Picking someone's pocket is theft, which is different. A better analogy is going to a restaurant and the owner telling everyone what you ate there and who you were with. The owner does this because he loves gossip and the gossip brings him business from curious old ladies. It may not be tasteful, but it is not immoral and certainly does not deserve punishment by force (unlike a restaurant owner that picked your pocket).
The right way to handle such a restaurant owner is to not eat there. Only go to places that have a good reputation or offer clear and explicit terms.
My take on DNT is that Congress/FTC/WhiteHouse should stay mum about it and leave browsers come up with a reputation mechanism. If you visit a website with shady reputation, bad reviews or that includes widgets from "creepy stalking" sites, then block the page or show the user a big warning.
The folks over at QuestionCopyright.org have posted an informative talk on the roots and history of copyright laws: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
The key point was surprising to me: copyright was designed to subsidize distribution, not creation.
It's true and some websites may choose to stick to that limited advertising model. But can all sites afford to? Do you recognize that loss of revenue means that marginally some sites will close, some will stop offering advanced features, and fewer such new features will be offered?
Now, given that we've established this trade-off, let's talk about ethics (what is right).
No individual is forced to use any given service. Conversely, service providers should not be forced either.
Not getting tracked is a feature to satisfy some preferences from users (otherwise they choose to use services that offer better bundles of trade-offs).
We can discuss how to best persuade service providers to make a change. There are many useful changes that can be made (clearer terms, less tracking, faster experience, more storage, etc). But let's be clear about what is persuasion, and what is coercion. The actions FTC, White House and Congress fall into the later category. There is clearly threat of coercion by the political class.
We complain about the inconvenience of tracking, but politicians are taking the opportunity to get their hands on the internet. That is actually dangerous, as it is introducing coercion in one of the last bastions of freedom. There is no good usage of coercion, regardless of how good the intentions are.
Do we live in a free society or what?
If you are vegetarians, don't eat in a restaurant that doesn't serve vegetarian dishes.
Some non-vegetarian restaurants may indulge your preference and prepare a special dish for you, but don't think you are entitled to this favor.
The same goes for privacy preferences, and preferences for other features (more security, more storage, more content, etc.).
I think it is great that browsers (and apps and OSes) are adding capabilities to communicate user preferences (I just wish the DNT flag's meaning would actually be defined before it is implemented). But it is silly and destructive to want to force service providers to abide by them.
If lots of users have a given preference, services will seek ways of serving that need economically and competitively.
One proposal that I think would work for many websites would be to charge people for removing ads or removing tracking or removing data collection. Ads are the source of revenue for many free (0 dollars) services that we enjoy, and targeted ads command a premium, the service provider has to find a way to offset the revenue loss if the service is to remain available.
Do you see other workable proposals?
Anyways, it's great that some websites choose to stand their ground and make the deal clear to their users. We don't give you our content unless you agree to this deal.
If viruses are a big problem (high on people's value scale), then various companies will be happy to sell solutions, as far as feasible. I don't even know all possible solutions, since that is the point of creative entrepreneurship.
But some examples I can imagine: pick an ISP who quarantines infected computers, use VPN to create a virtual network of secure machines on an insecure network, build a more secure OS (see security design in modern mobile OSes, or isolation in modern browsers), use alternate networks with their own rules (strongly identified parties).
The common good is a shorthand for lots of small individual benefits. There is not one uniform common good for everyone. Looking at it in details (diverse and distinct situations as opposed to an aggregate blob) offers a better understanding of the problem, suggests more effective and efficient solutions, brings about economical trade-offs.
The only thing a government approach does is bring a slow, centralized and coercive "solution", as opposed to an emerging and persuasive solution. Yes, persuasion is harder, but that is the foundation of a peaceful society. Of course, both Congress and companies are eager to take advantage of tax powers to socialize costs.
Passing a law does not make anything secure. What makes things secure is spending resources and time towards security.
Who should be spending those resources? The companies that are taking security risks and exposing attack areas.
