Technology, however weird and potent it might seem at first glance, does not mean instant abuse of it. As in the example with the insurance company which was mentioned, it does not matter - insurance does, and should, cover unexpected things, and that Hidden Detector in the doorway will be able to tell just a fraction of what a standard medical examination, supported by this techology, will tell you.
I would rather say that things like regulation and restriction of new, potentially 'dangerous' technology only open up possibilities for abuse.
Tech is friendly. As long as everybody can get it.
>I know that yes, I'd want the individual sites
>taken down, but I'd also really want the search
>engine gone as well.
But thats the same thing as with RIAA - you can really, really want that thing gone, but that does not mean you have the right to do it.
The problem, as I see it is having a court decision wether a pointer (as html link, or an item in some database) to an illegal thing is legal or not.
My opinion is that the string http://www.badcriminals.org/stolenstuff.html does not violate the copyrights of anyone.
However, it is pretty easy to show a demonstration to a technically incompetent judge, that one gets the illegal material 'through' the one that gives the link, not the one that provides the material.
Don't you agree that the safest place to be is a 4-wall room with bars so noone can harm you? Government is not here to protect you. The fear that media have impressed upon you is false. The terrorists and child molesters (That you must so fear of to trust the government everyones privacy) affect less than 20 people a year.. of 400 million (Or whatever the population of USA is now?). And do not forget - with all your personal and credit data on internet, most of communications through internet, omniscience almost equals omnipotence. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The thing is, that by buying the DVD, you have the right to decrypt it, as you do when viewing it on any DVD player. That encryption was a way of controlling where you could view it technologically, but with no right to control it.
Natural state of information is to be known by anyone interested, isn't it?
How can you own information in my mind?
And how is small information '2+2=4' different from a lot of info, like a software program?
Slashdot Mirror
Technology, however weird and potent it might seem at first glance, does not mean instant abuse of it. As in the example with the insurance company which was mentioned, it does not matter - insurance does, and should, cover unexpected things, and that Hidden Detector in the doorway will be able to tell just a fraction of what a standard medical examination, supported by this techology, will tell you. I would rather say that things like regulation and restriction of new, potentially 'dangerous' technology only open up possibilities for abuse. Tech is friendly. As long as everybody can get it.
>I know that yes, I'd want the individual sites >taken down, but I'd also really want the search >engine gone as well. But thats the same thing as with RIAA - you can really, really want that thing gone, but that does not mean you have the right to do it. The problem, as I see it is having a court decision wether a pointer (as html link, or an item in some database) to an illegal thing is legal or not. My opinion is that the string http://www.badcriminals.org/stolenstuff.html does not violate the copyrights of anyone. However, it is pretty easy to show a demonstration to a technically incompetent judge, that one gets the illegal material 'through' the one that gives the link, not the one that provides the material.
It rather should say 'It's worth losing privacy for a small chance to improve fighting crime'
Don't you agree that the safest place to be is a 4-wall room with bars so noone can harm you? Government is not here to protect you. The fear that media have impressed upon you is false. The terrorists and child molesters (That you must so fear of to trust the government everyones privacy) affect less than 20 people a year.. of 400 million (Or whatever the population of USA is now?). And do not forget - with all your personal and credit data on internet, most of communications through internet, omniscience almost equals omnipotence. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The thing is, that by buying the DVD, you have the right to decrypt it, as you do when viewing it on any DVD player. That encryption was a way of controlling where you could view it technologically, but with no right to control it.
Natural state of information is to be known by anyone interested, isn't it?
How can you own information in my mind?
And how is small information '2+2=4' different from a lot of info, like a software program?