I think the point is though, that his company was marketting and selling his software in the US. So that would be a crime on US soil I think.
And I too certaintly would hope to not be arrested for human rights activism in china--and thankfully that is the value of our system here--unjust actions in the legal system are eventually overturned.
A question--if Dmitry had been arrested for breaking another law in the US, something that was legal in Russia, but illegal in the US (I don't know enough of the Russian legal system to know what such a crime might be, but just speaking hypoethetically), but that had NO relation to any product of Dmitry's company, but was entirely personal, do you think the CEO would have stood up for Dmitry against an unjust US justice system the way you said he did?
My point is not that the CEO is a bad person or anything of the like, simply that ANY CEO would have fought the case--the legality of their product was in question, he couldn't afford to NOT do anything.
Wow, personal attacks again. Why are so many people getting verbally abusive?
Could you perhaps tell me what facts of the case I got wrong?
and you're right, my opinion doesn't count for anything--and neither does yours. This is a forum of discussion populated by (mostly) people who are not lawyers or legal experts of any kind, not a court of law.
I really would like an answer of why you decided to get abusive and what not--did I miss something?
Historical precedent--this is a weak corollary, but when destroying the mob bosses earlier in this century, enough evidence for a total bust could rarely be found, thus minor laws like illegal parking or something would be blown hugely out of proportion to nab these bad guys who had little court admissible evidence against them.
Think about it this way if a known druglord who sold drugs via others in the US (and there was clear evidence of this) and resided in a country where he could not/would not be busted for this, came to the US for a britney spears concert, would it be ok if he was arrested at the concert for selling drugs?
Entirely different case--for one, the EP3 *is* sovereign US territory. Just like embassy grounds are considered not part of the country they physically exist in, but of the country that runs them. This is standard stuff...
Well, I'll just note that you supplied no evidence that in any way contradicted what I said, and instead went to personal insults--when I specifically said I'd be glad to look at anything you would send..but oh well.
The products legal status in Russia has little to do with the legal status in America--ie, while speaking out against the government is legal in the US, you can be imprisoned for it in China. Similarly drugs which may be legal in some other countries (ie, Marijuana) are illegal in the US. Foreign nation's laws don't mean _anything_ within the soverein nation's territory. You'd think someone who was a citizen of any country would know more about this, hopefully I made it perfectly clear for you.
And still I think you miss the point--I don't believe the CEO was trying to save a person per se, instead he was defending the legality of his companies actions. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to read it.
It would seem to make sense that the company that makes the illegal product would stand up for it--it's their revenue stream, Dmitri isn't the only one who has something to lose in this case.
Right--sort of. Latin evolved further from Greek basically. Russian is directly from the greek (or, from the Greek w/o the Latin intermediary) and English is pretty much the Latin script.
Arabic is also Right-to-left which can be trouble, though there are still a small number of characters (compared to say Chinese).
the problem with an alphabet like Arabic is not only the storage, but the display. Different letters have different shapes, depending on where they occur. Vowels aren't usually written, but probably a good idea to store them, so display them or not. And so on. and of course right-to-left, when 99% of computer design is oriented left-to-right.
Wow! This is sure contrary to the usual slashdot free free free attitude! How refreshing.
I've just been having an argument about people not paying for Directv because they can receive it. Odd how standards differ when nationalism comes into play:)
I don't know anyone from China who lived there after about age 9 or 10 (all the families of my friend moved here [the US] at about that time) but I do know a good number of Taiwanese who went through higher schooling in Taiwan.
In Taiwan (at least from what I hear), FreeBSD seems to have become very popular, and to have a better reputation than Linux. One of my friends still connects to Taiwanese BBS type systems many of which are running FreeBSD.
So I'm not exactly clear why Linux making in-roads (which I'm not sure is really justified in the article--it seems a lot of if's, maybes, and predictions) in China is so important. Free software is in the Chinese speaking world and has been making in-roads for years--that is what seems important to me.
The point of the matter is you're not just passively receiving--you're going out of your way to get something that isn't yours.
Directv PAYS for those channels. They paid for the broadcast equipment. They bnroadcast the signals. I'm sure they had to pay for the right to do that.
Explain to me in any sense be it moral or MORE IMPORTANTLY legal, why you should be able to steal what others must pay for?
So far all that's been said is "well it's there, so I shoudl be able to access it".. You didn't like my other example, so here's another one--a plain flys over your house, it's _over_ your yard, so you should be able to shoot it down right? Your car is parked in my driveway, locked. So I should be able to open your windows and record your credit card number, and read your diary. Your car just sitting their is open to anyone with the technical means to get into it.
Incorrect. Directv broadcasts their signal only ot people that have their dish. Their goal is not to send it to joe haxor. Just like when I buy something my goal is for the company to get my CC, not joe haxor.
Either way you're getting at something you shouldn't.
So if you leave a file on your computer, you can only blame yourself if it gets accessed if your computer is hacked. And if you buy something online and someone steals your credit card, again you have only yourself to blame--you shouldn't have given the possibility of interception.