Regarding incentives to do better, corporations already have them, as security attacks are PR nightmares which push consumers to competitors and losing money is bad business.
Congress on the other hand has incentives to over-estimate the risk and over-spend (since it's tax money being spent after all).
And finally, corporations have incentives to support and capture regulation so that they can socialize their costs. Instead of having to pay for some in-house security experts or hiring security services, corporations get taxpayers to pay for an "internet police" of some kind.
Regarding risk evaluation and education, security firms already do that as they try to sell their services. Regarding consumer protection, review magazines, competitive advertisement and reputation already serve that purpose. But as usual Congress wants to think it knows better and is eager to use centralized power and coercion instead persuasion. But such coercion is not the basis for a healthy and peaceful society, and as political power continues to encroach, things will get worst, not better. That will sadly prompt more government intervention, feeding the cycle.
Politicians have been itching to get a power grab on the internet. They are just trying different avenues to see what the public will tolerate. SOPA was too much, try something else. Maybe protection privacy, security or maybe children. The recipe is claiming that voluntary and emerging solutions are insufficient (nevermind trying to prove that assertion) and then getting a foot in the door (regardless of whether it is actually a solution). If it doesn't pass the scrutiny of citizens, then try again.
One of the most important thing I learned from economics is that value is subjective, and therefore whether something can only be demonstrated to be "worth it" when individuals voluntarily make that trade-off. Taxation is not such a voluntary choice.
So instead of fighting over whether NASA is worth more or less tax dollars, why not switch NASA to become a voluntarily funded program, maybe using Kickstarter?
What do you think NASA should offer for different levels of pledges? How much would you pledge?
Maybe it should offer nothing, and treat itself like a lottery, where some people will be lucky and benefit from whatever useful innovation or discovery is made.
Another use of a Kickstarter-style pledging system would be to fund different X-prizes. The money would be paid if a certain goal is achieved.
Because of IP issues, I had to edit out some portions of the code. But it would take about a minute for a coder to make it functional again and compile it.
Additional chords could be added to make specific characters even more accessible (quotes, braces, etc.) and adapted for coding.
Because of IP issues, I had to edit out some portions of the code. But it would take about a minute for a coder to make it functional again and compile it.
Additional chords could be added to make specific characters even more accessible (quotes, braces, etc.) and adapted for coding.
What other brands of locks hotels can buy? Seems to me that Onity is inviting some of its customers to ditch them.
If you have to pay for the proper fix, then it is marginally more attractive to use that money towards a set of locks that are less flawed from a company who takes service seriously. This is not helping Onity's reputation, which is a good opportunity for its better competitors.
Browsers allow you to block ads, because they are so extensible (plugins). But it is interesting to think about Apps.
It is easy to block ads from a website, but not so from the corresponding app. Apps are a complete bundle of features (some which you may like and some less), but you don't get to pick and choose and tweak as with browser.
Have you tried blocking ads on the Hulu website? You'll get to wait for about twice as long as if you watched the ad.
Right... Academics are angels who are immune to greed and other human cravings (fame, power, security). They join the small ranks of angels of politicians and government bureaucrats;-)
I find it curious how you identify people's motives by their title. There are lots of people not motivated solely by pecuniary profits, from random joes to company owners.
I have to admire your creativity. You came up with a brand new theory of government and economics.
Nevermind that it is so logically flawed.
There is no more unlimited demand of healthcare as there is for food, housing, clothing, entertainment. Let me know of any one broad field where demand is limited or we are close to fulfilling all the demand. I could certainly use a few houses, some nice cars and yachts, more leisure, and so on. Maybe government ought to pay for those too.
And for government to try and impose artificial scarcity (IP) is the ultimate foolishness. Not only is the notion of IP incompatible with basic (physical) property rights, but it has not achieved its claimed goals. It does not increase innovation, it only creates rents for big media and a minefield for inventors.
Finally, note that law making, policing, defense and other traditional government services fit nowhere in your worldview.
I will point you to the historical pudding. See organizations such as fraternal associations and mutual aid societies.
