Like Waasenaar, this treaty is exporting bad US law. It will hinder all 'net commerce because we have to be responsible to the US, and you have to be responisble to other countries as well. Most countries are anal about certain things. For instance, Canada is anal about "culture," the US is anal about drugs and anything "cyber."
We don't want your bad laws; trust me you don't want ours.
ps. People who use "kiddie porn" are evil. Using it to support arguments is evil too.
Well, actually, IBM was prevented from selling OS/2 by M$ when M$ said you can only get a reasonable price for W95 if IBM would drop OS/2.
Monopoly maintenance is worse than temporary government interfearance. At least/w a government there is a 50% chance of them doing something in the consumer's interest. M$'s record is about 0%. (excluding XML! : )
Ya know, I simply do not understand the guns = freedom from oppressive gov't thing.
It comes down to the bigger guns. Say US citizens voted in a nasty dictator. Private US citizens with modest military training, would be absolutely no match against the US military. Just ask the Iraqis. So what state would freedom be in then?
Perhaps the NSA can factor primes fast.
It would be irresponsible to release such info because if word got out, so much of finance and commerce depends upon it there would be chaos. There would have to be a popular alternative in use already.
Even if they used the ability on occation, somebody would say: But I encrypted this! How could you know? Rumours would spread.
The ability would be used only in rare occasions which were critical to a government's national security.
In essence, if there is a crack, most of us are still safe.
Say, for instance, that the NSA was kind enough to forward information to the FBI on some US citizen-US citizen communication? Such information must be 'legitamized' before it can be used in a court of law, and Carnavor can provide that exact service. "Your Honour, we got this information from Echelo..Carnavor [ahem], thats it!"
They could--but don't worry, they *never* would.
For you non-BCers, it is important to realize that this government has been riddled with scandle, and they are grasping at anything which might prevent them from being obliterated in the next election. They have started a number of expensive boondoggles which have cost this province dearly, and one almost expects them to try a "hail Mary" play now.
Please do not expect them to behave rationally in the twilight of their regime. They weren't particularly rational when they came to office.
..and you value your privacy as the Bronfmans do, then privacy!=anonymity. Because they have a small army of lawyers at their disposal to protect themselves, even the media does not have many pictures of these reclusive brothers. Most do not have that ability to shield our actions from "Big" or "Little Brothers". We *must* rely on anonymity to protect our privacy, because that is our *only* method we have.
He is not simply incorrect but also hypocritical to assume that anonymity's only purpose is to commit crimes.
I'm not a yankqui so some of you have to do this...
1. record a song called "RIAA are lusers" #include "Metallica is cool, man!; Rightous in law, man!; I'm a stoolie for da Man; Now my fans are Banned!"
or perhaps...
"DMCA, yo DMCA!, Yo: I gonna sue ya, Napster's gonna pay. DMCA, yo DMCA!, Call myself outlaw at night, but wear a suit all day.."
2. sell a copy to your sister for $1. 3. have Sister rip & post on napster. 4. get Mom to download it. 5. Submit to Napster inc. that under DCMA that Mom & Sister should be banned!!!!! 6. everyone can laugh at the idiocy of it all.
Yeah, I'm a sucker: I read the paper. kinda disappointing really. No new clever ideas. Their proposals are simply to allow companies like Napster to better fit into laws designed to protect existing distribution channels.
They talk about the "new economy" but they are unwilling to let go of the old. Sure downloading a metalica song is a crime, but the law was specifically designed to protect the old economy's ways.
"Theft of intellectual property is just as wrong if done on the Internet as it is on a Xerox machine or VCR. And without laws and rules governing such behavior, the Internet will devolve toward anarchy, rather than evolve into a powerful tool for e-commerce and individual empowerment."
Yes, they really said "devolve toward anarchy" and "individual empowerment." Funny huh?
The point they miss is that now that the marginal cost of distributing media is $0.00, why should only a few companies be able to use the law to charge a premium for its distribution. It doesn't really cost $10 per CD to get their music to their customers. It is as if the railroad has been build but nobody is allowed to use it.
In order for any progress, sometimes you have to let large companies die. (or at least let them change their model.) This is a good thing. Once, in Canada only the Hudson's Bay Co. was allowed to sell and trade stuff by royal charter. They evolved to a regular brick and morter store, and eventually closed. This is the price to pay for progress. Now we are seeing it happen all over again.
If the HB Co. was still the only retailer here we'd they'd have their "Fur Retailing Ass'n" which would do its level best to uphold the law. And we Canuks would still all be trapping and wearing furs. ; )
The law (esp. Copywrite law) is being molded to fit establised traditional business models, and hence distribution channels. Fitting Napster to the law misses the point of any technological revolution. But for progress to occur, the law ought not be used to insulate old companies from technological change.