And if you're going to say I'd never send a credit card unencrypted, well how is encryption different from scrambling?
I'm going to tell you that it is wrong to forcibly overcome scrambling to get a commercial product for free. I am telling you it is wrong, and should be illegal to monitor your neighbors calls.
Well regardless of the actual specifics my comment stands--it is my clear opinion that if DirectTV is selling a product, and they broadcast this product (scrambled nonetheless!), you should pay for it. I see no moral way you can get around this. Saying "Well, it's broadcast anyway, I should be able to do what I want with it" is both immoral and wrong.
I don't know the specifics of that which you are referring to, however if you are talking about getting directv when you have not paid for its service, then you damn well should be caught and forced to pay, be it in the US or canada!!
Western bias? I don't think I mentioned that. My point was simply to point out how ludicrous the above poster was in that he was asking a question totally without context. My post probably shouldn't have been modded up--I wouldn't mind it being modded down.
I don't however understand your point? What do complete 100% people elections have to do with fundamentals of Western thought? One of those fundamentals is questioning the role of the governmet and man and women.
And you mention in effect the economic apartheid in Saudia Arabia also, under different terms.
I also disagree with your final part abou culture imperialism. People like american media around the world, people like american fashion. There are numerous american channels in Cairo and New Delhi just as an example. Again, no one is making anyone watch those channels, I would hardly call that imperialism. And I would also say that the idea that "people should be allowed to elect the people who govern" as an idea to be exported is also severely misplaced--how about unalienable human rights and freedom instead?
So basically, if mine post was incoherent, you just followed suit:P
Hah, what a question. You take SO much for granted in your question, it's not even funny.
You have a very Western viewpoint for one. "Should the government be allowed to do this?" That in itself is radical thinking in many areas--questioning the role of the government.
This isn't just a karma whore question is it?? because it doesn't particularly make sense. Questioning filtering the internet in Saudi Arabia as a "right" of the government? Why not question the economic apartheid, or the strict entry rules, or judicial system...it just seems ludicrous that you raise a totally western style question about the purpose of government in Saudi Arabia.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point is though, that his company was marketting and selling his software in the US. So that would be a crime on US soil I think.
And I too certaintly would hope to not be arrested for human rights activism in china--and thankfully that is the value of our system here--unjust actions in the legal system are eventually overturned.
Scott
oh ok, I see (and am in complete agreement with you)
thanks,
Scott
A question--if Dmitry had been arrested for breaking another law in the US, something that was legal in Russia, but illegal in the US (I don't know enough of the Russian legal system to know what such a crime might be, but just speaking hypoethetically), but that had NO relation to any product of Dmitry's company, but was entirely personal, do you think the CEO would have stood up for Dmitry against an unjust US justice system the way you said he did?
My point is not that the CEO is a bad person or anything of the like, simply that ANY CEO would have fought the case--the legality of their product was in question, he couldn't afford to NOT do anything.
thanks,
Scott
Wow, personal attacks again. Why are so many people getting verbally abusive?
Could you perhaps tell me what facts of the case I got wrong?
and you're right, my opinion doesn't count for anything--and neither does yours. This is a forum of discussion populated by (mostly) people who are not lawyers or legal experts of any kind, not a court of law.
I really would like an answer of why you decided to get abusive and what not--did I miss something?
Scott
I'm sorry I don't understand--what's not unheard of "anywhere" (why is anywhere in quotes)? Sovereignty of laws?
Sorry,
Scott
Historical precedent--this is a weak corollary, but when destroying the mob bosses earlier in this century, enough evidence for a total bust could rarely be found, thus minor laws like illegal parking or something would be blown hugely out of proportion to nab these bad guys who had little court admissible evidence against them.
Think about it this way if a known druglord who sold drugs via others in the US (and there was clear evidence of this) and resided in a country where he could not/would not be busted for this, came to the US for a britney spears concert, would it be ok if he was arrested at the concert for selling drugs?
thanks
Scott
Entirely different case--for one, the EP3 *is* sovereign US territory. Just like embassy grounds are considered not part of the country they physically exist in, but of the country that runs them. This is standard stuff...
Scott
Well, I'll just note that you supplied no evidence that in any way contradicted what I said, and instead went to personal insults--when I specifically said I'd be glad to look at anything you would send..but oh well.
depends on your definition of cynical...
Scott
The products legal status in Russia has little to do with the legal status in America--ie, while speaking out against the government is legal in the US, you can be imprisoned for it in China. Similarly drugs which may be legal in some other countries (ie, Marijuana) are illegal in the US. Foreign nation's laws don't mean _anything_ within the soverein nation's territory. You'd think someone who was a citizen of any country would know more about this, hopefully I made it perfectly clear for you.
And still I think you miss the point--I don't believe the CEO was trying to save a person per se, instead he was defending the legality of his companies actions. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to read it.
Scott
Well that remains to be seen, so perhaps I should have said the product whose legality is in question. There's little doubt in MY mind however.
Scott
It would seem to make sense that the company that makes the illegal product would stand up for it--it's their revenue stream, Dmitri isn't the only one who has something to lose in this case.
