I look at it as more on the lines of impartial witnesses. The camera alone doesn't have feelings or make judgements. The camera only sees what ends up on the recording. The courts are more than capable of deciding the validity and value of any such recording. Police are more than happy to ask for recordings of crimes and such from the public if it will help them catch and prosecute criminals. Why would we not be permitted to use it across the board in the protection of the very right to fair prosecution? Video evidence is widely accepted, and should be the right of every citizen to capture it when they are present.
It's funny. Learn to laugh a little. Looking at our own society, and our additction to games, TV, and other electronic diversions, it's easy to attribute this to aliens. Personally, I see it as a commentary as to why WE won't ever be the ones to make contact. I mean, seriously, who doesn't think for a moment that if we could create ST:TNG Holodeck technology that it woudln't become the new "internet is for porn". Just don't ask me to clean up after you.
Strong password requirements are a big part of the problem. We can teach people how to make more complicated passwords. But the draconian policies set by some sites makes it almost impossible to maintain any degree of security. Make the password requirement difficult enough, and people HAVE to write it down and keep it in an insecure location just to make it usable.
I can understand your suspicion. But now, more than ever, people are getting lawyers to force the IRS to accept less than what they claim is owed. It's actually cheaper for the IRS to simplify matters, and even collect less in taxes, than to try to force tax laws that do not properly reflect current technology. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but perhaps this is part of the change the IRS is trying to show.
However, any distribution of copyrighted material is. By simply taking away access from someone who is sharing files, you take away fair use of something properly owned. I can make my own music, make an MP3 file, and share it with anyone I want. That's not illegal. Neither is sharing any open-source material that may be of use or interest to others. I think the rule allowing IPSs to terminate based on file sharing may have been too general to protect the rights of people who aren't doing anything illegal.
Give them time. I'm sure they're going to pull from a large enough group to get newer and older systems as well. Various hardware and OS configurations need to be tested to be sure of getting a good cross section. If they just opened up the sign-ups, the testing will likely start sometime in the next month or so.
Is a girl, passed out and naked in your bed consenting to having sex with you? Hardly.
Is your front door, wide open, consent for anyone to just come in without your permission? No way.
If you come into my home, and my computer is sitting there unlocked, do you have consent to sit down and start accessing it? NO, you don't.
But a router, with access to your own computers, that doesn't have a WEP key is consent? Uh, not in my mind.
So, where does consent begin? If it's not explicitly given, you cannot just sit there and claim it's implied. There is no implied consent to an open router.
Now the owner of that router might say, "But I didn't know it was doing that on my behalf!" I suppose it's a little like coming home to find that your kid has been inviting people into your house who you'd rather not have there. But that's an issue to be settled between you and your errant kid, isn't it? Law enforcement generally isn't interested.
I think the kid analogy is a good one, but the law-enforcement part DOES care. Just because your errant kid lets someone into the house that doesn't belong doesn't mean it's not a crime. In fact, the law says that the kid CANNOT legally give permission for someone to enter. The kid is a minor, and therefore does not possess the legal authority for anything.
Just because a router / modem is open to access, that doesn't mean you are authorized to access it, anymore than an open door mean you are allowed access to my home.
Not mentioning that they will have to prosecute every iPhone owner in the country (it automagically connects itself to any open wifi router in range from time to time by default)...
Good, as well it should. No device should "automatically" connect to an open network. Open networks are not necessarily ok to be used. A device that 'hijacks' open networks for its own use is, by design, committing an illegal act.
OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric). But to contrast how different this is from that, when's the last time you turned on the shower and accidentally stolen water from your neighbor's water pipes?
Yes, you are off base. Inadvertently connecting through your neighbor's connection in this case isn't the offense. But, once finding out that you were, and NOT going back to using your own would be.
In the case of the coffee shop and the guy in the truck, the guy in the truck was in fact stealing. Most places that offer "free" access do so for their customers. Customers, not some person sitting outside just to get free access. These places still have to pay for the service. All they ask for in return is that you come in and buy a small cup of coffee.
This law is intended to target "wardrivers" and the like. People who go around looking to use the internet for free, rather than pay for the service. Even open access points are not necessarily open for anyone to use, just authorized users. If the idea is for authorized users to have "free and easy" access, then unauthorized users shouldn't be using it. And that becomes the central question. Can the government legislate what is considered authorized use of a network?
There is a legal basis to sue here. I can see this going to court. I just don't see how he can win. He gave someone a book and said, "give me your opinion of this." Nope, sorry, this will lose, but it will go to the courts.
