"Hopefully this event teaches him, and and others in his home country to appreciate the freedom that they have when they're spewing their typical 'baby out with the bathwater' rants about how fascist the US government is."
By your logic, practically nobody in the world is in a position to complain about their situation, for you'll nearly always be able to find somebody who is worse off than you are. Keeping quiet about abuses at home because other, worse abuses are taking place elsewhere is hardly a reasonable thing to demand of another. Please keep your jingoism to yourself.
Does that mean I should expect no privacy with regard to the images I search for? After all, searching for porn shouldn't matter to them at all unless their computers aren't the only ones looking at the pictures pictures I submit.
Let me get this straight. Olympics content is getting special treatment due to commercial deals between the Olympics Committee, Limelight Networks, and a bunch of ISPs?
The way I look at this is to ask: "who's the victim here?" If the victim were MySpace, charging the offender under the CFAA might make some sense (provided, of course, that the offense actually meets the letter of the law -- which in this case it probably doesn't). If, however, the victim is the teen who was harassed, charging the offender under the CFAA doesn't make any sense.
The Chewbacca defense applies perfectly here: If it doesn't make any sense, you must acquit.
I used to think that any kind of government regulation of the Internet would be a bad thing, according to the "slippery slope" principle. Now, after reading about the concept of "net neutrality", I've decided that some regulation is probably a good thing, and that there's a difference between regulating speech and regulating utility.
I want the FCC to keep out of other people's business with regard to content, but I also want them to ensure the internet remains "neutral" with regard to protocols and routes.
Free speech isn't limited to political content, so it doesn't make any difference at all whether "subversive" makes for a more political label than "violent". The label in both cases is triggered by constitutionally-protected content, so the two examples are identical in all the ways that matter.
"No thinking adult should be trotting out the first amendment [...]"
According to whose standard of "thinking"? Your own? How incredibly arrogant.
"[...] labeling this law as a threat to rights is stupid [...]"
By your particular standard of thinking, no doubt.
Your brother measured the output and determined that, in his opinion, it can rise to dangerous levels. Even if that's true, what about the actual frequency being output? Not all frequencies will have the same effect.
"Subversive" is just an example. The point is that the character of protected works is none of the government's business.
As far as consumer protection is concerned, the "caveat emptor" principle should apply here. Apart from fraud or the sale of harmful products, it is your responsibility as a consumer to know what it is you are purchasing.
The label concerns the game's content, so it's not as if it's merely a matter of packaging. As the poster above has indicated, a law mandating labels "would be equivalent to the government passing a requirement that all books be labeled as to whether they are 'subversive' or not". To force me to indicate that my book is subversive is a violation of my free-speech rights because it 1) forces me to speak, and 2) prevents me from speaking unless I first demean my own book by indicating that it's subversive.
"Harmful to minors" is a legal concept with a specific meaning. Non-pornographic games aren't considered "harmful to minors", and most of the games people wish to regulate are not pornographic. Games of a pornographic nature, on the other hand, are subject to the same laws as pornographic videos; No additional laws are required.
Nonsense. Labeling requirements for cigarettes are intended to inform and protect consumers against toxic substances in cigarettes. Cigarettes aren't speech, so freedom of speech is not at stake except in a very limited sense.
Video game labels, on the other hand, depend entirely on a video game's constitutionally protected content. Under a labeling requirement, protected speech is suppressed unless such speech is accompanied by a rating. Those who wish to speak without first obtaining or affixing a label are a priori prevented from speaking, which constitutes a clear violation of the speakers' speech rights.
I have a right to speak without first having to justify or explain such speech. I have a right to speak without labels.
A touchscreen requires greater arm movements than a mouse, and there's no place to rest your hand while interacting with the screen. A facial interface requires either the use of a button (like a mouse that doesn't move), or the use of awkward facial expressions to indicate actions.
Thank you all the same, but I'd rather use a mouse.
What really bugs me about this is the fact that the Attorney General has employed bogus threats to get ISPs to comply with his demands.
The AG's allegation is that all these ISPs have engaged in deceptive practices by on the one hand having terms of service that prohibit illegal content, and on the other hand failing to actively screen such content. If the AG's legal theory were correct, prohibiting illegal content would create a responsibility to screen all such content, and from what I can see it doesn't even matter whether the content actually originates on the ISPs servers.
Folks, the Attorney General's behavior is blatantly unethical. He's using false legal claims to bring down legitimate forums, and the ISPs are bending to his will.
Seriously - what's wrong with wanting e-mail, IM, VoIP or other packets to be ranked as higher priority?
What's wrong is that different people will disagree on which protocols should get priority over the others. Clients who are heavy users of streaming video will want streaming video to get priority, while clients who rely on VOIP for their phone service will want that to have priority. ISPs preferences would also come into play: for instance, ISPs with a vested interest in POTS will want VOIP to get less priority than other protocols -- which they would happily do if it didn't get them in trouble with the FCC.