Scott
What a troll! Did you even bother to read the story description, not to mention the story?? Hello, NSA Linux right here!!
Scott
Right--sort of. Latin evolved further from Greek basically. Russian is directly from the greek (or, from the Greek w/o the Latin intermediary) and English is pretty much the Latin script.
Arabic is also Right-to-left which can be trouble, though there are still a small number of characters (compared to say Chinese).
the problem with an alphabet like Arabic is not only the storage, but the display. Different letters have different shapes, depending on where they occur. Vowels aren't usually written, but probably a good idea to store them, so display them or not. And so on. and of course right-to-left, when 99% of computer design is oriented left-to-right.
Scott
Wow! This is sure contrary to the usual slashdot free free free attitude! How refreshing.
:)
I've just been having an argument about people not paying for Directv because they can receive it. Odd how standards differ when nationalism comes into play
Scott
>This just shows just how much more influence big >companies have over governments than the rest of >us - no matter what government.
And it just shows how much more power over us the government has than anyone else also.
Scott
Very true :)
Scott
Somone mod this up (at least from troll if nothing more)--he *is* right, no matter how much the moderators don't like it.
Scott
I don't know anyone from China who lived there after about age 9 or 10 (all the families of my friend moved here [the US] at about that time) but I do know a good number of Taiwanese who went through higher schooling in Taiwan.
In Taiwan (at least from what I hear), FreeBSD seems to have become very popular, and to have a better reputation than Linux. One of my friends still connects to Taiwanese BBS type systems many of which are running FreeBSD.
So I'm not exactly clear why Linux making in-roads (which I'm not sure is really justified in the article--it seems a lot of if's, maybes, and predictions) in China is so important. Free software is in the Chinese speaking world and has been making in-roads for years--that is what seems important to me.
Scott
The point of the matter is you're not just passively receiving--you're going out of your way to get something that isn't yours.
.. You didn't like my other example, so here's another one--a plain flys over your house, it's _over_ your yard, so you should be able to shoot it down right? Your car is parked in my driveway, locked. So I should be able to open your windows and record your credit card number, and read your diary. Your car just sitting their is open to anyone with the technical means to get into it.
Directv PAYS for those channels. They paid for the broadcast equipment. They bnroadcast the signals. I'm sure they had to pay for the right to do that.
Explain to me in any sense be it moral or MORE IMPORTANTLY legal, why you should be able to steal what others must pay for?
So far all that's been said is "well it's there, so I shoudl be able to access it"
Scott
Incorrect. Directv broadcasts their signal only ot people that have their dish. Their goal is not to send it to joe haxor. Just like when I buy something my goal is for the company to get my CC, not joe haxor.
Either way you're getting at something you shouldn't.
Scott
So if you leave a file on your computer, you can only blame yourself if it gets accessed if your computer is hacked. And if you buy something online and someone steals your credit card, again you have only yourself to blame--you shouldn't have given the possibility of interception.
And if you're going to say I'd never send a credit card unencrypted, well how is encryption different from scrambling?
I'm going to tell you that it is wrong to forcibly overcome scrambling to get a commercial product for free. I am telling you it is wrong, and should be illegal to monitor your neighbors calls.
Scott
Well regardless of the actual specifics my comment stands--it is my clear opinion that if DirectTV is selling a product, and they broadcast this product (scrambled nonetheless!), you should pay for it. I see no moral way you can get around this. Saying "Well, it's broadcast anyway, I should be able to do what I want with it" is both immoral and wrong.
Scott
I don't know the specifics of that which you are referring to, however if you are talking about getting directv when you have not paid for its service, then you damn well should be caught and forced to pay, be it in the US or canada!!
scott
Western bias? I don't think I mentioned that. My point was simply to point out how ludicrous the above poster was in that he was asking a question totally without context. My post probably shouldn't have been modded up--I wouldn't mind it being modded down.
:P
I don't however understand your point? What do complete 100% people elections have to do with fundamentals of Western thought? One of those fundamentals is questioning the role of the governmet and man and women.
And you mention in effect the economic apartheid in Saudia Arabia also, under different terms.
I also disagree with your final part abou culture imperialism. People like american media around the world, people like american fashion. There are numerous american channels in Cairo and New Delhi just as an example. Again, no one is making anyone watch those channels, I would hardly call that imperialism. And I would also say that the idea that "people should be allowed to elect the people who govern" as an idea to be exported is also severely misplaced--how about unalienable human rights and freedom instead?
So basically, if mine post was incoherent, you just followed suit
Scott
Hah, what a question. You take SO much for granted in your question, it's not even funny.
You have a very Western viewpoint for one. "Should the government be allowed to do this?" That in itself is radical thinking in many areas--questioning the role of the government.
This isn't just a karma whore question is it?? because it doesn't particularly make sense. Questioning filtering the internet in Saudi Arabia as a "right" of the government? Why not question the economic apartheid, or the strict entry rules, or judicial system...it just seems ludicrous that you raise a totally western style question about the purpose of government in Saudi Arabia.
Scott