Rather than tackle the "privacy" issue as an amorphous blob, it helps to separate it into some key elements:
1. What methods are being used to obtain the data?
Governments are generally the most blatant offenders (outright black-bag jobs, wiretapping, attempts to restrict access to privacy-protection technology). Objectionable business practices are more subtle (e.g. requesting data under circumstances that imply limited use, such as tracking a specific order, and then using it more broadly).
2. What agreements are made when the data is obtained, and how well are these agreements kept?
As noted above, unethical governments tend to simply ignore legal restrictions with only cursory attempts at excuse-making, while unethical businesses tend to use deceptive agreements and/or wriggle out of agreements after the fact.
3. Is the infrastructure set up to support privacy protection, to support data-gathering, or to strike a balance between the two?
As previously noted on this thread, the benefits described in McNealy's op-ed can be obtained with a system in which the individual user gives out specific items of information on a need-to-know basis.
it would have been helpful to read the arguments of the other side (an unbiased person from the other side of the argument; not someone who has a significant financial interest in supporting the DMCA).
Better start with an easy practice round: find someone who has not been paid by the tobacco companies to argue that cigarettes do not cause cancer. /.
The term "margin of error" can be applied either to statistics (irreducible error caused by limited sample size) or actual measurement (irreducible error caused by limitations in the measuring technique). Electoral counts close enough to be influenced by whether or not to count hanging chads, etc. are an example of the latter. /.
Let's look back at the post that started this thread:
And saying that e-mail has all these hidden costs is just stupid.
Saying that it is "stupid" to assert that there is a problem is essentially equivalent to denying that the problem exists.
If the costs are significant for the recipient, then see above about proving that they are creating ill-will.
Once it is stipulated that spammers shift significant costs onto the recipients of their effluent, to demand "proof" of "ill-will" is absurd. Of course someone who sticks other people with your bills generates ill will -- if you don't believe it, just slip out of a group lunch without paying your share and note the reactions of your companions the next time you see them.
/.
And the most evil of spammers won't care because (here's the shocker) Spam Works. As long as people respond to unsolicited spam, it'll keep coming.
Correction: As long as someone believes that spam works, there will be spammers to take their money. It does not need to actually work any more than the Brooklyn Bridge needs to actually be for sale. /.
The patent office makes them available, but should our taxes be raised to subsidize everything? People doing patent research can pony up the money and pay for this service.
Actually, the PTO has been supported by user fees for some years now.
As for the issue of providing the patent database free of charge: If the government is going to penalize you for doing X (or enforce third-party civil sanctions against you for doing X), then it incurs an obligation to inform the public of what exactly X is.
Otherwise, the government could do things like incorporate some sort of pay-per-view technology into speed-limit signs. (Perhaps I shouldn't give them ideas....) /.
If spammers are trying to make money, there has to be some point of contact for them to pick it up. If the law clearly recognizes spam as theft of services, they can be caught at that point.
People who are merely trying to spread some message could use some haven (more likely, given the usual annoyed/receptive ratio of spam, the smart ones would send their opponent's message to irritate people in the other direction).
/.
Actually, that resembles my favorite theory -- technological civilizations capable of interstellar travel abandon planets because when you have the technology to build generation ships it's more efficient to just extract what you need from a few asteroids and move on. (Also, if the aliens tend to continue established habits, which would seem to make sense in evolutionary terms as a means of preserving adaptive behaviors, they would not be interested in re-adapting to planets once they had adapted to generation ships.) /.
why should they allow companies like Covad to use their infrastructure to compete with them?
Because it's the price for getting a legal monopoly to run the customer phone line. It would be fine with me if they were divested of both the mandate and the monopoly, but to let them dump the former and keep the latter would be gross government favoritism. /.
The fact that this is showing up as "(Score:4, Interesting)" rather than "(Score:-1, Troll)" suggests that the drug problem is worse that we thought. /.
Slashdot Mirror
1. What methods are being used to obtain the data?
2. What agreements are made when the data is obtained, and how well are these agreements kept? 3. Is the infrastructure set up to support privacy protection, to support data-gathering, or to strike a balance between the two?/.
