But I sincerely hope that the EFF will use the power of public support to push the feds for a plea bargain with no jail time, or just deportation maybe. I'm not a lawyer, and I definitely despise the DMCA and support Dimitry, but with the site that was hosted in the US and the fact that Elcomsoft was profiting from this, I don't think that this is a winnable case. Ethics and common sense are on our side, and I believe the Felten case is very strong, but I believe Dimitry would be convicted simply because a judge's reaction will go something like 'right or wrong, the law is the law.' Or maybe I've just been watching too much Law & Order.
You're being rediculous and blowing everything I said out of proportion, but I'm going to assume you're not just trolling or being stupid, so, #1 Considering the subject and the post I replied to, it's pretty obvious that the phrase 'today's technology' was meant to describe the face recognition cameras that are the target of this entire discussion -- and not to engulf all technology. #2, You're completely missing the point; all 3 of your examples would be addressed, because the legal system prevents, for example, a convicted child molestor from adopting. The point you're missing is that reading about crimes doesn't make you a criminal. If I want to read a book about arson, that doesn't make me an arsonist, and it doesn't mean I should be unable to get house insurance. This is the US, not China.
IMO, the question is whether or not a corporation can be trusted with today's technology. My answer is no, and if they'd like to use video cameras the information gathered and the tapes made should be restricted to law enforcement only; meaning they would be destroyed if there were no criminal investigation involved. Consider the issue of ad-cookies, that are basically worm viruses that track and profile people without their permission. If Borders or any other business is allowed to dictate the use (and abuse) of it's surveillance system, and with face recongnition software no less, what you'll soon see are complete profiles of everyone based on their race, sex, hair color, and what they read. After that, how far does it go? Slashdot has done stories on people who've been turned down on loans for missing a $50 bill from a CD-by-mail scam when they were 18 years old. Information brokers will make the demographic profiles from places like Brokers available to anyone who has money.
When so many people are taking sides against consumers, how far are we from seeing people refused insurance, turned down by adoption clinics, and fired from their jobs for reading something that made them look bad? It isn't a question of private property, it's a question of ethical business and the theft of consumers' rights.
I would think that the Slashdot community would be the one to harbor some bad vibes towards Intel for their involvement in the 4C project, or whatever the hell the copy-protected drive is/was. Maybe I'm just too political though, I dunno. Whenever I scrounge up enough money to replace the piece of junk I'm on now, there'll be as little M$ and Intel brand crap in it as possible. I know you're impressed but really that last sentence was included just so that I could plug responsibleshopper.org. It's not my site, but as the kids say, it's keen.
I wish I had an international outlet for my pointless ramblings and sensationalism. This times article embodies the reasons that I hate mainstream news. 'Dear public, let me ask you a question that you only care about because, with my years of writing experience, I can make tying your shoes sound like a life altering experience. I'll pontificate for awhile, have you hanging on my every word, and when I'm done you'll have gained absolutely nothing because the entire subject is based on personal opinions; a vapor trail that leads to my fucking wallet.' These 'journalists' can take the dramatic overlay and shove it. They need to watch the 'Bart's People' episode of the Simpsons 5 times every morning before they go to work.
I mean, hello!? Carnivore saves furry little kittens. The real question is; why do Slashdotters endorse the virtual torture and murder of innocent little replicas of a baby kittens??
If a corporation is owned by it's shareholders, does that mean it's legalized slavery? Why does a business made up of individuals with constitutionally protected rights need rights of it's own? I ask, because I can't see any benefit from it. On the contrary, the reason corporate donors can funnel bribes into the government and use donations to extort politicians who wish to be re-elected but need money, is because their an entity that's being protected as a simple American citizen supporting his or her elected officials.
Yes. And like I said, the regulations started to crumble around 1886. My point was that it's been understood since the days of the founding fathers that the private sector has no business influencing the peoples' government, and that it's only become acceptable through years of corruption; soft money and otherwise.
The difference being that Microsoft isn't a non-profit organization, but a for-profit corporation. Corporations had been prohibited, by law, from influencing elected officials since the days of Abraham Lincoln all the way up till 1886.
And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.
Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:
Re:Informative - More like criminal action actuall
on
Hotmail Hacked
·
· Score: 2
Lawyer or no, you should understand that consumers' rights supercede a business' rights, and when a problem like this is ignored for "3 days" I hope the exploit is on the evening news until it's fixed. The only possible defense I can see for hotmail is to say that they provide a free service; but they provide a service where people pay with their personal information, which is sold to advertisers. Given that you are a lawyer, you should be looking to change things like this for the better instead of demonizing the spread of information. I might've been able to sympathize if you had at least insulted the people in other posts who actually claimed to be doing the cracking.
