Interesting. The UW RFID project reminded me of Steve Mann's work with cameras, particularly his concept of sousveillance. I think there is a quite a bit of good use to be had with RFID tags, especially for a plastic tag you could put on luggage, or other shipping issues. I'm glad they conducted this study, there is some scholarship on what the effect of privacy might be in a "web of things" but scientific-ish research is always nice to pull out to bolster your argument when these issues are being legislated on.
Tim Berners-Lee has come out against this, saying he would change providers. I am very glad he said what he said, and his, among other voices got Phorm backtracking and spinning on what they were doing in the UK. The problem I think is, particularly in the US (where Phorm said they were in discussions with various ISPs) is when it becomes a common practice and it doesn't matter if you switch providers because they use a similar model.
It is definitely the time to put the pressure on ISPs, govt, whomever to let them know this is not acceptable. Further, I really like Berners-Lee saying saying that his data and web history belonged to him.
i imagine this must be the case to some degree. after all, how would this be implemented? would it be some sort of MS related 3rd party cookie that records every click across sites? Seems like a desire for their own doubleclick more than anything else.
While I am open to an Constitutional Amendment for privacy I am not holding out hope for it anytime soon. In the meantime I am wondering if there might be some sort of technological solution to medical privacy issues such as a digital locker? I don't follow the debate on the digitization of medical records, but there is definitely a privacy split when people are willing to store their medical records with google. It seems the future is going to lie in a choice to make more info or less info open for sharing. I am thinking of something like a digital "lockbox" where various items could be placed with the express demarcation that they only be shared with the doctor and the patient.
Although, I imagine that insurance companies and whoever else relies on patient info would fight that tooth & nail in the same way they would a privacy amendment.
First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts.
I agree with this but I think it runs both ways to some degree, because, Bush has said that the companies won't participate if they don't have immunity. Could one then make the argument that this then means that with immunity they are more than happy to participate since it doesn't matter if it is illegal? Now, I don't think believe that the telecoms just sit around waiting to turn over user information to the governemnt. That said, in other situations (the COPA case for instance, which involved search records) most ISPs and search engines were fine going along with the government request even when it may have been overbroad. While there may be some strong arming going on, it also might be possible that its fine for them, they just don't want to get in trouble.
Anyhow, if it so important to have this that all national security depends on it and the terrorists are winning without it, what does that say about our telecoms when they make immunity for any wrong doings a precondition of helping the government? Doesn't sound very patriotic. Quick, someone check their lapels to see if they are wearing their flag pins.
Interesting take. I just got around to looking at this case and I will have to say I like the direction that some of these cases (this one, the NJ Township blogger case, etc) seem to be going, not only in the fact that individuals can speak anonymously online, but also that ISPs do not have to turn over this information, or aid in uncovering who is posting what, searching for what, etc.
To your point that this case raises the deciding issue of whether claims are "likely to be read as facts", I've gotten about 1/2 way through Daniel Solove's new book Future of Reputation, and there are some troubling issues we'll have to confront in the future regarding some of this stuff. One of the responses to issues such as defamation, etc, that Solove discusses in the book is using the law to give individuals more power to have defamatory or privacy invading information taken down. I wonder if such a law were to be hammered out somehow (not likely, i imagine, but still) if such a law would have to be narrow tailored to only work for things "likely to be read as facts" on a blog or message board.
It seems like that would leave open a lot of trash talk/smearing without recourse for the smeared. There is something about a takedown notice which appeals to me, although I'm wary of the overuse of this and individuals overpowered to the extent it stifles speech. I'm glad this sort of anonymous speech is still being protected but it seems like we've still got to figure out how to come up with a better balance.
i don't think the fear is, or should be perhaps i should say, that children's names are put out "there" (although a name/photo may want to be discouraged in youths for other reasons) but rather that they are becoming themselves as budding young people in a world where everything is tied back to them. there are philosophical / policy reasons why people may want to argue this is ok. Regardless, children, most people, do not have the capacity to understand the possible permanence of their postings.
