If the goverment was required to list the specific sites that were to be blocked, I'm sure every one would have something to say about being on the list. It's laws like this that allow the government to impose broad censorship upon the public that cry out to be repealed. It takes just one madman with enough supporters yelling loud enough to take away freedom and freedom of choice. I doubt that this law will stand the tests and trials.
I don't think they even allow laptops on the floor. Why would they bother to read e-mail if most of them don't even use a computer. Most, if not all, of the paper mail they receive is reviewed by staff, never to be read by a representitive.
No surprize that the volume went down. What I don't understand is why I never see scour mentioned when people talk about other options to download what Napster provided. It can be found here: Scour.Com
It may not have a linux interface, but then again, neither did Napster when it started.
Of course SSH has the right to demand that their name not be used by others. Even if it is an open source project that isn't demanding money for their products, it is a clear violation of a trademarked name, and I'm surprized that it took them this long to come after them. Hell, even if it can be viewed as SSH spiting the OpenSSH project for coming out with a more secure model than SSH1, well, they had the name, and someone else is using it, and gaining a usage level off of the recognition of that name. This isn't a hit to OpenSSH, it's a hit to the name, and SSH has every right to it. I'm sure if I came out with an OS called OpenWindows2000 I'd get sued as well, and I'd expect it.
And, this is not a flame on either one(s), I use both, as I run linux, BSD, and Windows OS's
Just my two cents.....
I agree. It would be a waste of their time, and I was surprised to hear that they may even be considering it. I think that they may instead attempt to attack the larger ISP's for this. They may use an approach like "You know what your users are doing and since you have the ability to stop it, you are responsible." I don't know how far they will go with that approach, but they really screwed up on the Napster attack (in the sense that they had one central place to find the source of the pirate MP3's and could have made a monetary deal that would control it).
I was listening to a show on NPR this morning about Napster, and the other availabvle P2P networks that could replace the services that Napster delivers. It seems that the music industry is seriously considering going after individual users of the other services as well (such as freenet, etc.). I think that some people assume incorrectly that these networks provide a high degree of anonymity. The requests for files on these P2P networks still originate from your compueter, and can still be traced. I believe that in FreewNet's case the "provider" of the file you request is protected by the splitting up of the file in question, but the requestor still can be tracked. Now if these other P2P networks combined the existing services with encrypted file requests, the music industry would have no way of chasing down anyone looking to download pirate MP3's.
However, I don't think that the music industry has any chance in hell of going after individuals any way.....
I don't know if this was posted before, but I assume that the pictures they take when this lifts off will look much the same as the ones that were taken on the landing as can be seen in this link: Landing Photos
"Lame script kiddies giving hackers a bad name?"
It's not the script kiddies giving hackers a bad name, it's the press's misunderstanding and misuse of the word.
It should be noted that this ruling specifically states that all internet activity by minors should be monitored, but NOT in libraries. So at least they had some sense that privacy should be respected for adults in a public setting. I don't think that this is a bad thing at all. When sending your child to school, you should not have to worry that they would have access to content on the internet that you would otherwise restrict. I doubt if any teenager would have much of a problem circumventing the restrictive measures that would have to be implemented given this ruling.
Even if you don't believe in God, I hope that all take a moment to consider his contributions and take a moment to realize what this man has done for the computing community and understand that we have lost a person that helped to shape the future before it was the future when he had a vision.
"Because TLD's are now international, not exclusively US'ian. It should be left to the UN to decide."
Sure, let the UN decide. Let's see, since the US influences most of the UN decisions already, based on the inequity of military might, we'll have the US military once again in control of the internet. hmmmm...
When an agreement of this magnitude has to be "corrected" at the last minute, I have to wonder if the world (internet world and/or countries) is ready to develop a definition of Cybercrime. It seems that the Council of Europe has not taken into consideration all the aspects needed to draft such a document. Is it just me or does it seem that when governing bodies do not understand a technology (or any subject for that matter) they tend to pass laws defining the legality of said item that restricts an individual's rights, at the same time admitting that they do not understand what they are doing.
"We do not want to pass a text against the people." Well they may not want to pass text against the people, but they certainly seem to be in a rush to pass a text restricting people's rights to privacy and any actions that may be construed to be "cracking." I may not like someone port-scanning me, but I do not consider it illegal. Some day I may be arrested for ping-ing slashdot.....
A few years back I used AT&T worldnet as my internet access, they double billed me and I called to have the matter resolved. After 8 hours, yes, seriously 8 hours of being transferred around, the matter was resolved. Well I soon learned that they had also switched my long and local billing over to them (slammed!).
I called and told them that since I had not asked for them to do that (and in fact had told them I did NOT want their phone service...), I'd like my phone service switched back. They refused to do it, claiming that only I could do that. Heh, and they have no problem cancelling my old service?
I spent 3 days without phone service because the local phone company couldn't get it restored right away.
How to solve this problem? Call your local phone company (or whoever you use), and ask them to only allow a switch over if you notify them in writing. I've never been slammed since then.
Unfortunately, AT&T just bought my local cable company......
