So what if the UN decides it owns the Internet? It's not like they can do anything about it! What are they going to do, take it? The US is the military of the UN (unfortunately). I say let the UN make dumb pronouncements and let them fade into obscurity all the sooner, corrupt bastards...
Whoops. Looks like we're all stuck in 2003 content-wise.
The alternative? Let the market force long and hard considerations on behalf of producers. Let Sony explain to my mom why her home movies don't play on her new VCR. Balance will be found, but it might be bloody for companies that make bad decisions.
Nobody said they were killing off exclusive distribution. If fact, that's the only reason they are not violating anti-trust law, in my opinion.
Playing devil's advocate: "Your honor, we're not denying those artists their right to distribute their music, but there is no law saying we have to help them!"
Yes, buying up their medium for distributing music and sh!t-canning the archive would constitute 'not helping'... Bastards. I wished more companies competed on "quality of product" rather than on "size of market". Competing on anything other than "quality of product" is inherently dishonest.
Vivendi Universal killing off hundreds of thousands of independent artists from commercial distribution... See the MS playbook on buying the competition so they can kill it. If the data is of no commercial interest to them, why would they not allow it's distribution on another forum? Because they want you to buy their product. "Good consumer, drink the kool-aide!"
While it's true, they should be able to do whatever they want to do with their property, this would make an excellent anti-trust suit. Not sure if the EFF would be the appropriate "David" to their "Goliath", tho. Any ideas?
Sorry to use this forum for this message... (It's an old story now so no one will care...)
Dude, that truck is way cool! All I got from Grandpa was a Bowie knife. Cool in it's own right, but far less impressive. I know you want to keep it stock, but it would make one hell of a custom! Chrome, pipes, glossy black w/flames, headers, mags... Yeah, that's the way if you ask me. Wish I could find a cherry "custom starter kit".
You are correct, of course. I was being sarcastic. Evidence handling is a major part being able to present evidence effectively. I will add, however, that just because they are supposed to hold to a strict criteria of evidence handling doesn't mean they do. Who is watching the watchman?
My point was simply that having the communications company do the hard work is easier for the Feds and as a result, the people are subject to more wiretaps than if the Feds had to do the hard work. Is the evidence "better" if the Feds do it themselves? I would tend to think so, but it's not going to stop them from taking the easy road. The Feds want a collar. The rules are simply an impediment to their game, something to be grudgingly acknowledged when they have to, but can be safely ignored in circumstances that don't lead directly to a courtroom. They cheat. Criminals (by definition) cheat. That's the way of the world and it's not going to change any time soon. Just be glad the FBI respects some of the rules some of the time. There are Three Letter Organizations that know very few rules...
I deserved to get popped for that comment, BTW. Touche'
And to further my point, the FBI does not have an unlimited budget. If taps are cheap and easy, there will be more of them. If taps are hard and expensive, there will be fewer of them. I say make them hard and expensive so we get the taps we need rather than the taps they want. (Is my tinfoil hat on straight?;)
Here's the point: What's easier, providing your own bug, bug tracking, etc. or having the communications company do it for you? "Handling the data in a secure manner" means having the communications company seal the bag they put the tapes in before they drop it in the FedEx box...
Sorry, you're wrong, and I don't just mean in a J. Edgar Hoover way. Illegal wiretaps are common. The Feds are just as capable as anyone else. In fact, they're more capable. Do you know who to call in the phone company to get a tap established? I don't. The FBI does. And to state that they do NOT do it is foolish because only one exception kills your point. (Had you said "rarely", I would have agreed with you.)
The court order requirement is understood. I'm talking about the relative ease of physically doing it. The FBI, like any other organization, has limited resources. If obtaining the tap is easy, they will have more taps, period.
Besides, judges approve wiretaps routinely. Getting a wiretap, if you're the FBI, of course, is pathetically easy. And I guarantee the Feds know which judges are easy and which are difficult. I know they play their weak cases to the easy judges. Think about it... Wouldn't you?
Unfortunately, this ruling spells out a technical error on behalf of the Feds, not a violation of privacy or liberty. As soon as they can figure out a way to do it and still leave you with the service you payed for, they can do it.
Of course, they can always put their own tracker/microphone gizmo on your car. (And you can find it and put it on Granny's car instead...)
No, go ahead and read the article. It's ok, I'll wait...
Here, I'll do the heavy lifting for you...
"Under federal law, the FBI can obtain court orders compelling telecommunications companies, ISPs, landlords and others to assist the Bureau in spying on customers. But the law requires that surveillance in such cases be conducted "unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services" provided by the company."
I just don't want it to be an easy thing for them to do. If they can spy on you in your car by flipping a switch, how many more taps are they going to have? Make it difficult because it's supposed to be difficult! (Patriot Act not withstanding...)
Next, the blog post tax. Hey, it would make trolling far more expensive, right?
Between this story and the story of third world countries wanting the UN to "control" the Internet because IANA is too US-centric, I really get the idea that government-control types really have no clue what the Internet is. If you "regulate" the Internet with taxes, restrictions, etc, another network will rise to take it's place. The main feature of the Internet is relative anarchy (also called freedom). Are there rules on the net? Of course! It's called "consensus"! Deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't remember where I read it, but MIT actually has more IP's than the whole of China...
That's nothing... I own my own class A! Anything in the 10's is mine...
So what if the UN decides it owns the Internet? It's not like they can do anything about it! What are they going to do, take it? The US is the military of the UN (unfortunately). I say let the UN make dumb pronouncements and let them fade into obscurity all the sooner, corrupt bastards...
Apparently Google hasn't heard of these devices... Can you post some links?
Ummmm... I use FAT partitions in excess of 60GB. I do so because it is supported by all the OS's I use.