As Schneier said Anonymity Won't Kill the Internet. Perhaps there needs to be some outreach program to the youth on behalf of the privacy community. i'm not entirely sure how it could be done though, maybe information left in sealed envelopes in park bushes out of the field of view.
seriously though, i don't know, maybe highlight the idea of handles, or call for more trusted 3rd party systems. i'm not sure what the best step would be.
I would have to go back and look this up, but after the Cable Companies won (overall) in the Brand X case and the SCOTUS said they did not have to be classified as common carriers, the DSL companies petitioned the FCC, and two months later the fcc reclassified DSL carriers as well, so they were no longer beholden to common carrier rules. there was a one-year carry over, where they would continue under the old rules, which, i think, just passed.
This news.com story pretty much sums it up from summer of 05
i am less worried about the govt. having my fingerprints than Thiftway Inc. and Pay By Touch. i can't really think, out side of spy novelish type things what the government would do with that info., i can think of many annoying, fumbling, ways that marketers and advertisers could use them.
also, was grocery store fraud so rampant at some point that the only solution was giving your thumb for your dorritos?
the others stories, news.com, msnbc, are saying he was sharing 600 songs, not he downloaded 600 in a day. i haven't the time to figure out which it is right now, but that is a huge difference, imo.
Did anyone else notice that on page 2 of the Majority opinion it says
"Petitioners do not challenge the "life-plus-70-years" time span itself. Whether 50 years is enough, or 70 years to much," they acknowledge, "is not a judgment meet for this Court."
so is that Lessigs error, and are they sticking it to him or did they really screw up in the opening pages. i guess i am just suprised the SC doesn't use proof readers.
i am just curious what the laws are, well, there aren't any federal laws i suppose. spamlaws.com has a good summary of the last congress.
It just seems like there would be commercial speech issues that would ultimately uphold spam. States have passed laws though, right? there was that story on salon the other day about someone suing Elizabeth Dole for political spam. I just wonder if any studies have been done on the various state laws that have been passed, and which states those are. seems like a worthy study.
"As a result, industry executives estimate that major-label releases must on average sell more than 500,000 copies just to break even. Of the 6,455 new albums distributed in the U.S. by major labels, only 112 have sold that many, according to SoundScan, which monitors music sales. Overall music sales were down 5% last year-the steepest decline in decades."
I may just be a simple caveman and not understand the neo-liberal virtual globalization of economics, but that seems like a poor investment strategy.
I just searched through and didn't find one mention of temps, so I thought I would throw them into the mix. Anyone here who has temped or hell, in today's sh!tstorm of an economy might still be temping, knows the salvation of the web. Hell even aim, though it is a bloodsucking leach that leaves you cowering in the corner still keeps you fingering the light, knowing that you aren't completely a wasteproduct of the economy.
In any event, for temps, and no it isn't a right, but on the same level is the right to work a "right?" um, well yeah according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 23,
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Sidesteping the rant that is evolving on weather or not temp is beneath the acceptable level of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you have to understand that as a temp, most places, there is a smidgeon of work to do, that a person of average intelligence, and I see a lot of temps that are college grads, but in the "Liberal Arts," the work can be done in two hours.
What happens next? Do you report to the boss, tell her you are done, what else can I do? Well, that is a wildcard, in some cases temps are keeping the seat warm for someone to come in to take the job, and if they don't have a policy about getting their workers from temp agencies (some places do) then you might show that you are proactive and can get the job done. However, in many of the other places, there really isn't that much work to be done, especially for the type of work that they would give a temp. Once you finish that work, you are out. Rent is due, bills have to be paid, and yo' baby momma is kicking up drama. Well I don't know about the last part, but without the web to bide time, to at least offer the chance to put on a strained countenance when the boss walks by, so maybe she thinks, "hunh he is really pondering that spreadsheet," when in reality you are thinking "how in the fck does jon katz get paid to make observations?"
No surfing the web may not be a "Right," but i would argue it helps keep people who otherwise would be, well who knows, maybe out of work, on the dole, welfare, whatever, in the office, working, just not all the time.
