"If they get a US citizen by accident, they can't use it in court and are actually seriously restricted in what they can do with it at all."
This is exactly what I said in my post.
"If the NSA, as is suspected, was running some sort of keyword intercept and ran hundreds of thousands of phones through their filtering on that day, that could run into hundreds of millions in suits for the single day."
To sue the telecoms or the NSA or anyone for that matter, someone has to have standing. That means they have to know in advance that they were tapped, it's not enough to suspect you were wronged. The only way anyone will ever know if they were tapped is if the NSA either lets them know or the tapped information is used to prosecute them. It doesn't sound like anyone in this case has standing at this point.
I'm sure that a lawyer will eventually find a sympathetic judge to allow the suit, but then the NSA will just claim national security interests and refuse to cooperate.
"'Under penalty of perjury I certify that this is tap is on non-citizens to the best of my knowledge'."
This is just stupid and almost as stupid as asking foreigners to state on their visa that they are not terrorists. He can't pre-certify the citizenship of someone making a phone call. Neither can the NSA. Even if the tap is in the Chinese embassy. Because of this very simple fact, your interpretation means that no call can ever be tapped. Obviously, the NSA doesn't agree with you.
FISA is a bad law that was antiquated the day it became law and is really worthless now that more and more communications are done over the internet.
Annonymity does not equal privacy. Free speech is a right, clearly spelled out. There is no similar right spelled out for privacy. You may as well say you have a right to speak annonymously, instead of watering down what privacy means to most people.
Technology will eventually make privacy unattainable, if it isn't already. Google street views, red light cameras, etc continue to erode privacy. I don't see anything coming that will stop that.
Following your interpretation, no phone calls could ever be legally tapped by the NSA, anywhere in the world. After all, it could be an American in the Chinese embassy making the call. Or it could be an American receiving the call. This way lies madness.
Phones do not have citizenship, people do. The NSA should be allowed to tap any damn call any damn time, because even in this country there are non-Americans making damn phone calls to other non-Americans.
What should NOT happen, is allowing the contents of the phone calls to be used in the prosecution of Americans. This is in fact what happens and it is a well recognized remedy for when abuses take place. Evidence is declared non-admissable.
There is no right to privacy. Just ask Jennifer Lopez or Britney Spears.
Both define the extent to which the laws of the USA apply. It is apparent that the US Constitution does not apply in Canada or Mexico or beyond the internationally recognized control of the oceans.
Article III does not say what you think it says. It is describing how disputes between parties are to be settled.
"to controversies between...." "two or more states" "a state and citizens of another state"... "a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
Foreign states, citizens or subjects are just a party to a dispute and the other party has to be a state, or the citizens thereof.
The constitution doesn't always say that the states and citizens thereof are one of the United States, it is rather assumed that the reader will get the hint. "We the People of the United States of America..." should be enough of a clue.
I think it is invalid to complain about a bug or lack of a feature if you don't use the dang product. Of course, that would mean that 15% of slashdot wouldn't ever be able to complain about Microsoft.
Seriously, they would have to shut the site down or sumting.
Before there is consensus on an issue, there is contention. Before contention there is no theory at all. Only at the the consensus phase can a majority of 'scientists' be correct. During the contention phase, there is the old theory that didn't include the new theory or which may in fact preclude the new theory. In both cases, if the new theory is correct, then the old theory was not. At least part of the pile of peer reviewed papers for the old theory can now be viewed as incorrect.
What's interesting is when an old theory that was passed over can sometimes be resurrected and proven correct, often times to the consternation of the consensus.
I just thought that meant they were going to stop using MS office products full time. Next they are going to add some secretaries and see how they like it. IBM always moves their developers over first. We'll know they are serious when the lawyers and accountants have to start using it.
I think most people notice when their computer starts to lag, skip frames and audio tracks, etc. They may not be able to identify this as a scheduling problem, but they do notice.
"I think his assertion that he understands the spirit of GPL v2 better than it's authors is silly, though"
Considering that the authors have abandoned GPLv2, I would say they never understood the spirit of GPLv2. For them it was just a stepping stone to GPLv3, which itself is just a stepping stone to GPLv4.
