The lines are basically regulated to the point of being a common good and access to them commoditized. You could set the rate to something like 10% of the cost of the least expensive subscription the company offers (land line is $15/month? you must rent then to competitors for $1.50/month!) or some other cost calculation.
Now, in some places you do see alternative lines being laid. I have a county-run fiber-line to my house. THe county doesn't provide any services to me over the line. They rent them out to ISP's and telco's only!
I completely agree. The only way forward is competition. In practice this means requiring that these companies are required to rent their infrastructure out readily and affordably to other companies. We have seen things going down hill for a while. This needs to change.
I thought Obama would be better prepared to face some of the challenges, but didn't buy the Change (for a dollar) we can believe in.
Interestingly I voted against McCain principly because I thought he was both less prepared and also less grounded in any sort of conservative methodology. I was very much afraid of the sort of change he was proposing.
What the Google Class Action suit basically does is give Google DEFAULT permission to do something that is otherwise forbidden for everyone else. This puts Google in a relatively unique position regarding copyright of orphaned works. One cannot legally get to the same position that Google is in without doing something illegal and compelling similar terms.
This being said, I support the Google suit, and hope that it is the starting point of a dialog regarding how we address orphaned works. I hope the outcome is a compulsatory licensing regime. The only thing I am concerned about is that this sort of deal removes Google's interest in seeing comulsatory licensing for orphaned works made law since they got this through the courts.
A subpoena by itself usually isn't a cause for the SWAT team to show up. Furthermore, usually the subpoena'd party is given a chance to challenge the subpoena. This seems like a search and siezure warrant, not a subpoena. These are different processes.
Mr Simpson said that he found out that his home was raided as well.
You don't raid the HOME of the CEO of a company because you think their customers are involved in fraud. That makes less sense than the copyright violation speculation.
One of the original bits was that the FBI raided the house of the network service's CEO. This does not sound to me like an investigation of one of their customers. If it was, they would subpoena the information relating to the charges, and then determine what to do. Raiding the house of a corporate executive and siezing all computers under their control suggests that this is not about their customers at all.
This smells fishy.
But then, 911 changed everything. It was so bad, the FBI had to interrupt the service!
But in that case, it gets to the question of probable cause. If incriminating evidence is found on one of the siezed servers, the defendant might be able to challenge the scope of the search warrant and get a LOT of evidence thrown out.
If that is what is going on, the FBI needs to fire all involved.
4: The judge didn't understand what he/she was signing off on.
However, the thing about this is that it seems likely that this will result in anyone they charge challenging the search warrant and excluding ALL evidence related to it, or fruits from it.
Someone at the FBI needs to develop more of a brain than the average housefly has.....
So, this justifies pulling the 911 service servers in what way?
You see, search warrants are supposed to be narrowly tailored to those areas where it is more likely than not that they will find the evidence they are looking for. Pulling 50+ servers without even checking to see who is using those servers (we don't know how many servers, we know that 50 companies were affected) seems to be blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is worth noting that the 4th Amendment was included partly in response to the common law larger-area search warrants which would allow police to search a string of houses because they were pretty sure that the evidence they were looking for was SOMEWHERE in that range. We require a tighter level of control than that.
I don't think the solution is to abolish these services entirely, but I also think the attitude of "it's the future just get over it" is just as inept. There needs to be some serious re-thinking of privacy laws and our definition of privacy. Like I mention in my other comment in this thread.
Agreed with this. However, I don't think that Google Street is even close to the line on this one. I propose a couple of simple rules:
1) Public photo databases shouldn't post in-focus pictures of PEOPLE without adequate privacy precautions.
2) Cameras should be treated as people for the sake of what is appropriate data collection. It is OK for Google to record the scenary as they drive down the street even in a residential neighborhood, but it is not OK for someone to park a car and focus a web cam on my front door to record all entrences and exists of people (that would be a close parallel of stalking). If it is reasonable for a person to do, it is reasonable for a person to record.