This is how the PPI sees it: "It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it."
For them, the principles of the DMCA are given, but it must simply be more flexible in allowing punishment.
The Third Way: What visionaries!
Personally, listening to "think tanks" fumble along like this is about as painful as listening to metallica. But to each their own. : )
Anyone else think it would be cool to be banned by napster?
Up in Vancouver, there are bill board adds which claim: W2k: stable as your mom. and W2k: secure as the popemobile.
But they made similar (now laughable) claims with all their previous products. W3->W98 and WNT all were "secure and stable", just as W2k is now. They *deserve* to get raked over the coals for this. They *earned* their position as the most hated software company, amoungst those in the know. People remember.
PS. I'm using 2.3.44 (the latest development kernel); it hasn't crashed, it is much faster than 2.2.*. And, for you W2K lovers, all on a meare 64Megs of RAM! (he he...)
In Rwanda, people had their ethnicity displayed on their National ID cards. Those unfortunate to have the wrong ethnicity were caught at roadblocks and shot on the spot.
Illegal or criminal activities? It was 'illegal' to *be* Tutsi, and they could not hide that information.
Don't think that one's country X cannot stoop to this because of Y and Z. Even a patriot cannot truthfully guarantee the sanity of their state over the next 20 years.
Why should any organization (government or otherwise) who has the power of law and military force be able to act unchecked when snooping into individual's personal affairs? That is like saying that 'My alligator would never attack anyone who does not provoke it--therefore it should be allowed to play on the street.'
If the English government requires one to provide a key to the authorities, (even if W9X crashed and took the partition with it) they are *already* displaying contempt for individual rights. Governments are the last organization one should send their keys too. Crooks will only take your money.
The main issues which concern slashdotters seem to have a common thread: corporations use courts to restrict freedoms of individuals and other (often smaller) companies. DVD thing, copyrights, reverse engineering, hacking, etc. In all these cases freedoms which previously existed have been fought by corporations protecting their turf. And whom do they fight against? They target individuals, or small corporations. Well, the EFF steps in on occation but does not have the resources to fight all battles.
Civil disobedience is not always flexible enough if one wants to target specific court case rulings. One can mirror code, and get the a 'secret' out, but beyond this its power is limited. It does not hold anyone's feet to the fire.
It is also better to shape the law to our purposes than to simply flaunt it.. It is too easy to portray us as a bunch of crimminals, even when a law or a ruling is clearly idiotic.
The geeks among us are individualistic, yet there is a need for a defense fund. In order to defend the rights which those who are technologically proficient hold dear -- the rights which are important to the next 100 years, not simply the last 100.
In running such a fund, there ought to be a choice of what peticular causes to support. If A donator is concerned about say, the Mitnik case, then one should be able to donate (via easy credit card payment) to *that* case. This way indiviudals who are concerned can target their donations to the causes which they are concerned about. Also, this may increase the likelyhood of a donation.
I understand the bandwidth problem, but what if it happened to be a legitamite use? Say part of a 4th year networking class the project happened to "build a napster client" or even something legit which started to drag down the network. *That* wouldn't be banned, yet the real problem would still exist.
I think it is a much better policy to impose limits on the volume of up/down bandwidth allowable, not to pass judgement on the value X or Y packets as some other customers have. No administrator would want to be in that business if they can possibly avoid it--waaaay too much grey area.
If a university administration does block out napster, then it implies that they are taking responsibility for the useage by their customers. There may be a liability issue if some student was running a porn ring, for instance. The U might be asked in court: Well, you blocked out napster, why didn't you block this out too? (IANAL--luckily)
My napster linux client (not that I use napster) is not working on @home anymore. Is there a reason for this? ; ) -B
Slashdot Mirror
They also use facial recognition in the City of London, so could you demand that information also?
I wonder....
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS01-033.asp
posted yesterday.
'nuff said.
On a Sun box of course!
gagg! Personally, I'd rather watch blink tags than pay money for that!!!
but anyway, this page lists a canuk representative's email address...
http://www.hcch.net/e/members/no_ca.html
Please be courteous and firm.
Cheers,
-David.
But nobody creates a passenger aircraft, or an automobile, or a new, nicer design of personal computer for pure creative self-actualising joy.
What about an Operating System?
-B
They see the GPL is a "brand" and they are attempting to "dilute" it.
"Shared Source Software" or OSS?
-b
Like Waasenaar, this treaty is exporting bad US law. It will hinder all 'net commerce because we have to be responsible to the US, and you have to be responisble to other countries as well. Most countries are anal about certain things. For instance, Canada is anal about "culture," the US is anal about drugs and anything "cyber."