Slashdot Mirror
Mechanical Counter Mirror Link
If the goverment was required to list the specific sites that were to be blocked, I'm sure every one would have something to say about being on the list. It's laws like this that allow the government to impose broad censorship upon the public that cry out to be repealed. It takes just one madman with enough supporters yelling loud enough to take away freedom and freedom of choice. I doubt that this law will stand the tests and trials.
I don't think they even allow laptops on the floor. Why would they bother to read e-mail if most of them don't even use a computer. Most, if not all, of the paper mail they receive is reviewed by staff, never to be read by a representitive.
Description
testimonials
Tech Specs.
Now we won't be able to use numbers anymore! Math geeks will finally have something to protest!
Thanks for the info, I did not know that.
No surprize that the volume went down. What I don't understand is why I never see scour mentioned when people talk about other options to download what Napster provided. It can be found here: Scour.Com It may not have a linux interface, but then again, neither did Napster when it started.
well, at least I'd get something out of the publicity.
Of course SSH has the right to demand that their name not be used by others. Even if it is an open source project that isn't demanding money for their products, it is a clear violation of a trademarked name, and I'm surprized that it took them this long to come after them. Hell, even if it can be viewed as SSH spiting the OpenSSH project for coming out with a more secure model than SSH1, well, they had the name, and someone else is using it, and gaining a usage level off of the recognition of that name. This isn't a hit to OpenSSH, it's a hit to the name, and SSH has every right to it. I'm sure if I came out with an OS called OpenWindows2000 I'd get sued as well, and I'd expect it. And, this is not a flame on either one(s), I use both, as I run linux, BSD, and Windows OS's Just my two cents.....
I agree. It would be a waste of their time, and I was surprised to hear that they may even be considering it. I think that they may instead attempt to attack the larger ISP's for this. They may use an approach like "You know what your users are doing and since you have the ability to stop it, you are responsible." I don't know how far they will go with that approach, but they really screwed up on the Napster attack (in the sense that they had one central place to find the source of the pirate MP3's and could have made a monetary deal that would control it).
I was listening to a show on NPR this morning about Napster, and the other availabvle P2P networks that could replace the services that Napster delivers. It seems that the music industry is seriously considering going after individual users of the other services as well (such as freenet, etc.). I think that some people assume incorrectly that these networks provide a high degree of anonymity. The requests for files on these P2P networks still originate from your compueter, and can still be traced. I believe that in FreewNet's case the "provider" of the file you request is protected by the splitting up of the file in question, but the requestor still can be tracked. Now if these other P2P networks combined the existing services with encrypted file requests, the music industry would have no way of chasing down anyone looking to download pirate MP3's. However, I don't think that the music industry has any chance in hell of going after individuals any way.....
I don't know if this was posted before, but I assume that the pictures they take when this lifts off will look much the same as the ones that were taken on the landing as can be seen in this link: Landing Photos
"Lame script kiddies giving hackers a bad name?" It's not the script kiddies giving hackers a bad name, it's the press's misunderstanding and misuse of the word.
It should be noted that this ruling specifically states that all internet activity by minors should be monitored, but NOT in libraries. So at least they had some sense that privacy should be respected for adults in a public setting. I don't think that this is a bad thing at all. When sending your child to school, you should not have to worry that they would have access to content on the internet that you would otherwise restrict. I doubt if any teenager would have much of a problem circumventing the restrictive measures that would have to be implemented given this ruling.
Even if you don't believe in God, I hope that all take a moment to consider his contributions and take a moment to realize what this man has done for the computing community and understand that we have lost a person that helped to shape the future before it was the future when he had a vision.
"Because TLD's are now international, not exclusively US'ian. It should be left to the UN to decide." Sure, let the UN decide. Let's see, since the US influences most of the UN decisions already, based on the inequity of military might, we'll have the US military once again in control of the internet. hmmmm...
When an agreement of this magnitude has to be "corrected" at the last minute, I have to wonder if the world (internet world and/or countries) is ready to develop a definition of Cybercrime. It seems that the Council of Europe has not taken into consideration all the aspects needed to draft such a document. Is it just me or does it seem that when governing bodies do not understand a technology (or any subject for that matter) they tend to pass laws defining the legality of said item that restricts an individual's rights, at the same time admitting that they do not understand what they are doing.
"We do not want to pass a text against the people." Well they may not want to pass text against the people, but they certainly seem to be in a rush to pass a text restricting people's rights to privacy and any actions that may be construed to be "cracking." I may not like someone port-scanning me, but I do not consider it illegal. Some day I may be arrested for ping-ing slashdot.....
A few years back I used AT&T worldnet as my internet access, they double billed me and I called to have the matter resolved. After 8 hours, yes, seriously 8 hours of being transferred around, the matter was resolved. Well I soon learned that they had also switched my long and local billing over to them (slammed!).
I called and told them that since I had not asked for them to do that (and in fact had told them I did NOT want their phone service...), I'd like my phone service switched back. They refused to do it, claiming that only I could do that. Heh, and they have no problem cancelling my old service?
I spent 3 days without phone service because the local phone company couldn't get it restored right away.
How to solve this problem? Call your local phone company (or whoever you use), and ask them to only allow a switch over if you notify them in writing. I've never been slammed since then.
Unfortunately, AT&T just bought my local cable company......