The reason you don't see those nowadays is that healthcare benefits get tax advantages when they are provided by employers. This is why independent clubs make less sense than relying on your employer as a club. Unfortunately, the side effect is that important benefits are now tied to your being and staying employed.
I hear this argument all the time, but people can organize clubs easily all and get similar bargaining power to achieve similar discount.
Benefits in cash are superior to benefits in kind, as they let the individual spend it on what they care about. Different individuals have unique preferences, goals and priorities.
Another potential unintended consequence is that Google will choose to hire younger as opposed to older people. Either that or older people will get lower wages offered to them. More cancer victims will apply for Google jobs (relatively to other companies)? Or will terminal patients be let go (since they can't probably can't work for an extended period of time).
Overall, the benefit seems dubious, as it is a benefit-in-kind and also it is deferred.
Search engines don't have to be "neutral". Neutral isn't meaningful anyways, since search engines are all about discrimination and ranking (finding what will please the user the most), and there are many alternative ways of doing so.
Different search engines can offer different features. That's called competition.
Sure charitable foundations bring tax benefits, sure Microsoft benefited from bogus IP laws. But Gates has provided the world with great goods, not once but twice and you manage to criticize. I'd like to see you do even one percent of the good he did.
Microsoft, with Windows and Office, have enabled massive innovation and wealth creation. But to listen to you, he acquired his wealth by stealing, not by producing goods and services.
Similarly, you question the motives of his charitable efforts. If people don't like his motives, feel free not to accept his donations.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -- Adam Smith.
In other words, the beauty of voluntary cooperation in civil society is that it produces good results from a group of individuals with diverse and sometimes even questionable motives.
Only government can obtain actual monopoly. Corporations can have dominant position (usually temporarily) and make it difficult for new entrants, but they CANNOT block entry. Only government has true monopoly power.
If there is respect for private property then there is free speech online. You can host your own server or rent space. You can host your video on a competitor's website if the big and evil corporations don't want to help you. You can even create your own protocol and means of diffusing information.
Corporations may have some competitive advantages, but they don't have power to stop you. In return they should not be forced to abide to your wishes.
From your comment I sense that you recognize the evil of corporation and government symbiosis. Your error is to blame corporations over government. Government, unlike the rest of civil society, has unique powers (monopoly on taxation and legislation, all backed by guns). Such power is uncivil and harms society. Such power cannot be controlled and used for good, it is corrupt. The end (well-intentioned goals) don't justify the means (force and disrespect of individuals).
Let's declare everything that is good and desirable a "right", let's make those "rights" universal across the world while we're at it. Nevermind that such "rights" are incompatible with more fundamental rights of individual freedom and responsibility.
A civil society is based on respect for individuals. Letting them use their body, mind and property in peaceful ways. You can do anything you want within this basic ethic of "negative" rights (what you are not allowed to do: murder, rape, enslave, steal, defraud).
By declaring "positive rights" we ignore the question of who is it we are forcing to provide those services. We make a short-sighted calculus of forcing a few innocent people (service providers) for a well-intentioned goal (charity and solidarity). But goals don't justify means and what we are really doing is eroding the fabric of civil society by fostering disrespect for individuals.
The best thing we can do for the internet is keep it out of the hands of politicians and central planning. Instead we should leave individual freedom, property and competitive forces to drive improvements, as has been the case with internet until the recent political rush to intervene (privacy, net neutrality, intellectual "property", cybersecurity, etc.).
It's a good thing that competing exchanges are allowed. The rules set by various exchanges can vary and evolve (although they are constrained by SEC regulation).
If Cuban is right, he should take over an exchange or start one with more suitable rules (according to his evaluation). We'll see if market participants agree that this is an important issue and Cuban's set of rules is indeed better, and Cuban can take away market share from the marketplaces that use weak rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Picking someone's pocket is theft, which is different. A better analogy is going to a restaurant and the owner telling everyone what you ate there and who you were with. The owner does this because he loves gossip and the gossip brings him business from curious old ladies. It may not be tasteful, but it is not immoral and certainly does not deserve punishment by force (unlike a restaurant owner that picked your pocket).