I think the reason behind this is that they're enlisting a stereotype. Other articles on the subject talk about 'teen hackers' and 'whiz-kids'. It seems that the people planning this believe 'hacker' is another word for a punk kid who spends too much time online.
Aside from the point made about imprisoning someone for making software, that remark was made in general and not just as a comment on this particular "injustice". Without going into a whole diatribe, comparing the events that lead to the American Revolution (what other revolution would I be referring to in english, and how often is the term 'Revolutionary War' used to describe anything else) to current abuses perpetrated by the private sector, would need to include deaths caused by HMOs, deaths caused by drug companies (cures aren't as profitable as expensive, long-term treatment), corporate slave-labor, crimes against the environment, bribery, money laundering, I could go on and on. So yes, the revolutionary war started over less.
War? Is that what capitalists that behave this way want? I mean, goddamnit. I'm a pacifist, but I'm also a realist. How many people can you harrass, deceive, and imprison before someone blows their fucking lid and torches a corporate office? In some countries, there are already riots inspired by this sort of abuse. I remember reading about a McDonald's being vandalized, and the golden arches becoming a hood ornament on someone's car. THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WAS STARTED OVER LESS. Jesus Christ. This bulllshit is never going to end. The only solution is to make money obsolete.
Personally I'm hoping this problem will solve itself as technology progresses, and the cost of running a site like SA is about what you would pay for your internet service. Because the only alternative is a situation where advertisements are as unavoidable as TV commercials, and the survival of content creators like Lowtax depends not on their own talent, but on the support of a for-profit business. The internet would become a medium for more of the same; MSNBC and such. Content would be 'altered' so as to not offend the parent company. Small, competing sites, with actual integrity, would be bought out by the bigger fish. The only alternative would be to go into debt trying to pay for an increasingly popular site that's been boycotted by the major conglomerates and their advertisers. Any remaining hope for the survival of unfiltered, untainted information online would be snuffed out when it tried to compete with the government-subsidized mainstream.
That would be a pretty difficult thing to do, for the same reasons the others have already pointed out. The only way I think that it could work is through a sort of pro-active seller that funneled customers into this label and away from the RIAA. Below I've pasted an email about this concept. Forgive the rhetoric; the language is tuned towards (hopefully) inciting discussion among the advocacy groups I send it to.
I've always wondered, why we have to be on the defensive all the time? Consumers I mean. The few of us that care, and care enough to do something about it, have at the most managed to organize and fend off those who would chip away at our rights; bringing about somewhat of a stand-off, with neither greed nor justice having any decisive victory.
"Everyone is organized but the people", supposedly. So my solution is: who better to organize the public than a few public organizations? If Nike makes clothes in a sweatshop, if McDonald's feeds people McFat that clogs their arteries, if Firestone sells tires that get people killed, then what we need is an organization that helps people find alternatives. In the same way that JC Penney can sell jewelry, exercise equipment, and shoes from Reebok, Nike, Adidas, and whoever else -- a Consumer Watchdog group could start an online store and sell people whatever they needed. The difference would be that the companies and brands on the site always meet common-sense-ethical-standards set by the group and it's customers.
Consumers like me would jump at the chance to shop somewhere that they know wouldn't sell them something made by a 9 year old in a third-world country. People who aren't aware of corporate abuses will want to shop at a place that has a reputation for security and privacy (no ad-cookies here, folks). And I'm confident that eventually a site like this would hit the bad guys right where it hurts: their wallets. Between the ACLU, PC, The EFF, EPIC, CorpWatch, Privacy International, UFE, Common Cause, Grassroots Enterprise, and countless other civil liberties groups, corporations that refused to respect the rights of their customers would face losing hundreds of thousands of them. More and more brand names would rush to meet this store's standards so that they could be equated with respectable commerce. If the 'big names' decided not to change their ways, the little guys that make up their competition would grow in leaps and bounds. Either way people (not corporations) come out on top.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this.
I wonder how long it'll be before the MPAA, or Ms. Samole's ISP start sending her legal threats based on the information in the article. Maybe the name was fake.
