As Bell Canada is demonstrating by throttling other ISPs in Canada, the company you buy "internet access" from does not necessarily have the final say in what you get.
Article 3. No individual shall be held liable for effects of malware or malicious code unknowingly run on a personal computer
This exonerates those who write malicious code. They release a virus to the internet, but have no knowledge of which computers it becomes installed on. Therefore, they are not liable.
The "article" was badly phrased, but the explanation makes it clear that by "unknowingly run" he means the user clicking on the.jpg.exe icon. "No individual" probably should mean "no individual who unknowingly runs the malware" not "no individual who creates and distributes the malware".
Hopefully this guy doesn't write any laws, he's about as clear as the average congresscritter, and the average congresscritter's bills are as clear as mud, requiring years of court battles to interpret what the hell their gibberish actually meant.
You're just shuffling the problem around. For example, let's say I pay $20 a month for DSL and host controversial mp3s, etc. Ultimately, the process repeats until you get to my computer, and I find your use of punch the flashing monkey ads controversial and choose to remove them from my view of your site.
It's currently not possible to host anything entirely on your own. Anything you put "on the internet" changes hands many times between where it leaves your server and reaches the requester's computer. Property rights suggest that any of these have the right to say "no" to this transaction.
Personally, I'd replace your #10 with: 10. The right to use encryption without the assumption that a crime is being committed.
Or the wisdom of appointing a CTO who's no technologist.
I think "knowing anything at all about what you're doing" stopped being a requirement for executive positions around the time of Worldcom's collapse... at least if you go by public statements by major corporate executives since then.
because 80-90% of the market will choose not to bother with that application because they don't know how to DAU-EN-LODE and install a different browser.
In that case, Google will just email their browser install file to them, because 80-90% of those people will be more than happy to click on anything in an email.
It's unlikely that the insurance companies would act directly, after all, they'd be in really deep shit if they were found to be in possession of this data, and such an act would be too much of a coincidence to write off, especially after the first two or three Berkley students get rejected.
No, mid-to-large size corporations are the ones that'll use this. They'll be the ones that can afford a few bucks for "candidate screening" and since their employment decisions are secret, the people with pre-existing conditions would just be told that they're not a good match for the company. After all, hiring someone with cancer would drive up the insurance costs for everyone at the office, and that means more money not just out of the company's pocket, but likely out of the manager's pocket as well (on the easy assumption that the company doesn't pay 100% of the policy cost).
Sure: You don't have to screw with my property to tail me by car or helicopter.
As an aside, I have to wonder if someone were to attach a GPS tracker to Paul Lundsten's car, would he blow a gasket about his unreasonable expectation of privacy being violated?
Even then, it'd show an awful lot of work having been done on the computer in 1998, then absolutely no new files or system log entries until 2009, which would be quite remarkable.
Which is pretty much the number of people who are always within a few months of death because of age and/or illness.
Which is the difference between the "normal" flu, which kills infants and old people, and any of the historical "pandemic" flus, which killed young and middle-aged adults.
And that's the best kind. (Hint: consider that the Internet providers in the city in the story didn't design their networks to route around a couple of cut fibers. They'd be very upset if the government came along and did better.)
Actually, that's a pretty good one too. If you put enough work into it you can (say, with LUKS) pull off something where a passphrase is memorized as an emergency backup key, and a separate key comes from the TPM module on the motherboard. The boot setup would try to use the TPM key by default for unattended booting but if someone tries to wipe the BIOS to get around the boot settings, you could still use the emergency key to get in.
Password protect your bios and disable external device booting, disable editing in the bootloader (both grub and lilo have a password setting that allows unattended booting but blocks manual interaction), and disable the "hold down whatever to enter single user mode" option some distributions have as part of init.
Note that in the case you report, it's actually the DNA typing showing the suspect was NOT THE ONE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR
Only on the second go-around. The first time around, the "expert" doing the DNA typing said he was. More information:
Moreover, a crime lab employee testified at trial that the DNA found on the victim was an exact match with Sutton, meaning that only about 1 person in 694,000 could have deposited the material whereas in reality, 1 in 16 black men share this profile.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/268.php
He spent 4 years in jail before someone finally got him a second opinion. Even after the DNA retest, the DA fought tooth and nail to keep him from being declared innocent.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't the 10th amendment already cover this?
Sure, it would if people would all recognize the same set of rights.
ISPs are given safe harbor
By law, but not by "right". If the law changes, your proposed "right" gains a giant, gaping hole.
As Bell Canada is demonstrating by throttling other ISPs in Canada, the company you buy "internet access" from does not necessarily have the final say in what you get.