The right way to handle such a restaurant owner is to not eat there. Only go to places that have a good reputation or offer clear and explicit terms.
My take on DNT is that Congress/FTC/WhiteHouse should stay mum about it and leave browsers come up with a reputation mechanism. If you visit a website with shady reputation, bad reviews or that includes widgets from "creepy stalking" sites, then block the page or show the user a big warning.
I agree. Sorry if I was unclear.
I was trying to establish that forcing a minimum bar on one feature (privacy) is not a free lunch.
"maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath"
;-)
Don't worry, legislation to that effect is already in the works
The folks over at QuestionCopyright.org have posted an informative talk on the roots and history of copyright laws: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
The key point was surprising to me: copyright was designed to subsidize distribution, not creation.
It's true and some websites may choose to stick to that limited advertising model. But can all sites afford to? Do you recognize that loss of revenue means that marginally some sites will close, some will stop offering advanced features, and fewer such new features will be offered?
Now, given that we've established this trade-off, let's talk about ethics (what is right).
No individual is forced to use any given service. Conversely, service providers should not be forced either.
Not getting tracked is a feature to satisfy some preferences from users (otherwise they choose to use services that offer better bundles of trade-offs).
We can discuss how to best persuade service providers to make a change. There are many useful changes that can be made (clearer terms, less tracking, faster experience, more storage, etc). But let's be clear about what is persuasion, and what is coercion. The actions FTC, White House and Congress fall into the later category. There is clearly threat of coercion by the political class.
We complain about the inconvenience of tracking, but politicians are taking the opportunity to get their hands on the internet. That is actually dangerous, as it is introducing coercion in one of the last bastions of freedom. There is no good usage of coercion, regardless of how good the intentions are.
Do we live in a free society or what?
If you are vegetarians, don't eat in a restaurant that doesn't serve vegetarian dishes.
Some non-vegetarian restaurants may indulge your preference and prepare a special dish for you, but don't think you are entitled to this favor.
The same goes for privacy preferences, and preferences for other features (more security, more storage, more content, etc.).
I think it is great that browsers (and apps and OSes) are adding capabilities to communicate user preferences (I just wish the DNT flag's meaning would actually be defined before it is implemented). But it is silly and destructive to want to force service providers to abide by them.
If lots of users have a given preference, services will seek ways of serving that need economically and competitively.
One proposal that I think would work for many websites would be to charge people for removing ads or removing tracking or removing data collection. Ads are the source of revenue for many free (0 dollars) services that we enjoy, and targeted ads command a premium, the service provider has to find a way to offset the revenue loss if the service is to remain available.
Do you see other workable proposals?
Anyways, it's great that some websites choose to stand their ground and make the deal clear to their users. We don't give you our content unless you agree to this deal.
If viruses are a big problem (high on people's value scale), then various companies will be happy to sell solutions, as far as feasible. I don't even know all possible solutions, since that is the point of creative entrepreneurship.
But some examples I can imagine: pick an ISP who quarantines infected computers, use VPN to create a virtual network of secure machines on an insecure network, build a more secure OS (see security design in modern mobile OSes, or isolation in modern browsers), use alternate networks with their own rules (strongly identified parties).
The common good is a shorthand for lots of small individual benefits. There is not one uniform common good for everyone. Looking at it in details (diverse and distinct situations as opposed to an aggregate blob) offers a better understanding of the problem, suggests more effective and efficient solutions, brings about economical trade-offs.
The only thing a government approach does is bring a slow, centralized and coercive "solution", as opposed to an emerging and persuasive solution. Yes, persuasion is harder, but that is the foundation of a peaceful society. Of course, both Congress and companies are eager to take advantage of tax powers to socialize costs.
Passing a law does not make anything secure. What makes things secure is spending resources and time towards security. Who should be spending those resources? The companies that are taking security risks and exposing attack areas.
Regarding incentives to do better, corporations already have them, as security attacks are PR nightmares which push consumers to competitors and losing money is bad business.