It's fraudulent because not just anybody can beat people to the punch and register the one they want. As the story says, the 'sunrise' period is for Trademark holders only. The problem is that trademark holders are having a field day registering whatever the hell they want, based on what is likely to get a lot of hits, and not on what their trademarks are. So people like you and me are going to sit and wait, while people at Dupont register science.info, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
And while Dimitry is the main issue, it would also be nice to not risk losing a case that would then appear to substantiate the DMCA.
But I sincerely hope that the EFF will use the power of public support to push the feds for a plea bargain with no jail time, or just deportation maybe. I'm not a lawyer, and I definitely despise the DMCA and support Dimitry, but with the site that was hosted in the US and the fact that Elcomsoft was profiting from this, I don't think that this is a winnable case. Ethics and common sense are on our side, and I believe the Felten case is very strong, but I believe Dimitry would be convicted simply because a judge's reaction will go something like 'right or wrong, the law is the law.' Or maybe I've just been watching too much Law & Order.
You're being rediculous and blowing everything I said out of proportion, but I'm going to assume you're not just trolling or being stupid, so, #1 Considering the subject and the post I replied to, it's pretty obvious that the phrase 'today's technology' was meant to describe the face recognition cameras that are the target of this entire discussion -- and not to engulf all technology. #2, You're completely missing the point; all 3 of your examples would be addressed, because the legal system prevents, for example, a convicted child molestor from adopting. The point you're missing is that reading about crimes doesn't make you a criminal. If I want to read a book about arson, that doesn't make me an arsonist, and it doesn't mean I should be unable to get house insurance. This is the US, not China.
IMO, the question is whether or not a corporation can be trusted with today's technology. My answer is no, and if they'd like to use video cameras the information gathered and the tapes made should be restricted to law enforcement only; meaning they would be destroyed if there were no criminal investigation involved. Consider the issue of ad-cookies, that are basically worm viruses that track and profile people without their permission. If Borders or any other business is allowed to dictate the use (and abuse) of it's surveillance system, and with face recongnition software no less, what you'll soon see are complete profiles of everyone based on their race, sex, hair color, and what they read. After that, how far does it go? Slashdot has done stories on people who've been turned down on loans for missing a $50 bill from a CD-by-mail scam when they were 18 years old. Information brokers will make the demographic profiles from places like Brokers available to anyone who has money.
When so many people are taking sides against consumers, how far are we from seeing people refused insurance, turned down by adoption clinics, and fired from their jobs for reading something that made them look bad? It isn't a question of private property, it's a question of ethical business and the theft of consumers' rights.
I would think that the Slashdot community would be the one to harbor some bad vibes towards Intel for their involvement in the 4C project, or whatever the hell the copy-protected drive is/was. Maybe I'm just too political though, I dunno. Whenever I scrounge up enough money to replace the piece of junk I'm on now, there'll be as little M$ and Intel brand crap in it as possible. I know you're impressed but really that last sentence was included just so that I could plug responsibleshopper.org. It's not my site, but as the kids say, it's keen.
I wish I had an international outlet for my pointless ramblings and sensationalism. This times article embodies the reasons that I hate mainstream news. 'Dear public, let me ask you a question that you only care about because, with my years of writing experience, I can make tying your shoes sound like a life altering experience. I'll pontificate for awhile, have you hanging on my every word, and when I'm done you'll have gained absolutely nothing because the entire subject is based on personal opinions; a vapor trail that leads to my fucking wallet.' These 'journalists' can take the dramatic overlay and shove it. They need to watch the 'Bart's People' episode of the Simpsons 5 times every morning before they go to work.
How the hell did he turn that laval lamp into a monitor?
I mean, hello!? Carnivore saves furry little kittens. The real question is; why do Slashdotters endorse the virtual torture and murder of innocent little replicas of a baby kittens??
If a corporation is owned by it's shareholders, does that mean it's legalized slavery? Why does a business made up of individuals with constitutionally protected rights need rights of it's own? I ask, because I can't see any benefit from it. On the contrary, the reason corporate donors can funnel bribes into the government and use donations to extort politicians who wish to be re-elected but need money, is because their an entity that's being protected as a simple American citizen supporting his or her elected officials.
Yes. And like I said, the regulations started to crumble around 1886. My point was that it's been understood since the days of the founding fathers that the private sector has no business influencing the peoples' government, and that it's only become acceptable through years of corruption; soft money and otherwise.
Microsoft isn't a person, why should it have first amendment rights?