RMS can take his toys and go home, but he's fooling himself if he thinks he's got the only toys in town.
I think someone who not only violates a license but also replaces the license with their own is an asshat. Doesn't matter if it is BSD getting violated or GPL getting violated.
I also think someone who uses hate speech in the US is an asshat, as opposed to in Europe where that person, following a trial, would be a criminal.
In both cases I am applying common sense. In both cases, I am not flinging insults at the original poster. Unless he is doing one or both of those two things, in which case, I guess I am.
"as it must rise to a level that no reasonable person could possibly come to."
You must be a lawyer.
That sentence alone changed my mind. Lawyers are sooo much smarter then all us common sensical people who like to build things. Even that guy that finished with a C average and took 4 times to pass the bar. He's a certifiable geenus or sumtin.
"Theo claims that two incompatible licenses apply. That isn't common sense, but it could be a potentially successful argument. However, which opinion is worth more? A programmer who hasn't really studied the law, or someone who studies it for a living, integrity issues aside? "
From the BSD license...
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * Neither the name of the nor the * names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products * derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Seems pretty simple to me. If you strip out the BSD license and put in a GPL license, you're an asshat.
"look at hate speech. In Europe, its illegal as a human rights' violation. In the US, its protected under the 1st Amendment. There are strong arguments for both sides that conform to common sense. How do you choose between the two?"
If you are in Europe, it's illegal, if you are in America, you're an asshat.
"Opera didn't just one day start showing ads when there were none before."
And neither has Windows. It's just a patent application, not a design doc.
"And ad sponsored software is usually free (beer) software."
Not always. I can think of quite a few games with in game ads that are not free.
I have an almost 3 year old at home that runs around grabbing things and shrieking 'mine'. I am reminded of slashdot and all the people running around saying 'free'. Most of the time she gets her way, which doesn't make her right anymore than it does the freedom crowd.
And are you a lawyer? Cause it seems like you understanding of the law is that only lawyers can claim understanding.
Law is understandable. It really is just common sense. That's why the jury is so important. When you think of the law, try to imagine what 10 average people would think, not what some ambulance chasing, paper pushing, pencil necked, money grubbing lawyer would think. Average people want the law to work so they can go on with their lives and not feel bad about their decision, average lawyer wants the law to work for them so they can become a partner and buy a new bmw.
Doctors, lawyers, scientists, politicians were all held in high esteem by past generations and usually for good reason. Now, it seems like they are all just out to make a buck.
"While there are some rather gaping holes the standard model cannot explain, people like it because it has made stunningly accurate predictions (e.g. the COBE data)."
Which is exactly the point. The COBE data doesn't line up with expectations. The standard model never predicted dark matter or dark energy, they were added because the standard model fails without them. That's a big difference. I think Albert Einstein would be very skeptical of the practices of modern physicists.
Anywhile, people like the standard model because they have been taught that it is correct and have since learned that it gets funded. Plus everyone likes something for nothing which is what the Big Bang is all about, that and we all used to occupy the same space, which is very new agey.
The answer to all questions is Yes, No and Who Cares.
YES: The GPL3 will drive Tivo type producers away from GPL3 code and thus drive Tivo type users away from GPL3 code.
NO: Most users are completely ignorant about the existence of GPL3.
WHO CARES: Companies in countries without strong copyright laws will use whatever suits their interests.
So there you have it. Next week we'll be showing how the answers to "Does a bear shiet in the woods" and "Does the Pope wear a funny hat" are both Yes, No and Who Cares.
Saying a thing and having it be true are two different things. Miguel is just acknowledging the futility of making a pledge about not violating patents he is not aware of existing.
As many people are quick to point out, Microsoft has more to lose by disclosing which of its many stupid patents the various pieces of software often refered to (rightly or wrongly) as Linux may be violating. If and when they release that list, then Miguel, and probably everyone else with half a brain, will be able to say whether or not their software is patent encumbered.
Only a Stallman type would say in advance that their code is not violating any patents. It's probably in the GPL somewhere.