Congress on the other hand has incentives to over-estimate the risk and over-spend (since it's tax money being spent after all).
And finally, corporations have incentives to support and capture regulation so that they can socialize their costs. Instead of having to pay for some in-house security experts or hiring security services, corporations get taxpayers to pay for an "internet police" of some kind.
Regarding risk evaluation and education, security firms already do that as they try to sell their services. Regarding consumer protection, review magazines, competitive advertisement and reputation already serve that purpose. But as usual Congress wants to think it knows better and is eager to use centralized power and coercion instead persuasion. But such coercion is not the basis for a healthy and peaceful society, and as political power continues to encroach, things will get worst, not better. That will sadly prompt more government intervention, feeding the cycle.
Politicians have been itching to get a power grab on the internet. They are just trying different avenues to see what the public will tolerate. SOPA was too much, try something else. Maybe protection privacy, security or maybe children. The recipe is claiming that voluntary and emerging solutions are insufficient (nevermind trying to prove that assertion) and then getting a foot in the door (regardless of whether it is actually a solution). If it doesn't pass the scrutiny of citizens, then try again.
One of the most important thing I learned from economics is that value is subjective, and therefore whether something can only be demonstrated to be "worth it" when individuals voluntarily make that trade-off. Taxation is not such a voluntary choice.
So instead of fighting over whether NASA is worth more or less tax dollars, why not switch NASA to become a voluntarily funded program, maybe using Kickstarter?
What do you think NASA should offer for different levels of pledges? How much would you pledge?
Maybe it should offer nothing, and treat itself like a lottery, where some people will be lucky and benefit from whatever useful innovation or discovery is made.
Another use of a Kickstarter-style pledging system would be to fund different X-prizes. The money would be paid if a certain goal is achieved.
A while back I wrote a software solution to emulate the Matias half keyboard: http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000021.html
Because of IP issues, I had to edit out some portions of the code. But it would take about a minute for a coder to make it functional again and compile it.
Additional chords could be added to make specific characters even more accessible (quotes, braces, etc.) and adapted for coding.
A while back I wrote a software solution to emulate the Matias one-handed keyboard: http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000021.html
Because of IP issues, I had to edit out some portions of the code. But it would take about a minute for a coder to make it functional again and compile it.
Additional chords could be added to make specific characters even more accessible (quotes, braces, etc.) and adapted for coding.
What other brands of locks hotels can buy? Seems to me that Onity is inviting some of its customers to ditch them.
If you have to pay for the proper fix, then it is marginally more attractive to use that money towards a set of locks that are less flawed from a company who takes service seriously. This is not helping Onity's reputation, which is a good opportunity for its better competitors.
Browsers allow you to block ads, because they are so extensible (plugins). But it is interesting to think about Apps.
It is easy to block ads from a website, but not so from the corresponding app. Apps are a complete bundle of features (some which you may like and some less), but you don't get to pick and choose and tweak as with browser.
Have you tried blocking ads on the Hulu website? You'll get to wait for about twice as long as if you watched the ad.
Right... Academics are angels who are immune to greed and other human cravings (fame, power, security). They join the small ranks of angels of politicians and government bureaucrats ;-)
I find it curious how you identify people's motives by their title. There are lots of people not motivated solely by pecuniary profits, from random joes to company owners.
I have to admire your creativity. You came up with a brand new theory of government and economics. Nevermind that it is so logically flawed.
There is no more unlimited demand of healthcare as there is for food, housing, clothing, entertainment. Let me know of any one broad field where demand is limited or we are close to fulfilling all the demand. I could certainly use a few houses, some nice cars and yachts, more leisure, and so on. Maybe government ought to pay for those too.
And for government to try and impose artificial scarcity (IP) is the ultimate foolishness. Not only is the notion of IP incompatible with basic (physical) property rights, but it has not achieved its claimed goals. It does not increase innovation, it only creates rents for big media and a minefield for inventors.
Finally, note that law making, policing, defense and other traditional government services fit nowhere in your worldview.