I was watching meet the press this past Sunday, Sens. Tom Daschle and Trent Lott were on and there were discussions about how to eliminate US dependency on Iraqi oil.Daschele apparently wants to force auto manufacturers to change the average fuel efficiency for automobiles (which I think is a good thing) in order to reduce importing "about two million barrels of oil per week."
Interestingly, or not, Trent Lott, said, rather predictably I suppose, "I guess there's some people that think we ought to all be driving Honda Civics." His point, and he went on to say, as part of the Republican creedo, we don't need government in our lives to dictate how and what we should drive.
The point being, it is very interesting that people who would be on the side of government installing some sort of copy protection are the Dem's and it follows almost from their ideology, it would seem. I would be interested if Lott, and his ilk, would stick to their ideology in saying that govt shouldn't meddle in this. In fact, it is other people like Bob Barr (and let me say I find Lott and Barr as a particularly vile strain of politician) who
speak out against surveillance cameras.
It would be interesting to know, or to hear some of the "keep govt out of my life," "let the market rule" Repub's speak out on this issue. Especially if Hollings keeps this up.
Maybe it is just in my mind that I still imagine Dem's as being progessive, but the truth is that people like John Perry Barlow and Lawrence Lessig are more Liberterian than anything.
The dem's are poised to lose a lot of consumers/citizens on this one, via pissing off the voter. I wonder if any of the other party's are poised to pick it up and run with it?
Re:Bah. Weak argument at best.
on
The Crime of Sharing
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The same arguments get rehashed here over and over. I don't believe anything you said in the beginning and am not smart enough to argue the later part, and i am fairly certain you won't change your mind with anything i said, but still
"However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something."
This is most certainly not true. Many have pointed a fact out here, though i can't find any today. This is that the artist will get more funds directly from a person if that person knows their songs and from knowing their songs wants to here them performed live, goes to the show, likes the music, buys the t-shirt, gets the 7" (not of industry cock), gets on the mailing list. The artist is more likely to see this cash direct, as opposed to shelling out $22 at the HMV (that is how much a random cd i picked up out of the racks at the HMV RnR Hall of Fall cost) and the artist getting their $1-$3.
"in fact, you're contributing to the devaluation of the artists' career by refusing to pay for the music at all."
No. In fact I am contributing to the devaluation of the segrams, vivendi, emi, whoever the hell stranglehold on music distribution , production and selection. Music is going to be there. It is not as if once the majors topple things are going to dry up and no one will put out records and no money will be made. All it will mean is that corporate radioband will not make millions off of haircuts, cliches and marketing.
I used to have a friend who worked, uh, temped for AOL. I still have part of this email he sent to me
"On the 25 minute walk that I make to work I usually think about work on the way there, thereby doing what I always promised I would never do as long as I was a "temp" - think about work outside of being at work. Only a God can spend 8 hours 5 days a week someplace and not wonder what their place in it was. As a "temp" at the end of the century your place was/is even more displaced than your fellow postmodern brethren. The turd of the Virtual Elite, on a global level a "temp" exists on a plane with structurally readjusted peoples and prisoners. On the local level a "temp" is nearly a non presence, disposable, cloneable, or on its best day not qualified enough to be solidified."
I think he touches on several good points. Economist Richard Rosecrance wrote a book a few years ago called "The Rise of the Virtual State"(yes walmart sells it). In it he basically said that nations will divide into two parts, ala Descartes, the head, or mind, and the body. The mind will perform the information and idea tasks, the US, Europe, Japan, and the body will handle the labor, China, Mexico, Africa.
It is especially interesting when that mind/body split is enforced here in the US of A. Plenty of people say, well if they would just get more of an education then they would be alright. In a sense that is correct, but overall it is a push to drive us in the US toward strictly virtual or mind based production and send all the body work elsewhere. As an economic solution, it may work for us in the US for the short time that we are alive, but also you have to wonder about the political aspects that help set these divisions into play, ie dictatorships in Africa, the decline of organized labor in the US and the massive push in the tech sector to outsource as much of the workload as possible.
