MLK was protesting to his government over the disequal treatment of the races. Exactly what were these idiots protesting about? A religion exists which they don't like?
If there are laws being broken then attack them in court. Don't start wearing masks and practicing vigilante justice. And don't sully the name of petitioning your government for grievance by calling your outpouring of hate a "protest".
As I said to a friend of mine who went.. What were you protesting? Who were you protesting to? At least the protest in Australia was actually about something - tax exempt status - and directed at the government. You can't protest the practices of a church to the church.. that makes not sense.
Dude, you're like 24 hours late. As has been said many times in the comments of this story, there are plenty of legitimate purchasers for this information.. for example makers of intrusion detection systems, anti-virus software, anti-malware software, and just plain old sysadmins who want to patch their corporate networks NOW instead of when Real gets around to it.
Re:Trust simulation and purpose-blindness
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
Access control systems just take away the need for ethical consideration. People don't think "should I read my friend's email", they think "do I have access to read my friend's email". If they can, they assume they should.
When you spend your life in a perfectly enforced world you rarely have to make ethical decisions. You don't have to think "gee, should I take a look at Bob's files or not?" Because the system stops you from doing it - unlike the real world, where you have the choice of obeying the law or not, and are better off for thinking about what is right what is wrong. So when you are presented with an ethical choice.. usually as a result of some temporary granting of power.. you don't know what to do.. and it's easiest to just not think about it.
Moglen, like Stallman, believes we should all live in a barter-based society where we trade stuffed animals for steaks and toilet papers for C compilers. It's a nice vision that has never been proven to work beyond small social structures. I think he says it better than you:
We wanted freedom of knowledge in a world that didn't give it, which burned people for their relegious or scientific beliefs. We wanted democracy, by which we meant originally the rule of the many by the many, and the subjection of today's rulers to the force of law. And we wanted a world in which distinctions among persons were based not on the color of skin, or even the content of character, but just the choices that people make in their own lives. We wanted the poor to have enough, and the rich to cease to suffer from the diseases of too much. We wanted a world in which everybody had a roof, and everybody had enough to eat, and all the children went to school. And we were told, always, that it was impossible.
And so we face, in the twenty-first century, a very basic moral question. If you could make as many loaves of bread as it took to feed the world, by baking one loaf and pressing a button, how could you justify charging more for bread than the poorest people could afford to pay? If the marginal cost of bread is zero, then the competitive market price should be zero too. But leaving aside any question of microeconomic theory, the moral question, "What should be the price of what keeps someone else alive if it costs you nothing to provide it to them", has only one unique answer. There is no moral justification for charging more for bread that costs nothing than the starving can pay. Every death from too little bread under those circumstances is murder. We just don't know who to charge for the crime.
It's "just" like that except that there's a hundred more complications. Please fit into your analogy:
* Intrusion Detection Systems. * Malware. * Anti-Malware, and Anti-virus software. * A rule that says you are not allowed to reverse engineer your own home.
oh, and all the vulgarity of copyright law.
This is why reasoning by analogy is not only stupid, but also pointless.
You must be living in some other world to me. Google search results are not vetted by humans. It's this little algorithm called pagerank.. you might have heard of it.
Extortion is basically the (ab)use of power to obtain something you wouldnt be able to obtain without the power. Hey man, you're free to define a word any way you like, but don't expect the rest of us to know what the hell you're talking about if you do.
Blah, vetting the quality of your inputs is necessary but it's a completely different algorithm to answering queries. This is already true of search engines... and we have good ways of handling it. But hey, you're the kind of person who gives up looking for a job because you're sure no-one will hire you.
blah, RealMedia are free to plug the hole any time they want.. they just don't get the research used to find the hole for free.. they have to do their own damn research.
huh? Call me crazy, but isn't extortion where you demand someone pay you to keep quiet? These guys are not demanding a silence payment.. they're just selling their proprietary information to whoever wants to pay for it.
But *they* caused the damage.. they released a product with a security flaw in it. If some third party who doesn't even have the source code can find it, then so can RealMedia.
In the mean time, there's people who sell anti-malware. There's people who sell intrusion detection systems. There's people who get paid to maintain the security of corporate networks. All of these other people are willing to pay for information about the exploit.. some of them are even willing to pay for exclusivity - to the extent that this one research company can actually provide that, remember that anyone can do the same work they did and find the same defect. In the mean time, RealMedia are *not* sitting there saying "oh, but if you would just tell us what it was we'd so like to fix it!" They're cranking out more code with security flaws in it because they don't care enough to hire their own security analysis people.