We don't want your bad laws; trust me you don't want ours.
ps. People who use "kiddie porn" are evil. Using it to support arguments is evil too.
Well, actually, IBM was prevented from selling OS/2 by M$ when M$ said you can only get a reasonable price for W95 if IBM would drop OS/2.
/w a government there is a 50% chance of them doing something in the consumer's interest. M$'s record is about 0%. (excluding XML! : )
Monopoly maintenance is worse than temporary government interfearance. At least
-B
Microsoft (who's products are almost the sole hosts of the virii) had a revenue of about 22 billion that year. Coincidence? Cheers, -D
Ya know, I simply do not understand the guns = freedom from oppressive gov't thing.
It comes down to the bigger guns. Say US citizens voted in a nasty dictator. Private US citizens with modest military training, would be absolutely no match against the US military. Just ask the Iraqis. So what state would freedom be in then?
Perhaps the NSA can factor primes fast.
It would be irresponsible to release such info because if word got out, so much of finance and commerce depends upon it there would be chaos. There would have to be a popular alternative in use already.
Even if they used the ability on occation, somebody would say: But I encrypted this! How could you know? Rumours would spread.
The ability would be used only in rare occasions which were critical to a government's national security.
In essence, if there is a crack, most of us are still safe.
Say, for instance, that the NSA was kind enough to forward information to the FBI on some US citizen-US citizen communication? Such information must be 'legitamized' before it can be used in a court of law, and Carnavor can provide that exact service. "Your Honour, we got this information from Echelo..Carnavor [ahem], thats it!"
They could--but don't worry, they *never* would.
If you have a relatively new dist, I doubt if you will be required to update anything.
/etc/fstab (for redhat) like : /var/shm shm exec,dev,suid,rw 0 0
You may need an extra line in
none
In any event, try compiling it anyway. The scripts should warn you if there are library incompatibilities.
Cheers.
For you non-BCers, it is important to realize that this government has been riddled with scandle, and they are grasping at anything which might prevent them from being obliterated in the next election. They have started a number of expensive boondoggles which have cost this province dearly, and one almost expects them to try a "hail Mary" play now.
Please do not expect them to behave rationally in the twilight of their regime. They weren't particularly rational when they came to office.
With apologies, Bobzibub.
..and you value your privacy as the Bronfmans do, then privacy!=anonymity. Because they have a small army of lawyers at their disposal to protect themselves, even the media does not have many pictures of these reclusive brothers. Most do not have that ability to shield our actions from "Big" or "Little Brothers". We *must* rely on anonymity to protect our privacy, because that is our *only* method we have.
He is not simply incorrect but also hypocritical to assume that anonymity's only purpose is to commit crimes.
I'm not a yankqui so some of you have to do this...
1. record a song called "RIAA are lusers"
#include
"Metallica is cool, man!;
Rightous in law, man!;
I'm a stoolie for da Man;
Now my fans are Banned!"
or perhaps...
"DMCA, yo DMCA!,
Yo: I gonna sue ya,
Napster's gonna pay.
DMCA, yo DMCA!,
Call myself outlaw at night,
but wear a suit all day.."
2. sell a copy to your sister for $1.
3. have Sister rip & post on napster.
4. get Mom to download it.
5. Submit to Napster inc. that under DCMA that Mom & Sister should be banned!!!!!
6. everyone can laugh at the idiocy of it all.
Yeah, I'm a sucker: I read the paper. kinda disappointing really. No new clever ideas. Their proposals are simply to allow companies like Napster to better fit into laws designed to protect existing distribution channels.
They talk about the "new economy" but they are unwilling to let go of the old. Sure downloading a metalica song is a crime, but the law was specifically designed to protect the old economy's ways.
"Theft of intellectual property is just as wrong if done on the Internet as it is on a Xerox machine or VCR. And without laws and rules governing such behavior, the Internet will devolve toward anarchy, rather than evolve into a powerful tool for e-commerce and individual empowerment."
Yes, they really said "devolve toward anarchy" and "individual empowerment." Funny huh?
The point they miss is that now that the marginal cost of distributing media is $0.00, why should only a few companies be able to use the law to charge a premium for its distribution. It doesn't really cost $10 per CD to get their music to their customers. It is as if the railroad has been build but nobody is allowed to use it.
In order for any progress, sometimes you have to let large companies die. (or at least let them change their model.) This is a good thing. Once, in Canada only the Hudson's Bay Co. was allowed to sell and trade stuff by royal charter. They evolved to a regular brick and morter store, and eventually closed. This is the price to pay for progress. Now we are seeing it happen all over again.