Marooned in Realtime and A Deepness in the Sky are both great reads on their own, but the first is a sequel and the other is a prequel, if I'm not mistaken. I would recommend reading them in the order they were written.
I keep hoping that Mr Vinge will write a sequel to A Fire Upon the Deep, which I consider to be his best book and definately top 10 SF all time.
Video recorders didn't distribute copies of films before they were released. That's a big difference.
Does fair use cover posting the ending of a new movie the day before it is released? If I was a studio, I would be worried. The internet was built on trust. The next version of the internet sadly may not be because of the actions of a few very selfish people.
"every switch in the US does have the capability to be tapped without anyone knowing it"
Here's my analogy for this statement: Every dog in the US does have the capability to use the toilet and without anyone knowing it.
But I don't think for a minute that every dog in the US is using the toilet. Maybe 10 tops. Cats are another story altogether. Even then, a small fraction.
Saying something does have the capability is meaningless. It is hard to search a word document broken up amongst multiple fragments of packets that take different paths to get to their destination in realtime. It is even harder when the language is not english (remember we're dumb Americans). It is even harder still when the people communicating are using code. Those things take time, even if it's a simple cypher.
As far as no one noticing, wouldn't there have to be some infrastructure from the switches? Are they using the internet to send these ghost packets? Surely someone would have seen them or noticed them. Radio signals? Satelite uplink? The electrical grid?
Know how many switches there are in the world? Know how many telephone companies? Do you think the NSA has taps in all those switches and at all those telephone companies? Do you think they can really divert things in real time? Don't ya think someone at one of these companies would notice that everything has redundant lines that they are not even using.
I think you are a nutter who has no clue what you are talking about. As far as analysis, I'm not talking about looking at headers (trivial), I'm talking about decoding beyond the TCP level and dealing with things like packet fragmentation (both non-trivial) just to get to any real data. Sure, computers can help, but try to keep up with just those two things in real time on a terrabit link.
Analysis of the real data is very non-trivial. Take that terrabit link, how much real data will it generate in an hour? A lot. Now you have a big pile of data, but someone still has to look thru it. It may be in code, it may be completely meaningless or it may be in another language all together.
But don't let that dissuade you that the evil US is out to get you and your tinfoil hat.
If you want something for nothing, there are plenty of places on the web that have free stuff. There's free music, free movies, free books, all available right now. Just read through some of the posts and you will find links to the same.
On the other hand, taking something that is not free, is theft, pure and simple. You may not like how something is distributed, you may think the thing is overpriced, you may not like the restrictions, but that does not justify theft.
If you weirdos get your way and copyright is abolished, and it aint gonna happen, there would be no incentive at all to produce anything. Do you think the movie studios are going to keep making movies when everyone is just downloading and watching them at home? It's not just celebrities involved in making a movie. There are a lot of people from caterers to grips involved. When you steal a movie, you're stealing from the caterers and grips as much as you are stealing from a studio.
Personally, I think planned obsolescence is a more worisome trend. There is always at least one little part that's only purpose is to fail. The cd and dvd formats are a good example. They scratch or get dirty and then stop working. Cripes, couldn't they have but 5 cents worth of plastic around these things like 3.5 inch floppies had. But then they would last forever (or at least as long as a cassete tape).
"An email to the local FBI offices would have prevented 9/11."
An email from Mohammed Attah on 9/10 telling his current location and his plans, maybe.
What exactly was the information that the NSA was supposed to send? Who at the FBI were they supposed to send it too? I'll stand by my claim that this is Monday morning quarterbacking (20/20 hindsight to you non-yanks).
"I recognize the need for separation but exceptions need to be in place for national emergencies."
What we really need then would be a national emergency forecasting system so that the road blocks could be taken down until the national emergency is lifted. Better yet, lets just develop minority report capabilities. I hear that the CoS has OT IVs available who can do this with their eyes closed.
Slashdot Mirror
"If they get a US citizen by accident, they can't use it in court and are actually seriously restricted in what they can do with it at all."
This is exactly what I said in my post.
"If the NSA, as is suspected, was running some sort of keyword intercept and ran hundreds of thousands of phones through their filtering on that day, that could run into hundreds of millions in suits for the single day."