Although I like the idea of allowing arbitrary TLDs, I think allowing companies to own entire TLDs is, for the most part, a bad idea. The last thing I want to see is for new generic domains to become the foundation for a new model of unregulated registries (where the first to register a TLD gets full rights over its subdomains).
Also... the article brings up the issue of name censorship: "Susan Crawford, another board member, expressed concern about the provisions for rejecting domain names as a result of governments, on grounds of public order and morality, or Internet users, on the grounds that they were offended. She asked the board to limit such provisions as much as possible." Where can I find more information about these provisions? Do they apply to TLDs, or will all domain registrations be subject to censorship?
Section 3b does not apply to any of the software I've ever seen on SourceForge, as none of those projects include "a written offer" to provide the source code in the future, as stated in that particular section. Instead, Sourceforge projects are expected to comply with Section 3a (accompany binaries "with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code"), which section 3 further clarifies by saying that "if distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."
Point out to me precisely where you derive this "right" to getting on an airplane without being searched? Go on, show me. I'm sure you know exactly what paragraph and clause in the Constitution says you have the right to board an airplane without having to comply with security regulations. You have to know because you're so damned sure you've got this "right."
You may as well ask us to point out the place in the US Constitution where it says you can't be required to disrobe in full view of the other passengers as part of a routine search.
For better or worse, our rights as citizens depend on more than just the text of the US Constitution. Before the bill of rights can be applied, it first has to be interpreted. Judges not being omniscient, this act of interpretation is absolutely unavoidable. If a court decides that screening passengers using millimeter-wave scanners violates those passengers' privacy, then that is effectively what the constitution says -- even when it doesn't.
To expect the constitution to enumerate every possible permutation of a given right is beyond ridiculous.
Considering it's only the.cm domain that's being polluted, this problem doesn't really bother me that much. On the other hand, the mass registration of domain names under the.com TLD for the purposes of advertising or resale is a much more significant problem. Most of the domain names I've tried to register have already been registered for such purposes. I'd rather see that situation fixed than the.cm typosquatting issue.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hopefully this event teaches him, and and others in his home country to appreciate the freedom that they have when they're spewing their typical 'baby out with the bathwater' rants about how fascist the US government is."
By your logic, practically nobody in the world is in a position to complain about their situation, for you'll nearly always be able to find somebody who is worse off than you are. Keeping quiet about abuses at home because other, worse abuses are taking place elsewhere is hardly a reasonable thing to demand of another. Please keep your jingoism to yourself.
If SCO's lawsuit failed because Novell rather than SCO owns UNIX, does that mean Linux is now infringing on Novell IP rather than SCO IP?
Does that mean I should expect no privacy with regard to the images I search for? After all, searching for porn shouldn't matter to them at all unless their computers aren't the only ones looking at the pictures pictures I submit.
Let me get this straight. Olympics content is getting special treatment due to commercial deals between the Olympics Committee, Limelight Networks, and a bunch of ISPs?
How does this bode for Net Neutrality?
So that's why Canon cameras accept image stabilizer lenses.
The way I look at this is to ask: "who's the victim here?" If the victim were MySpace, charging the offender under the CFAA might make some sense (provided, of course, that the offense actually meets the letter of the law -- which in this case it probably doesn't). If, however, the victim is the teen who was harassed, charging the offender under the CFAA doesn't make any sense.
The Chewbacca defense applies perfectly here: If it doesn't make any sense, you must acquit.
Obama and Mccain on Space Exploration.
I used to think that any kind of government regulation of the Internet would be a bad thing, according to the "slippery slope" principle. Now, after reading about the concept of "net neutrality", I've decided that some regulation is probably a good thing, and that there's a difference between regulating speech and regulating utility.
I want the FCC to keep out of other people's business with regard to content, but I also want them to ensure the internet remains "neutral" with regard to protocols and routes.
"The days of teachers beating students into their studies are long gone."
Geez... what a shame. Beating up children for not being interested in what you have to say to them is no doubt the cornerstone of a good education.
*groan*
Free speech isn't limited to political content, so it doesn't make any difference at all whether "subversive" makes for a more political label than "violent". The label in both cases is triggered by constitutionally-protected content, so the two examples are identical in all the ways that matter.
"No thinking adult should be trotting out the first amendment [...]"
According to whose standard of "thinking"? Your own? How incredibly arrogant.
"[...] labeling this law as a threat to rights is stupid [...]"
By your particular standard of thinking, no doubt.
Your brother measured the output and determined that, in his opinion, it can rise to dangerous levels. Even if that's true, what about the actual frequency being output? Not all frequencies will have the same effect.