More or less, for every person making 80k and saying, just get more productive schooling, there are 10 college graduates wondering if they will ever get their teeth cleaned again. It's our economic policy.
In the latest Effector (links to the case and such) they talk about a case that was just decided Intel v. Hamidi, which states that "companies can sue those who send unwanted e-mail to their employees once the company warns them not to send more e-mail."
On the surface it seems like a victory for everyone right? I mean else are you going to stop it? Especially if you are being spammed at your work account. However, the EFF (and the ACLU) filed an amicus brief (basically an opinion by someone not involved in the case discussing the case).
The judge ruled that because it was an unwanted email it constituted a "trespass." Which is a bit frightening, in terms of what exactly constitutes an "unwanted email." It appears that they and the ACLU are worried that it infringes on the first ammendment rights of Hamidi, who they refer to as an um...high-tech pampleteer (pamphleteer?).
Any how so the problem with blocking spam or going after spammers is that it comes up against (like so many things) the question of first amendment rights and free speech. It is such a fubar situation. I don't know, maybe it isn't even the same issue. It would make sense that if you tell someone that they have to stop sending you email, the burden shouldn't be on you to have to let them exercise their freedom of speech. I was talking to an expert from Germany on their "free speech/hate speech" laws and it is interesting because there is more of a duality, yes you have the right to say what you want, but persons also have a right to be respected.
All in all it makes me wonder if I should still send the old EFF a RemRem Kilkratch Xmas donation.
Who the hell cares when the first time Madonna was mentioned? Is that what the benchmark of popular culture is? Madonna? Bah. I vote Colecovision. When was Colecovision first mentioned?
In case this post is ever used in considering me for a job for Madonna, I am just joking sweettits.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. The UW RFID project reminded me of Steve Mann's work with cameras, particularly his concept of sousveillance. I think there is a quite a bit of good use to be had with RFID tags, especially for a plastic tag you could put on luggage, or other shipping issues. I'm glad they conducted this study, there is some scholarship on what the effect of privacy might be in a "web of things" but scientific-ish research is always nice to pull out to bolster your argument when these issues are being legislated on.
Tim Berners-Lee has come out against this, saying he would change providers. I am very glad he said what he said, and his, among other voices got Phorm backtracking and spinning on what they were doing in the UK. The problem I think is, particularly in the US (where Phorm said they were in discussions with various ISPs) is when it becomes a common practice and it doesn't matter if you switch providers because they use a similar model.
It is definitely the time to put the pressure on ISPs, govt, whomever to let them know this is not acceptable. Further, I really like Berners-Lee saying saying that his data and web history belonged to him.
i imagine this must be the case to some degree. after all, how would this be implemented? would it be some sort of MS related 3rd party cookie that records every click across sites? Seems like a desire for their own doubleclick more than anything else.
While I am open to an Constitutional Amendment for privacy I am not holding out hope for it anytime soon. In the meantime I am wondering if there might be some sort of technological solution to medical privacy issues such as a digital locker? I don't follow the debate on the digitization of medical records, but there is definitely a privacy split when people are willing to store their medical records with google. It seems the future is going to lie in a choice to make more info or less info open for sharing. I am thinking of something like a digital "lockbox" where various items could be placed with the express demarcation that they only be shared with the doctor and the patient. Although, I imagine that insurance companies and whoever else relies on patient info would fight that tooth & nail in the same way they would a privacy amendment.
First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts.
I agree with this but I think it runs both ways to some degree, because, Bush has said that the companies won't participate if they don't have immunity. Could one then make the argument that this then means that with immunity they are more than happy to participate since it doesn't matter if it is illegal? Now, I don't think believe that the telecoms just sit around waiting to turn over user information to the governemnt. That said, in other situations (the COPA case for instance, which involved search records) most ISPs and search engines were fine going along with the government request even when it may have been overbroad. While there may be some strong arming going on, it also might be possible that its fine for them, they just don't want to get in trouble.