Slashdot Mirror
The civil rights movement was petitioning the government for grievances. And they took pride in not hiding their identity.
Uhh.. there is no legal right to "protest".
You have a legal right to assemble to petition your government for grievance.
They weren't doing that.
MLK was protesting to his government over the disequal treatment of the races. Exactly what were these idiots protesting about? A religion exists which they don't like?
Get WHAT word out? That Scientology is a dangerous cult? No shit Sherlock.
These "protests" were not about "getting the word out".. they were about hate.
If there are laws being broken then attack them in court. Don't start wearing masks and practicing vigilante justice. And don't sully the name of petitioning your government for grievance by calling your outpouring of hate a "protest".
How is it "protesting"? Does that word even have any meaning in the USA anymore?
Marching around in masks and yelling things does not a protest make.
As I said to a friend of mine who went.. What were you protesting? Who were you protesting to? At least the protest in Australia was actually about something - tax exempt status - and directed at the government. You can't protest the practices of a church to the church.. that makes not sense.
Who gives a shit what people wanna spend their money on?
Who gives a shit how people are ok with being treated? Some people like being whipped in the bedroom, you got a problem with that?
Dude, you're like 24 hours late. As has been said many times in the comments of this story, there are plenty of legitimate purchasers for this information.. for example makers of intrusion detection systems, anti-virus software, anti-malware software, and just plain old sysadmins who want to patch their corporate networks NOW instead of when Real gets around to it.
Didn't the Klu Klux Klan used to conduct similar "protests"?
Seriously, this is just harassment and persecution.
Persecution of crazy brainwashed idiots, but persecution none the less.
you're all just cattle to them.
Access control systems just take away the need for ethical consideration. People don't think "should I read my friend's email", they think "do I have access to read my friend's email". If they can, they assume they should.
When you spend your life in a perfectly enforced world you rarely have to make ethical decisions. You don't have to think "gee, should I take a look at Bob's files or not?" Because the system stops you from doing it - unlike the real world, where you have the choice of obeying the law or not, and are better off for thinking about what is right what is wrong. So when you are presented with an ethical choice.. usually as a result of some temporary granting of power.. you don't know what to do.. and it's easiest to just not think about it.
Anything that isn't prohibited is not only allowed, but also ethical.
- Eben Moglen
Hehe, no, maybe *you* should read up on it.
- Eben Moglen
It's "just" like that except that there's a hundred more complications. Please fit into your analogy:
* Intrusion Detection Systems.
* Malware.
* Anti-Malware, and Anti-virus software.
* A rule that says you are not allowed to reverse engineer your own home.
oh, and all the vulgarity of copyright law.
This is why reasoning by analogy is not only stupid, but also pointless.
Yeah, they've been doing that with computer hacking cases for years too.
You must be living in some other world to me. Google search results are not vetted by humans. It's this little algorithm called pagerank.. you might have heard of it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3AExtortion
Blah, vetting the quality of your inputs is necessary but it's a completely different algorithm to answering queries. This is already true of search engines... and we have good ways of handling it. But hey, you're the kind of person who gives up looking for a job because you're sure no-one will hire you.
blah, RealMedia are free to plug the hole any time they want.. they just don't get the research used to find the hole for free.. they have to do their own damn research.
huh? Call me crazy, but isn't extortion where you demand someone pay you to keep quiet? These guys are not demanding a silence payment.. they're just selling their proprietary information to whoever wants to pay for it.
But *they* caused the damage.. they released a product with a security flaw in it. If some third party who doesn't even have the source code can find it, then so can RealMedia.
In the mean time, there's people who sell anti-malware. There's people who sell intrusion detection systems. There's people who get paid to maintain the security of corporate networks. All of these other people are willing to pay for information about the exploit.. some of them are even willing to pay for exclusivity - to the extent that this one research company can actually provide that, remember that anyone can do the same work they did and find the same defect. In the mean time, RealMedia are *not* sitting there saying "oh, but if you would just tell us what it was we'd so like to fix it!" They're cranking out more code with security flaws in it because they don't care enough to hire their own security analysis people.