To sue the telecoms or the NSA or anyone for that matter, someone has to have standing. That means they have to know in advance that they were tapped, it's not enough to suspect you were wronged. The only way anyone will ever know if they were tapped is if the NSA either lets them know or the tapped information is used to prosecute them. It doesn't sound like anyone in this case has standing at this point.
I'm sure that a lawyer will eventually find a sympathetic judge to allow the suit, but then the NSA will just claim national security interests and refuse to cooperate.
"'Under penalty of perjury I certify that this is tap is on non-citizens to the best of my knowledge'."
This is just stupid and almost as stupid as asking foreigners to state on their visa that they are not terrorists. He can't pre-certify the citizenship of someone making a phone call. Neither can the NSA. Even if the tap is in the Chinese embassy. Because of this very simple fact, your interpretation means that no call can ever be tapped. Obviously, the NSA doesn't agree with you.
FISA is a bad law that was antiquated the day it became law and is really worthless now that more and more communications are done over the internet.
Annonymity does not equal privacy. Free speech is a right, clearly spelled out. There is no similar right spelled out for privacy. You may as well say you have a right to speak annonymously, instead of watering down what privacy means to most people.
Technology will eventually make privacy unattainable, if it isn't already. Google street views, red light cameras, etc continue to erode privacy. I don't see anything coming that will stop that.
Following your interpretation, no phone calls could ever be legally tapped by the NSA, anywhere in the world. After all, it could be an American in the Chinese embassy making the call. Or it could be an American receiving the call. This way lies madness.
Phones do not have citizenship, people do. The NSA should be allowed to tap any damn call any damn time, because even in this country there are non-Americans making damn phone calls to other non-Americans.
What should NOT happen, is allowing the contents of the phone calls to be used in the prosecution of Americans. This is in fact what happens and it is a well recognized remedy for when abuses take place. Evidence is declared non-admissable.
There is no right to privacy. Just ask Jennifer Lopez or Britney Spears.
The average slashdotter will tell you that it should be the opposite, which is just as contradictory.
Both define the extent to which the laws of the USA apply. It is apparent that the US Constitution does not apply in Canada or Mexico or beyond the internationally recognized control of the oceans.
...
Article III does not say what you think it says. It is describing how disputes between parties are to be settled.
"to controversies between...."
"two or more states"
"a state and citizens of another state"
"a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
Foreign states, citizens or subjects are just a party to a dispute and the other party has to be a state, or the citizens thereof.
The constitution doesn't always say that the states and citizens thereof are one of the United States, it is rather assumed that the reader will get the hint. "We the People of the United States of America..." should be enough of a clue.
I think it is invalid to complain about a bug or lack of a feature if you don't use the dang product. Of course, that would mean that 15% of slashdot wouldn't ever be able to complain about Microsoft.
Seriously, they would have to shut the site down or sumting.
Before there is consensus on an issue, there is contention. Before contention there is no theory at all. Only at the the consensus phase can a majority of 'scientists' be correct. During the contention phase, there is the old theory that didn't include the new theory or which may in fact preclude the new theory. In both cases, if the new theory is correct, then the old theory was not. At least part of the pile of peer reviewed papers for the old theory can now be viewed as incorrect.
What's interesting is when an old theory that was passed over can sometimes be resurrected and proven correct, often times to the consternation of the consensus.
I just thought that meant they were going to stop using MS office products full time. Next they are going to add some secretaries and see how they like it. IBM always moves their developers over first. We'll know they are serious when the lawyers and accountants have to start using it.
"most people aren't going to notice"
I think most people notice when their computer starts to lag, skip frames and audio tracks, etc. They may not be able to identify this as a scheduling problem, but they do notice.
"I think his assertion that he understands the spirit of GPL v2 better than it's authors is silly, though"
Considering that the authors have abandoned GPLv2, I would say they never understood the spirit of GPLv2. For them it was just a stepping stone to GPLv3, which itself is just a stepping stone to GPLv4.
RMS can take his toys and go home, but he's fooling himself if he thinks he's got the only toys in town.