Anyhow, if it so important to have this that all national security depends on it and the terrorists are winning without it, what does that say about our telecoms when they make immunity for any wrong doings a precondition of helping the government? Doesn't sound very patriotic. Quick, someone check their lapels to see if they are wearing their flag pins.
Interesting take. I just got around to looking at this case and I will have to say I like the direction that some of these cases (this one, the NJ Township blogger case, etc) seem to be going, not only in the fact that individuals can speak anonymously online, but also that ISPs do not have to turn over this information, or aid in uncovering who is posting what, searching for what, etc.
To your point that this case raises the deciding issue of whether claims are "likely to be read as facts", I've gotten about 1/2 way through Daniel Solove's new book Future of Reputation, and there are some troubling issues we'll have to confront in the future regarding some of this stuff. One of the responses to issues such as defamation, etc, that Solove discusses in the book is using the law to give individuals more power to have defamatory or privacy invading information taken down. I wonder if such a law were to be hammered out somehow (not likely, i imagine, but still) if such a law would have to be narrow tailored to only work for things "likely to be read as facts" on a blog or message board.
It seems like that would leave open a lot of trash talk/smearing without recourse for the smeared. There is something about a takedown notice which appeals to me, although I'm wary of the overuse of this and individuals overpowered to the extent it stifles speech. I'm glad this sort of anonymous speech is still being protected but it seems like we've still got to figure out how to come up with a better balance.
i don't think the fear is, or should be perhaps i should say, that children's names are put out "there" (although a name/photo may want to be discouraged in youths for other reasons) but rather that they are becoming themselves as budding young people in a world where everything is tied back to them. there are philosophical / policy reasons why people may want to argue this is ok. Regardless, children, most people, do not have the capacity to understand the possible permanence of their postings.
As Schneier said Anonymity Won't Kill the Internet. Perhaps there needs to be some outreach program to the youth on behalf of the privacy community. i'm not entirely sure how it could be done though, maybe information left in sealed envelopes in park bushes out of the field of view. seriously though, i don't know, maybe highlight the idea of handles, or call for more trusted 3rd party systems. i'm not sure what the best step would be.
I would have to go back and look this up, but after the Cable Companies won (overall) in the Brand X case and the SCOTUS said they did not have to be classified as common carriers, the DSL companies petitioned the FCC, and two months later the fcc reclassified DSL carriers as well, so they were no longer beholden to common carrier rules. there was a one-year carry over, where they would continue under the old rules, which, i think, just passed.
This news.com story pretty much sums it up from summer of 05
the bad guys are going to start practicing their golf swings.
i am less worried about the govt. having my fingerprints than Thiftway Inc. and Pay By Touch. i can't really think, out side of spy novelish type things what the government would do with that info., i can think of many annoying, fumbling, ways that marketers and advertisers could use them.
also, was grocery store fraud so rampant at some point that the only solution was giving your thumb for your dorritos?
...then click the link above it for "Beaver Mountain"
funny except you forget to credit chris rock for saying it
the others stories, news.com, msnbc, are saying he was sharing 600 songs, not he downloaded 600 in a day. i haven't the time to figure out which it is right now, but that is a huge difference, imo.
hellfire. a lawyer just told me that it's right. "meet" doesn't mean "meet." that's what i get for getting ready to pounce. bah.
Did anyone else notice that on page 2 of the Majority opinion it says
"Petitioners do not challenge the "life-plus-70-years" time span itself. Whether 50 years is enough, or 70 years to much," they acknowledge, "is not a judgment meet for this Court."
so is that Lessigs error, and are they sticking it to him or did they really screw up in the opening pages. i guess i am just suprised the SC doesn't use proof readers.
just on aside, anyone try to print the article using mozilla 1.2.1? have crashed several times.
i am just curious what the laws are, well, there aren't any federal laws i suppose. spamlaws.com has a good summary of the last congress.
It just seems like there would be commercial speech issues that would ultimately uphold spam. States have passed laws though, right? there was that story on salon the other day about someone suing Elizabeth Dole for political spam. I just wonder if any studies have been done on the various state laws that have been passed, and which states those are. seems like a worthy study.
