In my above post, I forgot to point out the two contributions Microsoft made to the "Ashcroft Victory Cmte Non-Federal" on 12/31/1999 and 06/30/2000 found in OpenSecrets.org's database [opensecrets.org].
If a private company can justify snooping on internet traffic in the name of "being a responsible Netizen on the Internet", imagine what the FBI might try to get away with using Carnivore.
This reminds me of the old specious law-enforcement argument: "hey, if you've got nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about?"
This has gotta be an illegal policy in the U.S. Perhaps the law's different Down Under.
it would be nice to see the rest of the world jump onto the information superhighway. It'd be nicer to have the starving suffering people fed first, but hey.... can't win them all.
What would prevent different people from working on both problems at the same time?
In what way would helping people get online aggravate the poverty and hunger in Africa?
1: producing a desired effect
Example: an effective revocation of the contract
2: capable of bringing about an effect
Example: effective assistance of counsel
(see also ineffective assistance of counsel)
3: being in effect
As you say, this is a question of legal semantics that a legal professional should decide. But, it seems to me that weak, outdated encryption effectively protects against hacking no more than a leather vest effectively protects against a bullet.
Slashdot Mirror
In my above post, I forgot to point out the two contributions Microsoft made to the "Ashcroft Victory Cmte Non-Federal" on 12/31/1999 and 06/30/2000 found in OpenSecrets.org's database [opensecrets.org].
Perhaps all of Microsoft's campaign contributions [opensecrets.org - search for Microsoft] proved to be a good investment.
Interestingly, MS really hedged its bets by contributing to Ralph Nader's and Harry Brown's campaigns in addition to Bushito's and Gore's.
If a private company can justify snooping on internet traffic in the name of "being a responsible Netizen on the Internet", imagine what the FBI might try to get away with using Carnivore.
This reminds me of the old specious law-enforcement argument: "hey, if you've got nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about?"
This has gotta be an illegal policy in the U.S. Perhaps the law's different Down Under.
it would be nice to see the rest of the world jump onto the information superhighway. It'd be nicer to have the starving suffering people fed first, but hey.... can't win them all.
What would prevent different people from working on both problems at the same time?
In what way would helping people get online aggravate the poverty and hunger in Africa?
Sounds like a case for the ACLU.
Or perhaps clarification from a legal dictionary.
The Find Law for Legal Professionals legal dictionary provides several definitions for effective:
1: producing a desired effect
Example: an effective revocation of the contract
2: capable of bringing about an effect
Example: effective assistance of counsel (see also ineffective assistance of counsel)
3: being in effect
As you say, this is a question of legal semantics that a legal professional should decide. But, it seems to me that weak, outdated encryption effectively protects against hacking no more than a leather vest effectively protects against a bullet.