Remember when the local Thieves' Guild said "What do we think about designing doggie doors big enough for me to come through?" Remember the unified YRO response to that?
Now when the burglar breaks in anyway, everybody's going to start bitching and moaning about how the door is off its hinges and there's broken glass all over the floor.
Now do you folks understand the reason the Thieves' Guild wanted to consider *designing* such a system in the first place? They are going to steal whether we want them to or not. But instead of having *us* design the system for them to do so, we just shouted a big "fuck you!"
Actually, this position is to be expected from Clinton -- illegal use of Federal police agencies to gather dirt on his opponents is part of his standard modus operandi.
The situation has degenerated severely over the past generation: Charles Colson went to prison for illegal possession of one FBI file; Bill Clinton got away with pulling over 900 of them. /.
work with me here people...there is a distinct difference between "Clinton frowns on anonymity" and "A commission requested by Clinton frowns on anonymity"
It's a distinction without a difference -- like anyone in authority, Clinton is ultimately responsible for the acts of his subordinates.
Maybe somebody ought to dust off the sign Harry Truman had on his desk. /.
It is obvious to anyone even from a cursory glance at the proposed legislation, that this will affect only those who are attempting to hide some nefarious activities. Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom.
To understand the phrase "the national security interests of the United Kingdom", I consult Robert Ringer's Newspeak-to-English translation of JFK's famous line: "Ask not what the people in power can do for you; ask what you can do for the people in power".
Obviously, the real objective of the power sought in this legislation is to gather up another club for use against opponents of the people in power.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is)
TROLL: 1)obnoxious cyber-graffiti, 2)a post profoundly devoid of logical thought and steeped in knee-jerk button-pushing. Your post fits the latter definition.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights
Political freedom is largely an outgrowth of the British tradition. The fact that the British failed to live up to this standard did force us to kick them out, but that doesn't negate the underlying historical reality.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures.
No, it demonstrates that we recognize that some cultures (e.g. a culture of power-hungry politicians) are inferior to others (e.g. a culture of free people).
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world.
See previous comment. Some countries have better norms than others.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok. Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
Both imposed by scams of the people in power, not by general consent as you imply. Even if there had beem majority consent, it would be irrelevant; both British and American political traditions recognize the need for a rule of law that supersedes the decision of three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental.
I've already addressed your error concerning the British political tradition. In any case, an ancient error is no more deserving of respect than a recent one.
More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Been there, done that, run the body count into eight figures. Can we give it up as a bad idea now?
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals
I'd rather see them hunt down and prosecute the criminals in power who violate the supreme law they have sworn to uphold.
Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you?
On the contrary, I have plenty to hide. Not that I've done anything wrong, mind you, but given the government's habit of abusing police powers to harass opponents it is only prudent not to give them anything that could be distorted into grounds for bringing frivolous legal actions. /.
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection.
On the contrary -- the purpose of social organizations in civilized society (as opposed to your IngSoc version) is the protection of rights from aggressors. Since the government is the most dangerous aggressor, it must be constrained the most severely. /.
But, for a monument, put yourself in the position of Law enforcement. They can't be expected to know everything about the computer world.
Why the hell not? They work for me, and I expect them to do their jobs competently. That means they either learn the subject matter required by a given case or consult competent experts therein.
These guys were selling and distributing documents that clearly laid out plans for hacking computer systems. Yes, these were fictional systems (although, the techniques described could easily be applied to real systems running at the time), but how could we expect the FBI to know that?
I await your explanation of how detailed instuctions for calculating what number you need to get at or below on a 3d6 roll can "easily be applied to real systems".
If you were distributing a filer that said "How to make LSD in your basement, for fun and profit", wouldn't you expect the cops to come and arrest you?
Of course not, any more than I would expect the cops to haul off the Mystery Writers of America convention en masse.
Describing how an illegal act might be committed is not itself illegal in any civilized jurisdiction.
No, they should arrest you, and then let you go if it was discovered that you really didn't commit a crime.
If they arrest someone under those circumstances, they should themselves be arrested (on charges of deprivation of civil rights under color of law and kidnapping).