"As a result, industry executives estimate that major-label releases must on average sell more than 500,000 copies just to break even. Of the 6,455 new albums distributed in the U.S. by major labels, only 112 have sold that many, according to SoundScan, which monitors music sales. Overall music sales were down 5% last year-the steepest decline in decades."
I may just be a simple caveman and not understand the neo-liberal virtual globalization of economics, but that seems like a poor investment strategy.
i wonder if he can sing DeBarge's "Who's Johnny?"
I just searched through and didn't find one mention
of temps, so I thought I would throw them into the
mix. Anyone here who has temped or hell, in today's
sh!tstorm of an economy might still be temping, knows the
salvation of the web. Hell even aim, though it is a bloodsucking
leach that leaves you cowering in the corner still keeps you fingering
the light, knowing that you aren't completely a wasteproduct of the economy.
In any event, for temps, and no it isn't a right,
but on the same level is the right to work a "right?"
um, well yeah according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 23,
Everyone has the right to work, to
free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions
of work and to protection against unemployment.
Sidesteping the rant that is evolving on
weather or not temp is beneath the acceptable level of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you have to
understand that as a temp, most places, there is a
smidgeon of work to do, that a person of average
intelligence, and I see a lot of temps that are
college grads, but in the "Liberal Arts," the work
can be done in two hours.
What happens next?
Do you report to the boss, tell her you are done,
what else can I do? Well, that is a wildcard, in
some cases temps are keeping the seat warm for
someone to come in to take the job, and if they don't
have a policy about getting their workers from temp
agencies (some places do) then you might show that you
are proactive and can get the job done. However, in
many of the other places, there really isn't that much
work to be done, especially for the type of work that
they would give a temp. Once you finish that work, you
are out. Rent is due, bills have to be paid, and yo'
baby momma is kicking up drama. Well I don't know about
the last part, but without the web to bide time, to at
least offer the chance to put on a strained countenance
when the boss walks by, so maybe she thinks, "hunh he is
really pondering that spreadsheet," when in reality you
are thinking "how in the fck does jon katz get paid to make observations?"
No surfing the web may not be a "Right,"
but i would argue it helps keep people who otherwise would be,
well who knows, maybe out of work, on the dole, welfare,
whatever, in the office, working, just not all the time.
I was watching meet the press this past Sunday, Sens. Tom Daschle and Trent Lott were on and there were discussions about how to eliminate US dependency on Iraqi oil.Daschele apparently wants to force auto manufacturers to change the average fuel efficiency for automobiles (which I think is a good thing) in order to reduce importing "about two million barrels of oil per week."
Interestingly, or not, Trent Lott, said, rather predictably I suppose, "I guess there's some people that think we ought to all be driving Honda Civics." His point, and he went on to say, as part of the Republican creedo, we don't need government in our lives to dictate how and what we should drive.
The point being, it is very interesting that people who would be on the side of government installing some sort of copy protection are the Dem's and it follows almost from their ideology, it would seem. I would be interested if Lott, and his ilk, would stick to their ideology in saying that govt shouldn't meddle in this. In fact, it is other people like Bob Barr (and let me say I find Lott and Barr as a particularly vile strain of politician) who speak out against surveillance cameras.
It would be interesting to know, or to hear some of the "keep govt out of my life," "let the market rule" Repub's speak out on this issue. Especially if Hollings keeps this up. Maybe it is just in my mind that I still imagine Dem's as being progessive, but the truth is that people like John Perry Barlow and Lawrence Lessig are more Liberterian than anything. The dem's are poised to lose a lot of consumers/citizens on this one, via pissing off the voter. I wonder if any of the other party's are poised to pick it up and run with it?
The same arguments get rehashed here over and over. I don't believe anything you said in the beginning and am not smart enough to argue the later part, and i am fairly certain you won't change your mind with anything i said, but still
"However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something."