"Subversive" is just an example. The point is that the character of protected works is none of the government's business.
As far as consumer protection is concerned, the "caveat emptor" principle should apply here. Apart from fraud or the sale of harmful products, it is your responsibility as a consumer to know what it is you are purchasing.
The label concerns the game's content, so it's not as if it's merely a matter of packaging. As the poster above has indicated, a law mandating labels "would be equivalent to the government passing a requirement that all books be labeled as to whether they are 'subversive' or not". To force me to indicate that my book is subversive is a violation of my free-speech rights because it 1) forces me to speak, and 2) prevents me from speaking unless I first demean my own book by indicating that it's subversive.
"Harmful to minors" is a legal concept with a specific meaning. Non-pornographic games aren't considered "harmful to minors", and most of the games people wish to regulate are not pornographic. Games of a pornographic nature, on the other hand, are subject to the same laws as pornographic videos; No additional laws are required.
Girlie magazines are considered "harmful to minors". Most video games are not.
It's been determined in numerous occasions that video games do enjoy first amendment protection.
Nonsense. Labeling requirements for cigarettes are intended to inform and protect consumers against toxic substances in cigarettes. Cigarettes aren't speech, so freedom of speech is not at stake except in a very limited sense.
Video game labels, on the other hand, depend entirely on a video game's constitutionally protected content. Under a labeling requirement, protected speech is suppressed unless such speech is accompanied by a rating. Those who wish to speak without first obtaining or affixing a label are a priori prevented from speaking, which constitutes a clear violation of the speakers' speech rights.
I have a right to speak without first having to justify or explain such speech. I have a right to speak without labels.
A touchscreen requires greater arm movements than a mouse, and there's no place to rest your hand while interacting with the screen. A facial interface requires either the use of a button (like a mouse that doesn't move), or the use of awkward facial expressions to indicate actions.
Thank you all the same, but I'd rather use a mouse.
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
What really bugs me about this is the fact that the Attorney General has employed bogus threats to get ISPs to comply with his demands.
The AG's allegation is that all these ISPs have engaged in deceptive practices by on the one hand having terms of service that prohibit illegal content, and on the other hand failing to actively screen such content. If the AG's legal theory were correct, prohibiting illegal content would create a responsibility to screen all such content, and from what I can see it doesn't even matter whether the content actually originates on the ISPs servers.
Folks, the Attorney General's behavior is blatantly unethical. He's using false legal claims to bring down legitimate forums, and the ISPs are bending to his will.
Seriously - what's wrong with wanting e-mail, IM, VoIP or other packets to be ranked as higher priority?
What's wrong is that different people will disagree on which protocols should get priority over the others. Clients who are heavy users of streaming video will want streaming video to get priority, while clients who rely on VOIP for their phone service will want that to have priority. ISPs preferences would also come into play: for instance, ISPs with a vested interest in POTS will want VOIP to get less priority than other protocols -- which they would happily do if it didn't get them in trouble with the FCC.
Although I like the idea of allowing arbitrary TLDs, I think allowing companies to own entire TLDs is, for the most part, a bad idea. The last thing I want to see is for new generic domains to become the foundation for a new model of unregulated registries (where the first to register a TLD gets full rights over its subdomains).
Also... the article brings up the issue of name censorship: "Susan Crawford, another board member, expressed concern about the provisions for rejecting domain names as a result of governments, on grounds of public order and morality, or Internet users, on the grounds that they were offended. She asked the board to limit such provisions as much as possible." Where can I find more information about these provisions? Do they apply to TLDs, or will all domain registrations be subject to censorship?
Section 3b does not apply to any of the software I've ever seen on SourceForge, as none of those projects include "a written offer" to provide the source code in the future, as stated in that particular section. Instead, Sourceforge projects are expected to comply with Section 3a (accompany binaries "with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code"), which section 3 further clarifies by saying that "if distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."
You may as well ask us to point out the place in the US Constitution where it says you can't be required to disrobe in full view of the other passengers as part of a routine search.
For better or worse, our rights as citizens depend on more than just the text of the US Constitution. Before the bill of rights can be applied, it first has to be interpreted. Judges not being omniscient, this act of interpretation is absolutely unavoidable. If a court decides that screening passengers using millimeter-wave scanners violates those passengers' privacy, then that is effectively what the constitution says -- even when it doesn't.
To expect the constitution to enumerate every possible permutation of a given right is beyond ridiculous.
Considering it's only the .cm domain that's being polluted, this problem doesn't really bother me that much. On the other hand, the mass registration of domain names under the .com TLD for the purposes of advertising or resale is a much more significant problem. Most of the domain names I've tried to register have already been registered for such purposes. I'd rather see that situation fixed than the .cm typosquatting issue.