Is it possible that we are confusing Capitalism with Free Market economy? In Capitalism, the money drives the market. Big companies can spend a fortune making deals and forming marketing campaigns to get their product on the shelves. It doesn't guarantee the best products get out, but the company with the big money can get in early. Free Market economy puts more power in the hands of the shoppers. Yes, a big company may still get out there first. But in the long run, it's the consumers who decide which product will survive.
I can sum that up in 3 characters, PS3. Plus, AFAIK, it's still the least expensive Blu-Ray player on the market. IMO, Sony learned from their Betamax failure.
Really bad, actually, since Blockbuster Video, the biggest rental chain the the US, announced months ago they were going with BluRay. Great way to assure your videos DON'T get to customers. This just makes me believe the "original story" is probably not true. No major film studio would cut off their product from getting to a chain like Blockbuster, unless the money given would have made up for the loss several times over (which I highly doubt).
Well, conservative or not, the "dial home" feature of Vista is a deal-killer from the IA side of things. See, classified systems aren't allow to call out like that. And if a system cannot be locked down to prevent outside access, and it won't work without the outside access, then it's a deal breaker. MS shot themselves in the foot big time on that.
Because the ESRB is a SELF-REGULATORY group formed by video game makers. This was in response to the Congressional hearings of the 1980's that tried, unsuccessfully, to blame most of the world's ills on violent video games. The whole idea was to give buyers (read: PARENTS) more information so they could better decide if they wanted to let their kids play or not. The rating system was not designed to kill a game, but to inform.
Problem was, even with the ratings, retailers didn't care what they sold to people. They didn't have to, there was no law enforcing it. This separates video games from things like DVDs, magazines, and the like. As long as the cash was green, the games got sold. Some stores did eventually take up a policy of asking for IDs when selling M-rated games, but that doesn't fix the problem.
The problem stems from parents who don't get involved in the purchase. They let their kids buy and play whatever game they want, and don't say "no" to age-inappropriate materials. But it's easier to blame the game industry for making the game, because it's the game itself that offends. Really, the ESRB may have its flaws, but they are at least TRYING to self-regulate an industry that could very easily end up under Government regulation. If that thought doesn't scare you...
Even the US Government said no to Vista. And that is going to stay as long as Vista "requires" the capacity to dial home to the mothership. So, take that for whatever you like. I know that as long as that is the case, I flatly refuse to even consider Vista for any of my machines.
Slashdot Mirror
I look at it as more on the lines of impartial witnesses. The camera alone doesn't have feelings or make judgements. The camera only sees what ends up on the recording. The courts are more than capable of deciding the validity and value of any such recording. Police are more than happy to ask for recordings of crimes and such from the public if it will help them catch and prosecute criminals. Why would we not be permitted to use it across the board in the protection of the very right to fair prosecution? Video evidence is widely accepted, and should be the right of every citizen to capture it when they are present.
It's funny. Learn to laugh a little. Looking at our own society, and our additction to games, TV, and other electronic diversions, it's easy to attribute this to aliens. Personally, I see it as a commentary as to why WE won't ever be the ones to make contact. I mean, seriously, who doesn't think for a moment that if we could create ST:TNG Holodeck technology that it woudln't become the new "internet is for porn". Just don't ask me to clean up after you.
Great minds think alike...and so do ours. Thank you for not leaving me to be the first to post that.
Strong password requirements are a big part of the problem. We can teach people how to make more complicated passwords. But the draconian policies set by some sites makes it almost impossible to maintain any degree of security. Make the password requirement difficult enough, and people HAVE to write it down and keep it in an insecure location just to make it usable.
I can understand your suspicion. But now, more than ever, people are getting lawyers to force the IRS to accept less than what they claim is owed. It's actually cheaper for the IRS to simplify matters, and even collect less in taxes, than to try to force tax laws that do not properly reflect current technology. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but perhaps this is part of the change the IRS is trying to show.
However, any distribution of copyrighted material is. By simply taking away access from someone who is sharing files, you take away fair use of something properly owned. I can make my own music, make an MP3 file, and share it with anyone I want. That's not illegal. Neither is sharing any open-source material that may be of use or interest to others. I think the rule allowing IPSs to terminate based on file sharing may have been too general to protect the rights of people who aren't doing anything illegal.
Give them time. I'm sure they're going to pull from a large enough group to get newer and older systems as well. Various hardware and OS configurations need to be tested to be sure of getting a good cross section. If they just opened up the sign-ups, the testing will likely start sometime in the next month or so.
If you hit pedestrians while driving (and it's your fault, not the pedestrian who ran out without looking), you don't get to drive anymore.
