoid NYT registration there's always username:cypherpunks, password:cypherpunks)
It reminded me more of the Winston Churhill quote:
"...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
From the article:
No one knows that better than Clarke. At a recent technology conference in San Diego, the creator of FreeNet told a packed lecture hall that the record industry needs more than money to lure savvy computer workers.
Clarke seemed bemused by the suggestion that a major label should have recruited him. "Like I'd take a job with them," Clarke later scoffed. "Like anyone with any sense would do that."
Notice that the question "Is regional coding encryption?" (on page 30) is followed by about 10 pages marked confidential. Is there something about region encoding that they want to hide from the public?
How about "Unauthorised copying"?
I disagree with this analogy. If you liken source code to the instructions for bomb making, then the materials are the compiler, operating system and hardware. Admittedly you probably already have these materials, but you also might have the materials to make explosives in your kitchen cupboards.
http://x42.com/urlcalc/
http://$urlcalc(about).x42.com/
According to the copyright notice on the page, this has been up since 1998-06-23, and has won the "Useless site of the year award" for 1998.
Perhaps it wasn't so useless after all.
I wonder what the responses would be to this type of questioning:
"I'm going to read a statement and I want you to tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree"
Statement: Increased competition in the technology industry will lead to better products and consumers paying lower prices.
Question: Do you think that increased competition will have a negative or positive effect on high tech companies to bring reliable high quality products to consumers?
Question: Some people say Microsoft has stifled competition with it's business practices. Other people say that consumers benefit from the reliability of their products. Which do you agree with more?
Question: The Department of Justice is deciding what, if any, regulations to pursue against Microsoft. If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would increase competition in the software industry, would you support or oppose it?
Question: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would reduce restrictive business practices, would you support or oppose the regulation?
Perhaps they are working on a licensed DVD player for Linux :o)
How can it be patented and a trade secret at the same time?
If you had an unpublished technique and were prepared to publish it, then you got a 17 year monopoly on its use.
Hold on, isn't the CSS encryption method unpatented and wasn't it unpublished before DeCSS? Does that mean that before DeCSS someone could have patented the CSS encryption method and screwed the motion picture industry?
And then they go and patent the thing which was the product of their research, and take all the money to itselves?
From the article:
"The patents, numbered GB 2318578 and GB 2331751, and are jointly owned by the Roslin Institute, the UK's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the government through its Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).
"The patents and the various commercial tie-ups agreed by Roslin will see substantial amounts of cash flow into the publicly-funded Scottish research centre. "
The problem is that there are a minority of very vocal disruptive individuals who are just seeking attention. Their gender and skin colour is irrelevent.
What John fails to realise is that the only effective way to deal with these people is to deprive them of the attention they are seeking. Adding new ways of moderating them out of discussions or trying to exclude them from certain forums just presents them with another technical challenge which they will eventually find a way around. I have seen an attempted newsgroup invasion defeated with this approach. The newsgroup regulars set up a temporary mailing list and used it to recommend filtering software (such as nfilter for windows users with crappy newsreaders)and discuss the problem. Anyone who asked what was going on was invited by e-mail on to the list, but no mention of it was made on the newsgroup. Everyone made an effort to continue using the group as if there was nothing happening. For a while the disruption increased, but when the idiots discovered that they were not going to get much of a reaction they moved on.
The only problem is that people who are new to online discussions generally aren't aware of the effectiveness of this approach. The best thing that more experienced members can do is to e-mail them and encourage them to also ignore the idiots. It's surprising how grateful most new users are when someone bothers to give them some reassurance.
If someone says something nasty about you on a public forum, it doesn't force you to take them seriously. You still have the freedom to continue posting. If you choose not to exercise that freedom then that is your own choice but the freedom has not been taken away from you.
The problem has two sides. One is the group of people who don't have the social skills to moderate their own speech. The other problem is the group of people who don't have the social skills required for reading unmoderated discussions.