I will point you to the historical pudding. See organizations such as fraternal associations and mutual aid societies.
The reason you don't see those nowadays is that healthcare benefits get tax advantages when they are provided by employers. This is why independent clubs make less sense than relying on your employer as a club. Unfortunately, the side effect is that important benefits are now tied to your being and staying employed.
I hear this argument all the time, but people can organize clubs easily all and get similar bargaining power to achieve similar discount.
Benefits in cash are superior to benefits in kind, as they let the individual spend it on what they care about. Different individuals have unique preferences, goals and priorities.
Another potential unintended consequence is that Google will choose to hire younger as opposed to older people. Either that or older people will get lower wages offered to them. More cancer victims will apply for Google jobs (relatively to other companies)? Or will terminal patients be let go (since they can't probably can't work for an extended period of time).
Overall, the benefit seems dubious, as it is a benefit-in-kind and also it is deferred.
Search engines don't have to be "neutral". Neutral isn't meaningful anyways, since search engines are all about discrimination and ranking (finding what will please the user the most), and there are many alternative ways of doing so.
Different search engines can offer different features. That's called competition.
If we didn't have a monopoly on roads, you could imagine some roads with higher speed limits, or special lanes for automated cars, and so on.
Sure charitable foundations bring tax benefits, sure Microsoft benefited from bogus IP laws. But Gates has provided the world with great goods, not once but twice and you manage to criticize. I'd like to see you do even one percent of the good he did.
Microsoft, with Windows and Office, have enabled massive innovation and wealth creation. But to listen to you, he acquired his wealth by stealing, not by producing goods and services.
Similarly, you question the motives of his charitable efforts. If people don't like his motives, feel free not to accept his donations.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -- Adam Smith.
In other words, the beauty of voluntary cooperation in civil society is that it produces good results from a group of individuals with diverse and sometimes even questionable motives.
What evidence do you bring to support your claim?
Only government can obtain actual monopoly. Corporations can have dominant position (usually temporarily) and make it difficult for new entrants, but they CANNOT block entry. Only government has true monopoly power.
If there is respect for private property then there is free speech online. You can host your own server or rent space. You can host your video on a competitor's website if the big and evil corporations don't want to help you. You can even create your own protocol and means of diffusing information.
Corporations may have some competitive advantages, but they don't have power to stop you. In return they should not be forced to abide to your wishes.
From your comment I sense that you recognize the evil of corporation and government symbiosis. Your error is to blame corporations over government. Government, unlike the rest of civil society, has unique powers (monopoly on taxation and legislation, all backed by guns). Such power is uncivil and harms society. Such power cannot be controlled and used for good, it is corrupt. The end (well-intentioned goals) don't justify the means (force and disrespect of individuals).
Let's declare everything that is good and desirable a "right", let's make those "rights" universal across the world while we're at it. Nevermind that such "rights" are incompatible with more fundamental rights of individual freedom and responsibility.
A civil society is based on respect for individuals. Letting them use their body, mind and property in peaceful ways. You can do anything you want within this basic ethic of "negative" rights (what you are not allowed to do: murder, rape, enslave, steal, defraud).
By declaring "positive rights" we ignore the question of who is it we are forcing to provide those services. We make a short-sighted calculus of forcing a few innocent people (service providers) for a well-intentioned goal (charity and solidarity). But goals don't justify means and what we are really doing is eroding the fabric of civil society by fostering disrespect for individuals.
The best thing we can do for the internet is keep it out of the hands of politicians and central planning. Instead we should leave individual freedom, property and competitive forces to drive improvements, as has been the case with internet until the recent political rush to intervene (privacy, net neutrality, intellectual "property", cybersecurity, etc.).
It's a good thing that competing exchanges are allowed. The rules set by various exchanges can vary and evolve (although they are constrained by SEC regulation).
If Cuban is right, he should take over an exchange or start one with more suitable rules (according to his evaluation). We'll see if market participants agree that this is an important issue and Cuban's set of rules is indeed better, and Cuban can take away market share from the marketplaces that use weak rules.