I think someone who not only violates a license but also replaces the license with their own is an asshat. Doesn't matter if it is BSD getting violated or GPL getting violated.
I also think someone who uses hate speech in the US is an asshat, as opposed to in Europe where that person, following a trial, would be a criminal.
In both cases I am applying common sense. In both cases, I am not flinging insults at the original poster. Unless he is doing one or both of those two things, in which case, I guess I am.
"In other news a Professor of Law finds a bug in BSD, and castigates the developers for not understand C."
I must have missed that one. Here's one that really happened...
Skeptical climatologist finds a bug in NASAs chief climatologist's data cruncher.
That guy was told the same thing you're trying to tell me. He didn't buy it and neither will I.
"as it must rise to a level that no reasonable person could possibly come to."
You must be a lawyer.
That sentence alone changed my mind. Lawyers are sooo much smarter then all us common sensical people who like to build things. Even that guy that finished with a C average and took 4 times to pass the bar. He's a certifiable geenus or sumtin.
"Theo claims that two incompatible licenses apply. That isn't common sense, but it could be a potentially successful argument. However, which opinion is worth more? A programmer who hasn't really studied the law, or someone who studies it for a living, integrity issues aside? "
From the BSD license...
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of the nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Seems pretty simple to me. If you strip out the BSD license and put in a GPL license, you're an asshat.
"look at hate speech. In Europe, its illegal as a human rights' violation. In the US, its protected under the 1st Amendment. There are strong arguments for both sides that conform to common sense. How do you choose between the two?"
If you are in Europe, it's illegal, if you are in America, you're an asshat.
"Opera didn't just one day start showing ads when there were none before."
And neither has Windows. It's just a patent application, not a design doc.
"And ad sponsored software is usually free (beer) software."
Not always. I can think of quite a few games with in game ads that are not free.
I have an almost 3 year old at home that runs around grabbing things and shrieking 'mine'. I am reminded of slashdot and all the people running around saying 'free'. Most of the time she gets her way, which doesn't make her right anymore than it does the freedom crowd.
And are you a lawyer? Cause it seems like you understanding of the law is that only lawyers can claim understanding.
Law is understandable. It really is just common sense. That's why the jury is so important. When you think of the law, try to imagine what 10 average people would think, not what some ambulance chasing, paper pushing, pencil necked, money grubbing lawyer would think. Average people want the law to work so they can go on with their lives and not feel bad about their decision, average lawyer wants the law to work for them so they can become a partner and buy a new bmw.
Doctors, lawyers, scientists, politicians were all held in high esteem by past generations and usually for good reason. Now, it seems like they are all just out to make a buck.
"While there are some rather gaping holes the standard model cannot explain, people like it because it has made stunningly accurate predictions (e.g. the COBE data)."
Which is exactly the point. The COBE data doesn't line up with expectations. The standard model never predicted dark matter or dark energy, they were added because the standard model fails without them. That's a big difference. I think Albert Einstein would be very skeptical of the practices of modern physicists.
Anywhile, people like the standard model because they have been taught that it is correct and have since learned that it gets funded. Plus everyone likes something for nothing which is what the Big Bang is all about, that and we all used to occupy the same space, which is very new agey.
The answer to all questions is Yes, No and Who Cares.
YES:
The GPL3 will drive Tivo type producers away from GPL3 code and thus drive Tivo type users away from GPL3 code.
NO:
Most users are completely ignorant about the existence of GPL3.
WHO CARES:
Companies in countries without strong copyright laws will use whatever suits their interests.
So there you have it. Next week we'll be showing how the answers to "Does a bear shiet in the woods" and "Does the Pope wear a funny hat" are both Yes, No and Who Cares.
Saying a thing and having it be true are two different things. Miguel is just acknowledging the futility of making a pledge about not violating patents he is not aware of existing.
As many people are quick to point out, Microsoft has more to lose by disclosing which of its many stupid patents the various pieces of software often refered to (rightly or wrongly) as Linux may be violating. If and when they release that list, then Miguel, and probably everyone else with half a brain, will be able to say whether or not their software is patent encumbered.