There are some interesting low-tech examples documented in The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs in Stalin's Russia .
/.
Better start with an easy practice round: find someone who has not been paid by the tobacco companies to argue that cigarettes do not cause cancer.
/.
The term "margin of error" can be applied either to statistics (irreducible error caused by limited sample size) or actual measurement (irreducible error caused by limitations in the measuring technique). Electoral counts close enough to be influenced by whether or not to count hanging chads, etc. are an example of the latter.
/.
Does anybody remember when they stopped talking about it?
(I know; I know -- -1, Redundant....)
/.
I hope your anti-virus updates include everything that's come down the pike in the past seven years.
/.
Let's look back at the post that started this thread:
Saying that it is "stupid" to assert that there is a problem is essentially equivalent to denying that the problem exists.If the costs are significant for the recipient, then see above about proving that they are creating ill-will.
Once it is stipulated that spammers shift significant costs onto the recipients of their effluent, to demand "proof" of "ill-will" is absurd. Of course someone who sticks other people with your bills generates ill will -- if you don't believe it, just slip out of a group lunch without paying your share and note the reactions of your companions the next time you see them.
/.
I see that you are reading the rulebook. The rulebook is Ultraviolet clearance. What is your clearance, citizen?
/.
That (and spammers who post 800/888 numbers) are what pay phones are for....
/.
What you wrote is:
Would you like me to post it un-munged, as a demonstration of your sincerity?/.
Correction: As long as someone believes that spam works, there will be spammers to take their money. It does not need to actually work any more than the Brooklyn Bridge needs to actually be for sale.
/.
Nope: urbanlegends.com rebuttal.
/.
Actually, the PTO has been supported by user fees for some years now.
As for the issue of providing the patent database free of charge: If the government is going to penalize you for doing X (or enforce third-party civil sanctions against you for doing X), then it incurs an obligation to inform the public of what exactly X is.
Otherwise, the government could do things like incorporate some sort of pay-per-view technology into speed-limit signs. (Perhaps I shouldn't give them ideas....)
/.
When Jane Dobson cleans house she simply turns the hose on everything.... Of course the Dobsons have a television set.
/.
People who are merely trying to spread some message could use some haven (more likely, given the usual annoyed/receptive ratio of spam, the smart ones would send their opponent's message to irritate people in the other direction).
/.
But... but... that's not what it said in yesterday's Hilary Rosen interview:
Surely you don't think Hilary would lie to us..../.
Actually, that resembles my favorite theory -- technological civilizations capable of interstellar travel abandon planets because when you have the technology to build generation ships it's more efficient to just extract what you need from a few asteroids and move on. (Also, if the aliens tend to continue established habits, which would seem to make sense in evolutionary terms as a means of preserving adaptive behaviors, they would not be interested in re-adapting to planets once they had adapted to generation ships.)
/.
With this technology, the bluenoses will have just a bit more credibility with the scare line, "You'll go blind from looking at porn!"
/.
Oh, absolutely. By all means, take away the Baby Bells' government-guarateed right-of-way monopolies.
/.
Because it's the price for getting a legal monopoly to run the customer phone line. It would be fine with me if they were divested of both the mandate and the monopoly, but to let them dump the former and keep the latter would be gross government favoritism.
/.
Judging from the examples listed in Interactive Week, Tauzin would seem to be the best Congressman money can buy....
/.
The fact that this is showing up as "(Score:4, Interesting)" rather than "(Score:-1, Troll)" suggests that the drug problem is worse that we thought.
/.
1. Where are moderator points when I need them?
2. When is "Too Stupid To Live" going to be added to the moderation options?
/.
So, when is the Galactic Imperial Proconsul going to call in some off-planet police and armed forces who can be trusted with these tools?
I've seen first-post trolls that were better thought through than this.
/.
Er, they could have done that if none of us had ever heard this story. You said it yourself:
Specifically in the Sheeley case, there will be a great deal of fingerpointing, trumped up charges....
/.