Law enforcement has a responsibility to uphold the law
Their gross failure to uphold that responsibility is the topic of the current thread. /.
Anyone know the current status of this guy's game company?
They've been releasing a steady stream of new material. While a few products had disappointing sales (e.g. INWO SubGenius was released just as the gaming distribution network melted down a few years ago, so that many gaming retailers went directly from "never heard of it" to "it's old news"), they've generally been doing well AFAIK. /.
Don't even get me started on how the hell a computer generated image inflicts real wounds or where the hell Scully and Mulder were when they were "sucked into" the game
OK, let's cut to the chase and consult "Illegal Copying" under the "Losses" section of the various RIAA members' Annual Reports.
What? You can't find it?
Of course, his doesn't prove that there are no losses from illegal duplication. What it does prove is that the industry's claims are junk statistics which they dare not palm off to shareholders as real economic data. (The SEC in the US takes a dim view of that sort of thing, and wherever you're reading this probably has a local equivalent.)
In short, the problem is real to some unknown extent, but so nebulously defined that any attempt to impose particular solutions is premature at best. /.
Because J. Edgar Hoover existed, or because the government stepped beyond its bounds (perhaps -- I don't pay much attention) at ruby ridge and waco, and killed thousands of native americans up to and including the last century, etc. does not logically [imply] that these things will continue to happen
It is certainly possible that a thug will suddenly become a saint, or vice versa. However, it is much more likely that future behavior will follow past patterns unless some modifying force (in this case, supervision by elected officials and courts) is applied. /.
Re:What the hell is this for?
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 2
You'd need to hack the DVD-ROM drive itself in order to copy the encryption keys.
The economically significant bootleggers (who mass produce illegal copies in see-no-evil jurisdictions), don't use DVD-RAM drives. They use the same type of stampers as legitimate DVD production. /.
As I understand it, region encoding was created in large part to prevent DVDs sold in one region from being purchased in another region where they are not available because the movie is still in theatres.
You've been sold a bill of goods. Obviously, if this were the case, DVD releases of movies whose theater runs have long since come and gone would be region-free, and they generally aren't. /.
It's those who use it to mass produce illegal DVDs (in the same manner that some illegal outfits mass produce counterfeit MS software), that is the real problem.
Yes, and if the MPAA went after them, instead of erecting artificial barriers to reading legally purchased DVDs, they would have a legitimate case. /.
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," says Valenti
"I did not have sex with that woman," says Clinton.
The latter statement is -- let's be polite and call it "contraindicated" -- by the DNA evidence. The former statement is similarly contraindicated by the region-coding crippleware which protects, not intellecutal property, but market cartelization. /.
because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world.
Are you seriously attempting to tell us that Hollywood is concerned about losing revenue because people in Kuala Lampur are going to order DVDs from the US rather than going to their local theater?
Time to administer the coup de grace to your argument. If it were correct, then no movies and TV shows released on DVD after their original run is complete would have region coding. This is not the case in reality. QED. /.
More fundamentally, all the evils generally ascribed to corporations rely upon government as a facilitator (e.g. to take the most recent example described on/., abuse of copyright law requires the government to go along with the abusive interpretation and enforce it). On the other hand, the evils of government do not rely on corporations at all; some of the most evil governments in history did not allow the existence of private capital at all.
Hence, the root of the problem is at the government level. /.
I'm talking about the general computer market, for which it is nothing but a PR disaster, not about specialized markets for which the PID has some merit (though software serving the same function, such as digital signatures, would probably be better even in the latter case because of its greater flexibility). /.
They can throw HUGE amounts of resources into fixing their woes, which is a nice reserve.
If they lack the sense to take even obvious steps that don't cost any significant resources (e.g. announce "OK, Big Brother Inside was a stupid idea, and every batch off the line from now one will be burned with all zeros instead of a chip ID"), a "nice reserve" only delays the inevitable. /.
Hiliary Rosen's letter contains this particularly brazen statement:
And whatever the individual's right to use their own music, you cannot exploit that for your company's commercial gain.