Only a Stallman type would say in advance that their code is not violating any patents. It's probably in the GPL somewhere.
Marooned in Realtime and A Deepness in the Sky are both great reads on their own, but the first is a sequel and the other is a prequel, if I'm not mistaken. I would recommend reading them in the order they were written.
I keep hoping that Mr Vinge will write a sequel to A Fire Upon the Deep, which I consider to be his best book and definately top 10 SF all time.
And the ISO is probably flush with cash in a lot of new places from all the new members. That, in and of itself, should be enough for anyone.
Video recorders didn't distribute copies of films before they were released. That's a big difference.
Does fair use cover posting the ending of a new movie the day before it is released? If I was a studio, I would be worried. The internet was built on trust. The next version of the internet sadly may not be because of the actions of a few very selfish people.
"every switch in the US does have the capability to be tapped without anyone knowing it"
Here's my analogy for this statement:
Every dog in the US does have the capability to use the toilet and without anyone knowing it.
But I don't think for a minute that every dog in the US is using the toilet. Maybe 10 tops. Cats are another story altogether. Even then, a small fraction.
Saying something does have the capability is meaningless. It is hard to search a word document broken up amongst multiple fragments of packets that take different paths to get to their destination in realtime. It is even harder when the language is not english (remember we're dumb Americans). It is even harder still when the people communicating are using code. Those things take time, even if it's a simple cypher.
As far as no one noticing, wouldn't there have to be some infrastructure from the switches? Are they using the internet to send these ghost packets? Surely someone would have seen them or noticed them. Radio signals? Satelite uplink? The electrical grid?
Know how many switches there are in the world? Know how many telephone companies? Do you think the NSA has taps in all those switches and at all those telephone companies? Do you think they can really divert things in real time? Don't ya think someone at one of these companies would notice that everything has redundant lines that they are not even using.
I think you are a nutter who has no clue what you are talking about. As far as analysis, I'm not talking about looking at headers (trivial), I'm talking about decoding beyond the TCP level and dealing with things like packet fragmentation (both non-trivial) just to get to any real data. Sure, computers can help, but try to keep up with just those two things in real time on a terrabit link.
Analysis of the real data is very non-trivial. Take that terrabit link, how much real data will it generate in an hour? A lot. Now you have a big pile of data, but someone still has to look thru it. It may be in code, it may be completely meaningless or it may be in another language all together.
But don't let that dissuade you that the evil US is out to get you and your tinfoil hat.
If you want something for nothing, there are plenty of places on the web that have free stuff. There's free music, free movies, free books, all available right now. Just read through some of the posts and you will find links to the same.
On the other hand, taking something that is not free, is theft, pure and simple. You may not like how something is distributed, you may think the thing is overpriced, you may not like the restrictions, but that does not justify theft.
If you weirdos get your way and copyright is abolished, and it aint gonna happen, there would be no incentive at all to produce anything. Do you think the movie studios are going to keep making movies when everyone is just downloading and watching them at home? It's not just celebrities involved in making a movie. There are a lot of people from caterers to grips involved. When you steal a movie, you're stealing from the caterers and grips as much as you are stealing from a studio.
Personally, I think planned obsolescence is a more worisome trend. There is always at least one little part that's only purpose is to fail. The cd and dvd formats are a good example. They scratch or get dirty and then stop working. Cripes, couldn't they have but 5 cents worth of plastic around these things like 3.5 inch floppies had. But then they would last forever (or at least as long as a cassete tape).
"An email to the local FBI offices would have prevented 9/11."
An email from Mohammed Attah on 9/10 telling his current location and his plans, maybe.
What exactly was the information that the NSA was supposed to send? Who at the FBI were they supposed to send it too? I'll stand by my claim that this is Monday morning quarterbacking (20/20 hindsight to you non-yanks).
"I recognize the need for separation but exceptions need to be in place for national emergencies."
What we really need then would be a national emergency forecasting system so that the road blocks could be taken down until the national emergency is lifted. Better yet, lets just develop minority report capabilities. I hear that the CoS has OT IVs available who can do this with their eyes closed.