The difference being that Microsoft isn't a non-profit organization, but a for-profit corporation. Corporations had been prohibited, by law, from influencing elected officials since the days of Abraham Lincoln all the way up till 1886.
And this business is allowed to feed it's brand of journalism to the public, claiming it to be ubiased news. The best part is that nothing will change. Despite showing a clear desire to deceive the American public by blatantly influencing elected officials with fabricated statements, today will be just another day for breaking news about sharks attacking missing interns. No corporate charter will be outright revoked, in the way that, for instance, an attorney would be instantly disbarred for deceiving a judge or simply their own client in the same way. If a local newspaper made up stories, I gaurantee it would take more flak than microsoft will over this, without even having to lie to any attorney generals.
Let's take a look at the big picture; corporations can commit corporate crimes because they have influence over the governing body, and because they control the mediums through which the public will ever hear about it. Choose your news outlet and their respective owner, which would you trust:
-Fox Broadcasting: News Corp - $$$
-ABC: Walt Disney Company - $$$
-CBS: Viacom-Infinity - $$$
-CNN: AOL-Time Warner - $$$ - $$$
-NBC: General Electric - $$$ - $$$
God bless America.
Lawyer or no, you should understand that consumers' rights supercede a business' rights, and when a problem like this is ignored for "3 days" I hope the exploit is on the evening news until it's fixed. The only possible defense I can see for hotmail is to say that they provide a free service; but they provide a service where people pay with their personal information, which is sold to advertisers. Given that you are a lawyer, you should be looking to change things like this for the better instead of demonizing the spread of information. I might've been able to sympathize if you had at least insulted the people in other posts who actually claimed to be doing the cracking.
Fox is owned by News Corporation, CBS was once itself, known by the name 'Westinghouse', and is owned by Viacom-Infinity.
I think slashdot would look really cool if it were purple with flames down the sides.
I think the reason behind this is that they're enlisting a stereotype. Other articles on the subject talk about 'teen hackers' and 'whiz-kids'. It seems that the people planning this believe 'hacker' is another word for a punk kid who spends too much time online.
Since the $20 million is being paid to a corporate contractor, I wonder what the DMCA or, some area of copyright law is going to do to that concept.
Aside from the point made about imprisoning someone for making software, that remark was made in general and not just as a comment on this particular "injustice". Without going into a whole diatribe, comparing the events that lead to the American Revolution (what other revolution would I be referring to in english, and how often is the term 'Revolutionary War' used to describe anything else) to current abuses perpetrated by the private sector, would need to include deaths caused by HMOs, deaths caused by drug companies (cures aren't as profitable as expensive, long-term treatment), corporate slave-labor, crimes against the environment, bribery, money laundering, I could go on and on. So yes, the revolutionary war started over less.
War? Is that what capitalists that behave this way want? I mean, goddamnit. I'm a pacifist, but I'm also a realist. How many people can you harrass, deceive, and imprison before someone blows their fucking lid and torches a corporate office? In some countries, there are already riots inspired by this sort of abuse. I remember reading about a McDonald's being vandalized, and the golden arches becoming a hood ornament on someone's car. THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WAS STARTED OVER LESS. Jesus Christ. This bulllshit is never going to end. The only solution is to make money obsolete.
Personally I'm hoping this problem will solve itself as technology progresses, and the cost of running a site like SA is about what you would pay for your internet service. Because the only alternative is a situation where advertisements are as unavoidable as TV commercials, and the survival of content creators like Lowtax depends not on their own talent, but on the support of a for-profit business. The internet would become a medium for more of the same; MSNBC and such. Content would be 'altered' so as to not offend the parent company. Small, competing sites, with actual integrity, would be bought out by the bigger fish. The only alternative would be to go into debt trying to pay for an increasingly popular site that's been boycotted by the major conglomerates and their advertisers. Any remaining hope for the survival of unfiltered, untainted information online would be snuffed out when it tried to compete with the government-subsidized mainstream.
Like I said, it's a copy of an email. 'Thanks in advance' is saying thanks in advance for taking the time to read and respond.
I wonder how long it'll be before the MPAA, or Ms. Samole's ISP start sending her legal threats based on the information in the article. Maybe the name was fake.
It's fraudulent because not just anybody can beat people to the punch and register the one they want. As the story says, the 'sunrise' period is for Trademark holders only. The problem is that trademark holders are having a field day registering whatever the hell they want, based on what is likely to get a lot of hits, and not on what their trademarks are. So people like you and me are going to sit and wait, while people at Dupont register science.info, etc.