Surely I need not spell out the implications to the RIAA if there were in fact any legal doctrine preventing corporations from "exploiting" music owned by individuals. /.
First off, complete privacy and complete freedom are mutually exclusive. Every idealist wants the freedom to do whatever they want, the privacy for no one to know about it, and security from everyone else. Is it not blatenly obvious to everyone how impossible this formula is?
People want the freedom to engage in any peaceful (definition: not infringing upon the rights of others) activities, privacy, and security. There is nothing at all contradictory about this; for obvious reasons, non-peaceful activities are inherently non-private, as the victim (or his friends) will find out about them from their direct impact.
Your typical corporation has about the same level of power as a government of comparable size, hence you see small corps with about the power of city governments in their range.
They've done a good job of camoflaging their prisons. /.
Slashdot Mirror
Now when the burglar breaks in anyway, everybody's going to start bitching and moaning about how the door is off its hinges and there's broken glass all over the floor.
Now do you folks understand the reason the Thieves' Guild wanted to consider *designing* such a system in the first place? They are going to steal whether we want them to or not. But instead of having *us* design the system for them to do so, we just shouted a big "fuck you!"
Hooray for the YRO crowd!
/.
The situation has degenerated severely over the past generation: Charles Colson went to prison for illegal possession of one FBI file; Bill Clinton got away with pulling over 900 of them.
/.
It's a distinction without a difference -- like anyone in authority, Clinton is ultimately responsible for the acts of his subordinates.
Maybe somebody ought to dust off the sign Harry Truman had on his desk.
/.
To understand the phrase "the national security interests of the United Kingdom", I consult Robert Ringer's Newspeak-to-English translation of JFK's famous line: "Ask not what the people in power can do for you; ask what you can do for the people in power".
Obviously, the real objective of the power sought in this legislation is to gather up another club for use against opponents of the people in power.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is)
TROLL: 1)obnoxious cyber-graffiti, 2)a post profoundly devoid of logical thought and steeped in knee-jerk button-pushing. Your post fits the latter definition.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights
Political freedom is largely an outgrowth of the British tradition. The fact that the British failed to live up to this standard did force us to kick them out, but that doesn't negate the underlying historical reality.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures.
No, it demonstrates that we recognize that some cultures (e.g. a culture of power-hungry politicians) are inferior to others (e.g. a culture of free people).
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world.
See previous comment. Some countries have better norms than others.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok.
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
Both imposed by scams of the people in power, not by general consent as you imply. Even if there had beem majority consent, it would be irrelevant; both British and American political traditions recognize the need for a rule of law that supersedes the decision of three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental.
I've already addressed your error concerning the British political tradition. In any case, an ancient error is no more deserving of respect than a recent one.
More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Been there, done that, run the body count into eight figures. Can we give it up as a bad idea now?
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals
I'd rather see them hunt down and prosecute the criminals in power who violate the supreme law they have sworn to uphold.
Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you?
On the contrary, I have plenty to hide. Not that I've done anything wrong, mind you, but given the government's habit of abusing police powers to harass opponents it is only prudent not to give them anything that could be distorted into grounds for bringing frivolous legal actions.
/.
On the contrary -- the purpose of social organizations in civilized society (as opposed to your IngSoc version) is the protection of rights from aggressors. Since the government is the most dangerous aggressor, it must be constrained the most severely.
/.
Which of the following words is unclear?
/.
Why the hell not? They work for me, and I expect them to do their jobs competently. That means they either learn the subject matter required by a given case or consult competent experts therein.
These guys were selling and distributing documents that clearly laid out plans for hacking computer systems. Yes, these were fictional systems (although, the techniques described could easily be applied to real systems running at the time), but how could we expect the FBI to know that?
I await your explanation of how detailed instuctions for calculating what number you need to get at or below on a 3d6 roll can "easily be applied to real systems".
If you were distributing a filer that said "How to make LSD in your basement, for fun and profit", wouldn't you expect the cops to come and arrest you?
Of course not, any more than I would expect the cops to haul off the Mystery Writers of America convention en masse.
Describing how an illegal act might be committed is not itself illegal in any civilized jurisdiction.