The "article" was badly phrased, but the explanation makes it clear that by "unknowingly run" he means the user clicking on the .jpg.exe icon. "No individual" probably should mean "no individual who unknowingly runs the malware" not "no individual who creates and distributes the malware".
Hopefully this guy doesn't write any laws, he's about as clear as the average congresscritter, and the average congresscritter's bills are as clear as mud, requiring years of court battles to interpret what the hell their gibberish actually meant.
You're just shuffling the problem around. For example, let's say I pay $20 a month for DSL and host controversial mp3s, etc. Ultimately, the process repeats until you get to my computer, and I find your use of punch the flashing monkey ads controversial and choose to remove them from my view of your site.
It's currently not possible to host anything entirely on your own. Anything you put "on the internet" changes hands many times between where it leaves your server and reaches the requester's computer. Property rights suggest that any of these have the right to say "no" to this transaction.
Personally, I'd replace your #10 with:
10. The right to use encryption without the assumption that a crime is being committed.
I think "knowing anything at all about what you're doing" stopped being a requirement for executive positions around the time of Worldcom's collapse... at least if you go by public statements by major corporate executives since then.
because 80-90% of the market will choose not to bother with that application because they don't know how to DAU-EN-LODE and install a different browser.
In that case, Google will just email their browser install file to them, because 80-90% of those people will be more than happy to click on anything in an email.
mysteriously refused insurance coverage
It's unlikely that the insurance companies would act directly, after all, they'd be in really deep shit if they were found to be in possession of this data, and such an act would be too much of a coincidence to write off, especially after the first two or three Berkley students get rejected.
No, mid-to-large size corporations are the ones that'll use this. They'll be the ones that can afford a few bucks for "candidate screening" and since their employment decisions are secret, the people with pre-existing conditions would just be told that they're not a good match for the company. After all, hiring someone with cancer would drive up the insurance costs for everyone at the office, and that means more money not just out of the company's pocket, but likely out of the manager's pocket as well (on the easy assumption that the company doesn't pay 100% of the policy cost).
I've got a better idea: demand to see a warrant to search the car when they come back to get it.
Is there more to it than that?
Sure: You don't have to screw with my property to tail me by car or helicopter.
As an aside, I have to wonder if someone were to attach a GPS tracker to Paul Lundsten's car, would he blow a gasket about his unreasonable expectation of privacy being violated?
How can this be?
It is the Kwisatz Haderach?
Even then, it'd show an awful lot of work having been done on the computer in 1998, then absolutely no new files or system log entries until 2009, which would be quite remarkable.
it'll probably emerge that quantum mechanics is behind the survival of these select few dinosaurs.
Quantum Mechanics can't save the dinosaurs. For a job this big, we need String Theory.
Which is pretty much the number of people who are always within a few months of death because of age and/or illness.
Which is the difference between the "normal" flu, which kills infants and old people, and any of the historical "pandemic" flus, which killed young and middle-aged adults.
You'll see reasonable network caps like comcast's 250GB a month
And unreasonable caps like Time Warner's 5GB a month? I guess that's a "fable".
Probably not, but I bet you could put a few big ones behind an LCD mask.
Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend that if you use more, you're going to have to pay more?
Because to "people", surfing Youtube is no different than surfing the rest of the internet, only with more exploding coke bottles.
Finally! 2009 shall be the Year of Linux on the Mountaintop!
I can't really tell.
And that's the best kind. (Hint: consider that the Internet providers in the city in the story didn't design their networks to route around a couple of cut fibers. They'd be very upset if the government came along and did better.)
We need book DRM
They can try, but they won't succeed.
Ye gads, why doesn't the government fund such an idea?!?
Because it would compete with the companies that run the Internet.
Actually, that's a pretty good one too. If you put enough work into it you can (say, with LUKS) pull off something where a passphrase is memorized as an emergency backup key, and a separate key comes from the TPM module on the motherboard. The boot setup would try to use the TPM key by default for unattended booting but if someone tries to wipe the BIOS to get around the boot settings, you could still use the emergency key to get in.
can't reboot into single-user mode?
Password protect your bios and disable external device booting, disable editing in the bootloader (both grub and lilo have a password setting that allows unattended booting but blocks manual interaction), and disable the "hold down whatever to enter single user mode" option some distributions have as part of init.
So he's going to be up and out of that wheelchair in no time, eh?
The brain transplant went well.
Note that in the case you report, it's actually the DNA typing showing the suspect was NOT THE ONE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR
Only on the second go-around. The first time around, the "expert" doing the DNA typing said he was. More information:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/268.php
He spent 4 years in jail before someone finally got him a second opinion. Even after the DNA retest, the DA fought tooth and nail to keep him from being declared innocent.
So yeah, hooray for DNA tests!