For the zombies in the code to rise on the 31st.
Seriously. How far off the reservation do you have to go when UTAH won't even take your calls anymore?
Really? What have you been reading then?
Implied vs. explicit consent.
Is a girl, passed out and naked in your bed consenting to having sex with you? Hardly.
Is your front door, wide open, consent for anyone to just come in without your permission? No way.
If you come into my home, and my computer is sitting there unlocked, do you have consent to sit down and start accessing it? NO, you don't.
But a router, with access to your own computers, that doesn't have a WEP key is consent? Uh, not in my mind.
So, where does consent begin? If it's not explicitly given, you cannot just sit there and claim it's implied. There is no implied consent to an open router.
I think the kid analogy is a good one, but the law-enforcement part DOES care. Just because your errant kid lets someone into the house that doesn't belong doesn't mean it's not a crime. In fact, the law says that the kid CANNOT legally give permission for someone to enter. The kid is a minor, and therefore does not possess the legal authority for anything.
Just because a router / modem is open to access, that doesn't mean you are authorized to access it, anymore than an open door mean you are allowed access to my home.
Good, as well it should. No device should "automatically" connect to an open network. Open networks are not necessarily ok to be used. A device that 'hijacks' open networks for its own use is, by design, committing an illegal act.
In the case of the coffee shop and the guy in the truck, the guy in the truck was in fact stealing. Most places that offer "free" access do so for their customers. Customers, not some person sitting outside just to get free access. These places still have to pay for the service. All they ask for in return is that you come in and buy a small cup of coffee.
This law is intended to target "wardrivers" and the like. People who go around looking to use the internet for free, rather than pay for the service. Even open access points are not necessarily open for anyone to use, just authorized users. If the idea is for authorized users to have "free and easy" access, then unauthorized users shouldn't be using it. And that becomes the central question. Can the government legislate what is considered authorized use of a network?
There is a legal basis to sue here. I can see this going to court. I just don't see how he can win. He gave someone a book and said, "give me your opinion of this." Nope, sorry, this will lose, but it will go to the courts.
Is it possible that we are confusing Capitalism with Free Market economy? In Capitalism, the money drives the market. Big companies can spend a fortune making deals and forming marketing campaigns to get their product on the shelves. It doesn't guarantee the best products get out, but the company with the big money can get in early. Free Market economy puts more power in the hands of the shoppers. Yes, a big company may still get out there first. But in the long run, it's the consumers who decide which product will survive.
I can sum that up in 3 characters, PS3. Plus, AFAIK, it's still the least expensive Blu-Ray player on the market. IMO, Sony learned from their Betamax failure.
Really bad, actually, since Blockbuster Video, the biggest rental chain the the US, announced months ago they were going with BluRay. Great way to assure your videos DON'T get to customers. This just makes me believe the "original story" is probably not true. No major film studio would cut off their product from getting to a chain like Blockbuster, unless the money given would have made up for the loss several times over (which I highly doubt).
Well, conservative or not, the "dial home" feature of Vista is a deal-killer from the IA side of things. See, classified systems aren't allow to call out like that. And if a system cannot be locked down to prevent outside access, and it won't work without the outside access, then it's a deal breaker. MS shot themselves in the foot big time on that.
Besides, medical experimentation on Gnomes is much funnier.
Because the ESRB is a SELF-REGULATORY group formed by video game makers. This was in response to the Congressional hearings of the 1980's that tried, unsuccessfully, to blame most of the world's ills on violent video games. The whole idea was to give buyers (read: PARENTS) more information so they could better decide if they wanted to let their kids play or not. The rating system was not designed to kill a game, but to inform. Problem was, even with the ratings, retailers didn't care what they sold to people. They didn't have to, there was no law enforcing it. This separates video games from things like DVDs, magazines, and the like. As long as the cash was green, the games got sold. Some stores did eventually take up a policy of asking for IDs when selling M-rated games, but that doesn't fix the problem. The problem stems from parents who don't get involved in the purchase. They let their kids buy and play whatever game they want, and don't say "no" to age-inappropriate materials. But it's easier to blame the game industry for making the game, because it's the game itself that offends. Really, the ESRB may have its flaws, but they are at least TRYING to self-regulate an industry that could very easily end up under Government regulation. If that thought doesn't scare you...
Even the US Government said no to Vista. And that is going to stay as long as Vista "requires" the capacity to dial home to the mothership. So, take that for whatever you like. I know that as long as that is the case, I flatly refuse to even consider Vista for any of my machines.
"Working as intended."
Installing Vista slows Vista performance. Still don't see any reason why someone would use this as an OS over XP right now.