If the HB Co. was still the only retailer here we'd they'd have their "Fur Retailing Ass'n" which would do its level best to uphold the law. And we Canuks would still all be trapping and wearing furs. ; )
The law (esp. Copywrite law) is being molded to fit establised traditional business models, and hence distribution channels. Fitting Napster to the law misses the point of any technological revolution. But for progress to occur, the law ought not be used to insulate old companies from technological change.
This is how the PPI sees it:
"It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it."
For them, the principles of the DMCA are given, but it must simply be more flexible in allowing punishment.
The Third Way: What visionaries!
Personally, listening to "think tanks" fumble along like this is about as painful as listening to metallica. But to each their own. : )
Anyone else think it would be cool to be banned by napster?
If crackers do learn to use this (agree=-they will), I'd bet the first targets will be those software producers throw the switch on their customers.
Would that be poetic justice?
-B
yup. gpg would be cool.
-B
Agreed.
Same thing happens up here in Canuk land.
The major media outlets have failed: bring on the Net!
-B
Up in Vancouver, there are bill board adds which claim:
W2k: stable as your mom.
and
W2k: secure as the popemobile.
But they made similar (now laughable) claims with all their previous products. W3->W98 and WNT all were "secure and stable", just as W2k is now.
They *deserve* to get raked over the coals for this. They *earned* their position as the most hated software company, amoungst those in the know. People remember.
PS. I'm using 2.3.44 (the latest development kernel); it hasn't crashed, it is much faster than 2.2.*. And, for you W2K lovers, all on a meare 64Megs of RAM! (he he...)
-B
In Rwanda, people had their ethnicity displayed on their National ID cards. Those unfortunate to have the wrong ethnicity were caught at roadblocks and shot on the spot.
Illegal or criminal activities? It was 'illegal' to *be* Tutsi, and they could not hide that information.
Don't think that one's country X cannot stoop to this because of Y and Z. Even a patriot cannot truthfully guarantee the sanity of their state over the next 20 years.
Why should any organization (government or otherwise) who has the power of law and military force be able to act unchecked when snooping into individual's personal affairs? That is like saying that 'My alligator would never attack anyone who does not provoke it--therefore it should be allowed to play on the street.'
If the English government requires one to provide a key to the authorities, (even if W9X crashed and took the partition with it) they are *already* displaying contempt for individual rights. Governments are the last organization one should send their keys too. Crooks will only take your money.
-B
Of Course Software isn't Expression!
Next they'll be saying that film is more than a high level abstraction of chemical bits! Get real people! ; )
-B
The main issues which concern slashdotters seem to have a common thread:
corporations use courts to restrict freedoms of individuals and other (often smaller) companies.
DVD thing, copyrights, reverse engineering, hacking, etc.
In all these cases freedoms which previously existed have been fought by corporations protecting their turf. And whom do they fight against? They target individuals, or small corporations. Well, the EFF steps in on occation but does not have the resources to fight all battles.
Civil disobedience is not always flexible enough if one wants to target specific court case rulings. One can mirror code, and get the a 'secret' out, but beyond this its power is limited. It does not hold anyone's feet to the fire.
It is also better to shape the law to our purposes than to simply flaunt it.. It is too easy to portray us as a bunch of crimminals, even when a law or a ruling is clearly idiotic.
The geeks among us are individualistic, yet there is a need for a defense fund. In order to defend the rights which those who are technologically proficient hold dear -- the rights which are important to the next 100 years, not simply the last 100.
In running such a fund, there ought to be a choice of what peticular causes to support. If A donator is concerned about say, the Mitnik case, then one should be able to donate (via easy credit card payment) to *that* case. This way indiviudals who are concerned can target their donations to the causes which they are concerned about. Also, this may increase the likelyhood of a donation.
e-activism anyone? ; )
-B
I understand the bandwidth problem, but what if it happened to be a legitamite use?
Say part of a 4th year networking class the project happened to "build a napster client" or even something legit which started to drag down the network. *That* wouldn't be banned, yet the real problem would still exist.
I think it is a much better policy to impose limits on the volume of up/down bandwidth allowable, not to pass judgement on the value X or Y packets as some other customers have. No administrator would want to be in that business if they can possibly avoid it--waaaay too much grey area.
If a university administration does block out napster, then it implies that they are taking responsibility for the useage by their customers. There may be a liability issue if some student was running a porn ring, for instance. The U might be asked in court: Well, you blocked out napster, why didn't you block this out too?
(IANAL--luckily)
My napster linux client (not that I use napster) is not working on @home anymore. Is there a reason for this? ; )
-B