This is most certainly not true. Many have pointed a fact out here, though i can't find any today. This is that the artist will get more funds directly from a person if that person knows their songs and from knowing their songs wants to here them performed live, goes to the show, likes the music, buys the t-shirt, gets the 7" (not of industry cock), gets on the mailing list. The artist is more likely to see this cash direct, as opposed to shelling out $22 at the HMV (that is how much a random cd i picked up out of the racks at the HMV RnR Hall of Fall cost) and the artist getting their $1-$3.
"in fact, you're contributing to the devaluation of the artists' career by refusing to pay for the music at all."
No. In fact I am contributing to the devaluation of the segrams, vivendi, emi, whoever the hell stranglehold on music distribution , production and selection. Music is going to be there. It is not as if once the majors topple things are going to dry up and no one will put out records and no money will be made. All it will mean is that corporate radioband will not make millions off of haircuts, cliches and marketing.
Other points, duly taken.
I used to have a friend who worked, uh, temped for AOL. I still have part of this email he sent to me
"On the 25 minute walk that I make to work I usually think about work on the way there, thereby doing what I always promised I would never do as long as I was a "temp" - think about work outside of being at work. Only a God can spend 8 hours 5 days a week someplace and not wonder what their place in it was. As a "temp" at the end of the century your place was/is even more displaced than your fellow postmodern brethren. The turd of the Virtual Elite, on a global level a "temp" exists on a plane with structurally readjusted peoples and prisoners. On the local level a "temp" is nearly a non presence, disposable, cloneable, or on its best day not qualified enough to be solidified."
I think he touches on several good points. Economist Richard Rosecrance wrote a book a few years ago called "The Rise of the Virtual State"(yes walmart sells it). In it he basically said that nations will divide into two parts, ala Descartes, the head, or mind, and the body. The mind will perform the information and idea tasks, the US, Europe, Japan, and the body will handle the labor, China, Mexico, Africa.
It is especially interesting when that mind/body split is enforced here in the US of A. Plenty of people say, well if they would just get more of an education then they would be alright. In a sense that is correct, but overall it is a push to drive us in the US toward strictly virtual or mind based production and send all the body work elsewhere. As an economic solution, it may work for us in the US for the short time that we are alive, but also you have to wonder about the political aspects that help set these divisions into play, ie dictatorships in Africa, the decline of organized labor in the US and the massive push in the tech sector to outsource as much of the workload as possible.
More or less, for every person making 80k and saying, just get more productive schooling, there are 10 college graduates wondering if they will ever get their teeth cleaned again. It's our economic policy.
In the latest Effector (links to the case and such) they talk about a case that was just decided
Intel v. Hamidi, which states that "companies can sue those who send unwanted e-mail to their employees once the company warns them not to send more e-mail."
On the surface it seems like a victory for everyone right? I mean else are you going to stop it? Especially if you are being spammed at your work account. However, the EFF (and the ACLU) filed an amicus brief (basically an opinion by someone not involved in the case discussing the case).
The judge ruled that because it was an unwanted email it constituted a "trespass." Which is a bit frightening, in terms of what exactly constitutes an "unwanted email." It appears that they and the ACLU are worried that it infringes on the first ammendment rights of Hamidi, who they refer to as an um...high-tech pampleteer (pamphleteer?).
Any how so the problem with blocking spam or going after spammers is that it comes up against (like so many things) the question of first amendment rights and free speech. It is such a fubar situation. I don't know, maybe it isn't even the same issue. It would make sense that if you tell someone that they have to stop sending you email, the burden shouldn't be on you to have to let them exercise their freedom of speech. I was talking to an expert from Germany on their "free speech/hate speech" laws and it is interesting because there is more of a duality, yes you have the right to say what you want, but persons also have a right to be respected.
All in all it makes me wonder if I should still send the old EFF a RemRem Kilkratch Xmas donation.
Who the hell cares when the first time Madonna was mentioned? Is that what the benchmark of popular culture is? Madonna? Bah. I vote Colecovision. When was Colecovision first mentioned?
In case this post is ever used in considering me for a job for Madonna, I am just joking sweettits.