BTW, I don't agree with many supermarkets and think it is perfectly reasonable to allow taking photos in a supermarket too (usually this requires permission, and supermarkets are concerned about competition using photos unfairly, but really, it isn't like I can't sketch displays, bring competing co-workers in to SHOW them the displays, etc. So I conclude such restrictions, though certainly within reasonable power of the business owner, are STUPID).
One aspect of politeness is voluntarily refraining from an act which disturbs others, even if you don't agree that it should disturb them (or even understand why it does). Thus, "because I don't want it" is ipso facto a valid reason for stating that an act is impolite.
Not entirely. It is quit possible to be polite and still do things that are entirely unwanted. The devil himself knows not the mind of man.
However, really, I think there should be a simple line drawn on this sort of thing. If it is accepted that a person can go down the street, then the person can go down the street photographing the process. For example, if I want to do a video documentary, I can do so with me walking down the street just as I could walk down the street normally. There is no reason why this can't be done in residential neighborhoods too.
OTOH, if I can't sit in my car on the side of the road and watch your front door for patterns of activity (stalking laws might be relevant), then I can't set up a camera to do the same thing.
Hence I would propose a standard that we "treat cameras as people" for this sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really.
The lines are basically regulated to the point of being a common good and access to them commoditized. You could set the rate to something like 10% of the cost of the least expensive subscription the company offers (land line is $15/month? you must rent then to competitors for $1.50/month!) or some other cost calculation.
Now, in some places you do see alternative lines being laid. I have a county-run fiber-line to my house. THe county doesn't provide any services to me over the line. They rent them out to ISP's and telco's only!
In Georgia, there is a third category of defamation law:
Defamacasts. These are broadcasts of a defamatory nature which don't fit squarely into slander or libel law.
I completely agree. The only way forward is competition. In practice this means requiring that these companies are required to rent their infrastructure out readily and affordably to other companies. We have seen things going down hill for a while. This needs to change.
I thought Obama would be better prepared to face some of the challenges, but didn't buy the Change (for a dollar) we can believe in.
Interestingly I voted against McCain principly because I thought he was both less prepared and also less grounded in any sort of conservative methodology. I was very much afraid of the sort of change he was proposing.
See, I am a strong civil libertarian. I believe in strong civil rights, the ACLU, the NRA, and so forth.
I was pleased but not surprised by Heller as it was quite consistent with what SCOTUS has said before.
And I don't trust the executive. I voted for Obama because I thought he would be LESS of a change than McCain....
donate your spare change to the EFF!
What the Google Class Action suit basically does is give Google DEFAULT permission to do something that is otherwise forbidden for everyone else. This puts Google in a relatively unique position regarding copyright of orphaned works. One cannot legally get to the same position that Google is in without doing something illegal and compelling similar terms.
This being said, I support the Google suit, and hope that it is the starting point of a dialog regarding how we address orphaned works. I hope the outcome is a compulsatory licensing regime. The only thing I am concerned about is that this sort of deal removes Google's interest in seeing comulsatory licensing for orphaned works made law since they got this through the courts.
I believe you can exclude yourself from the class during the suit, but not after the settlement is finalized.
A subpoena by itself usually isn't a cause for the SWAT team to show up. Furthermore, usually the subpoena'd party is given a chance to challenge the subpoena. This seems like a search and siezure warrant, not a subpoena. These are different processes.
Or maybe it's just close enough for government work...
Mr Simpson said that he found out that his home was raided as well.
You don't raid the HOME of the CEO of a company because you think their customers are involved in fraud. That makes less sense than the copyright violation speculation.
Also you don't send the swat team to the house of a company's CEO because one of their customers didn't pay their bills on time.
This sounds fishier than the Wolverine story....
One of the original bits was that the FBI raided the house of the network service's CEO. This does not sound to me like an investigation of one of their customers. If it was, they would subpoena the information relating to the charges, and then determine what to do. Raiding the house of a corporate executive and siezing all computers under their control suggests that this is not about their customers at all.
This smells fishy.
But then, 911 changed everything. It was so bad, the FBI had to interrupt the service!