And thus, a previously unknown kernel exploit is discovered and patched! (Now how many more exist?)
Hats off to the Debian Security Team.
I heard you can get Debian 4.0 as well! Of course, it's still free...
I once bought a bumper sticker that said "Question Reality". I haven't seen it since...
What makes you so sure?
So don't used protected media.
Whoops. Looks like we're all stuck in 2003 content-wise.
The alternative? Let the market force long and hard considerations on behalf of producers. Let Sony explain to my mom why her home movies don't play on her new VCR. Balance will be found, but it might be bloody for companies that make bad decisions.
In keeping with standard PC terms:
It's the Enabler/Dependant
It's up to you to figure out which is the master and which is the slave!
Nobody said they were killing off exclusive distribution. If fact, that's the only reason they are not violating anti-trust law, in my opinion.
Playing devil's advocate: "Your honor, we're not denying those artists their right to distribute their music, but there is no law saying we have to help them!"
Yes, buying up their medium for distributing music and sh!t-canning the archive would constitute 'not helping'... Bastards. I wished more companies competed on "quality of product" rather than on "size of market". Competing on anything other than "quality of product" is inherently dishonest.
What the f#$k are you on about? Seriously.
Vivendi Universal killing off hundreds of thousands of independent artists from commercial distribution... See the MS playbook on buying the competition so they can kill it. If the data is of no commercial interest to them, why would they not allow it's distribution on another forum? Because they want you to buy their product. "Good consumer, drink the kool-aide!"
Everybody say it with me...
"antitrust"
While it's true, they should be able to do whatever they want to do with their property, this would make an excellent anti-trust suit. Not sure if the EFF would be the appropriate "David" to their "Goliath", tho. Any ideas?
OnSpy, how can we help you?
;)
That's OK, we already know!
Sorry to use this forum for this message... (It's an old story now so no one will care...)
Dude, that truck is way cool! All I got from Grandpa was a Bowie knife. Cool in it's own right, but far less impressive. I know you want to keep it stock, but it would make one hell of a custom! Chrome, pipes, glossy black w/flames, headers, mags... Yeah, that's the way if you ask me. Wish I could find a cherry "custom starter kit".
ROFLMAO! gawd, I wish I could mod you up...
You are correct, of course. I was being sarcastic. Evidence handling is a major part being able to present evidence effectively. I will add, however, that just because they are supposed to hold to a strict criteria of evidence handling doesn't mean they do. Who is watching the watchman?
My point was simply that having the communications company do the hard work is easier for the Feds and as a result, the people are subject to more wiretaps than if the Feds had to do the hard work. Is the evidence "better" if the Feds do it themselves? I would tend to think so, but it's not going to stop them from taking the easy road. The Feds want a collar. The rules are simply an impediment to their game, something to be grudgingly acknowledged when they have to, but can be safely ignored in circumstances that don't lead directly to a courtroom. They cheat. Criminals (by definition) cheat. That's the way of the world and it's not going to change any time soon. Just be glad the FBI respects some of the rules some of the time. There are Three Letter Organizations that know very few rules...
I deserved to get popped for that comment, BTW. Touche'
And to further my point, the FBI does not have an unlimited budget. If taps are cheap and easy, there will be more of them. If taps are hard and expensive, there will be fewer of them. I say make them hard and expensive so we get the taps we need rather than the taps they want. (Is my tinfoil hat on straight?;)
Here's the point: What's easier, providing your own bug, bug tracking, etc. or having the communications company do it for you? "Handling the data in a secure manner" means having the communications company seal the bag they put the tapes in before they drop it in the FedEx box...
And I read the article before I submitted it.
Sorry, you're wrong, and I don't just mean in a J. Edgar Hoover way. Illegal wiretaps are common. The Feds are just as capable as anyone else. In fact, they're more capable. Do you know who to call in the phone company to get a tap established? I don't. The FBI does. And to state that they do NOT do it is foolish because only one exception kills your point. (Had you said "rarely", I would have agreed with you.)
The court order requirement is understood. I'm talking about the relative ease of physically doing it. The FBI, like any other organization, has limited resources. If obtaining the tap is easy, they will have more taps, period.
Besides, judges approve wiretaps routinely. Getting a wiretap, if you're the FBI, of course, is pathetically easy. And I guarantee the Feds know which judges are easy and which are difficult. I know they play their weak cases to the easy judges. Think about it... Wouldn't you?
Unfortunately, this ruling spells out a technical error on behalf of the Feds, not a violation of privacy or liberty. As soon as they can figure out a way to do it and still leave you with the service you payed for, they can do it.
Of course, they can always put their own tracker/microphone gizmo on your car. (And you can find it and put it on Granny's car instead...)
No, go ahead and read the article. It's ok, I'll wait...
Here, I'll do the heavy lifting for you...
"Under federal law, the FBI can obtain court orders compelling telecommunications companies, ISPs, landlords and others to assist the Bureau in spying on customers. But the law requires that surveillance in such cases be conducted "unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services" provided by the company."
There. You want to try again?
I just don't want it to be an easy thing for them to do. If they can spy on you in your car by flipping a switch, how many more taps are they going to have? Make it difficult because it's supposed to be difficult! (Patriot Act not withstanding...)
Reminds me of the classic joke:
Q: What's the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman?
A: The used car salesman KNOWS when he's lieing to you!
Next, the blog post tax. Hey, it would make trolling far more expensive, right?
Between this story and the story of third world countries wanting the UN to "control" the Internet because IANA is too US-centric, I really get the idea that government-control types really have no clue what the Internet is. If you "regulate" the Internet with taxes, restrictions, etc, another network will rise to take it's place. The main feature of the Internet is relative anarchy (also called freedom). Are there rules on the net? Of course! It's called "consensus"! Deal with it.