No, they should arrest you, and then let you go if it was discovered that you really didn't commit a crime.
If they arrest someone under those circumstances, they should themselves be arrested (on charges of deprivation of civil rights under color of law and kidnapping).
Law enforcement has a responsibility to uphold the law
Their gross failure to uphold that responsibility is the topic of the current thread.
/.
They've been releasing a steady stream of new material. While a few products had disappointing sales (e.g. INWO SubGenius was released just as the gaming distribution network melted down a few years ago, so that many gaming retailers went directly from "never heard of it" to "it's old news"), they've generally been doing well AFAIK.
/.
They fell into one of the holes in the plot.
/.
What? You can't find it?
Of course, his doesn't prove that there are no losses from illegal duplication. What it does prove is that the industry's claims are junk statistics which they dare not palm off to shareholders as real economic data. (The SEC in the US takes a dim view of that sort of thing, and wherever you're reading this probably has a local equivalent.)
In short, the problem is real to some unknown extent, but so nebulously defined that any attempt to impose particular solutions is premature at best.
/.
It is certainly possible that a thug will suddenly become a saint, or vice versa. However, it is much more likely that future behavior will follow past patterns unless some modifying force (in this case, supervision by elected officials and courts) is applied.
/.
The economically significant bootleggers (who mass produce illegal copies in see-no-evil jurisdictions), don't use DVD-RAM drives. They use the same type of stampers as legitimate DVD production.
/.
They don't believe that any more than Bill Clinton believes that a Lewinsky is not really sex. This rationale is a smoke-screen for cartelization.
/.
You've been sold a bill of goods. Obviously, if this were the case, DVD releases of movies whose theater runs have long since come and gone would be region-free, and they generally aren't.
/.
Yes, and if the MPAA went after them, instead of erecting artificial barriers to reading legally purchased DVDs, they would have a legitimate case.
/.
I'm simply using Clinton's denial as a metaphor for statements so obviously bogus as to insult the audience's intelligence.
/.
"I did not have sex with that woman," says Clinton.
The latter statement is -- let's be polite and call it "contraindicated" -- by the DNA evidence. The former statement is similarly contraindicated by the region-coding crippleware which protects, not intellecutal property, but market cartelization.
/.
Oh, this is going to be most amusing....
because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world.
Are you seriously attempting to tell us that Hollywood is concerned about losing revenue because people in Kuala Lampur are going to order DVDs from the US rather than going to their local theater?
Time to administer the coup de grace to your argument. If it were correct, then no movies and TV shows released on DVD after their original run is complete would have region coding. This is not the case in reality. QED.
/.
More fundamentally, all the evils generally ascribed to corporations rely upon government as a facilitator (e.g. to take the most recent example described on /., abuse of copyright law requires the government to go along with the abusive interpretation and enforce it). On the other hand, the evils of government do not rely on corporations at all; some of the most evil governments in history did not allow the existence of private capital at all.
Hence, the root of the problem is at the government level.
/.
Let me ask the FBI a purely philosophical question: Just how stupid do you think I am?
/.
I'm talking about the general computer market, for which it is nothing but a PR disaster, not about specialized markets for which the PID has some merit (though software serving the same function, such as digital signatures, would probably be better even in the latter case because of its greater flexibility).
/.
If they lack the sense to take even obvious steps that don't cost any significant resources (e.g. announce "OK, Big Brother Inside was a stupid idea, and every batch off the line from now one will be burned with all zeros instead of a chip ID"), a "nice reserve" only delays the inevitable.
/.
And whatever the individual's right to use their own music, you cannot exploit that for your company's commercial gain.
Surely I need not spell out the implications to the RIAA if there were in fact any legal doctrine preventing corporations from "exploiting" music owned by individuals.
/.
People want the freedom to engage in any peaceful (definition: not infringing upon the rights of others) activities, privacy, and security. There is nothing at all contradictory about this; for obvious reasons, non-peaceful activities are inherently non-private, as the victim (or his friends) will find out about them from their direct impact.
This somebody moderated up as "insightful"?
/.
They've done a good job of camoflaging their prisons.
/.