Wouldn't you still have to wait for DNS caches to clear?
Setting up the failover web site is the easy part. If you aren't planning for this in advance, though, your public internet services are still down.
Ahh, but remember - 911 changed everything.
So much so that the FBI decided the service had to go and in this case disconnected it!
But in that case, it gets to the question of probable cause. If incriminating evidence is found on one of the siezed servers, the defendant might be able to challenge the scope of the search warrant and get a LOT of evidence thrown out.
If that is what is going on, the FBI needs to fire all involved.
The same letter talk about a search and siezure warrant. There evidently was a warrant, though we dont know what it said....
Sure, but search warrants can be challenged prior to trial, sometimes with disasterous effects on the prosecution.
If the FBI agents want this to even get to trial, they shouldn't be siezing 911-related phone equipment without good reason.
One thng that occurs to me is that they raided the guys house as well, so it is obviously his company and him that are under investigation.
I don't think we are hearing all of the story, but even under these circumstances, the search seems unreasonable.
4: The judge didn't understand what he/she was signing off on.
However, the thing about this is that it seems likely that this will result in anyone they charge challenging the search warrant and excluding ALL evidence related to it, or fruits from it.
Someone at the FBI needs to develop more of a brain than the average housefly has.....
So, this justifies pulling the 911 service servers in what way?
You see, search warrants are supposed to be narrowly tailored to those areas where it is more likely than not that they will find the evidence they are looking for. Pulling 50+ servers without even checking to see who is using those servers (we don't know how many servers, we know that 50 companies were affected) seems to be blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is worth noting that the 4th Amendment was included partly in response to the common law larger-area search warrants which would allow police to search a string of houses because they were pretty sure that the evidence they were looking for was SOMEWHERE in that range. We require a tighter level of control than that.
Personally I can't believe that a judge signed off on such a warrant. That just seems way, way overbroad.
They did have a warrant, right?
Or are they trying to fundamentally sabotage any prosecution that comes from this?
Is that Fort Rucker then? However, at least it is a) official law and b) posted.
I don't think the solution is to abolish these services entirely, but I also think the attitude of "it's the future just get over it" is just as inept. There needs to be some serious re-thinking of privacy laws and our definition of privacy. Like I mention in my other comment in this thread.
Agreed with this. However, I don't think that Google Street is even close to the line on this one. I propose a couple of simple rules:
1) Public photo databases shouldn't post in-focus pictures of PEOPLE without adequate privacy precautions.
2) Cameras should be treated as people for the sake of what is appropriate data collection. It is OK for Google to record the scenary as they drive down the street even in a residential neighborhood, but it is not OK for someone to park a car and focus a web cam on my front door to record all entrences and exists of people (that would be a close parallel of stalking). If it is reasonable for a person to do, it is reasonable for a person to record.
BTW, I don't agree with many supermarkets and think it is perfectly reasonable to allow taking photos in a supermarket too (usually this requires permission, and supermarkets are concerned about competition using photos unfairly, but really, it isn't like I can't sketch displays, bring competing co-workers in to SHOW them the displays, etc. So I conclude such restrictions, though certainly within reasonable power of the business owner, are STUPID).
One aspect of politeness is voluntarily refraining from an act which disturbs others, even if you don't agree that it should disturb them (or even understand why it does). Thus, "because I don't want it" is ipso facto a valid reason for stating that an act is impolite.
Not entirely. It is quit possible to be polite and still do things that are entirely unwanted. The devil himself knows not the mind of man.
However, really, I think there should be a simple line drawn on this sort of thing. If it is accepted that a person can go down the street, then the person can go down the street photographing the process. For example, if I want to do a video documentary, I can do so with me walking down the street just as I could walk down the street normally. There is no reason why this can't be done in residential neighborhoods too.
OTOH, if I can't sit in my car on the side of the road and watch your front door for patterns of activity (stalking laws might be relevant), then I can't set up a camera to do the same thing.
Hence I would propose a standard that we "treat cameras as people" for this sort of thing.