The government decides all kinds of interoperability standards for infrastructure. TV, radio, transportation and finance
TV and radio are both transmitted on public airwaves. There is only so much spectrum to go around, so in order to get a license, you must agree to conform to certain standards and specifications. As far as transportation goes, you are also generally using public land. For instance, railway companies generally get heavy discounts from the government on land purchases for tracks, in exchange for conforming to standards. And financial standards are designed to ensure compliance with tax rules, as well as other things.
Sale of music through an online service is a completely private transaction that doesn't directly involve public infrastructure. (Do you really want the Internet to be regarded as a public infrastructure regulated the same way as over-the-air TV broadcasts?) If we allow the government to mandate standards here, what will be next? Super-DMCA laws, or laws *requiring* DRM on all sales of copyrighted content? This is an area where the *market* should decide. Keep the government out!
However, you can't sell pictures of other people's work, including sculpture and architecture, without their permission. The city is breaking the law if they won't let anyone photograph the object
Are you certain of this? IANAL, I'm just asking. The United States Code may not prohibit you from taking pictures for you own use, but does it also preclude other levels of government from placing more restrictions? For instance, there is nothing in the United States Code which says I can't drive down the street where I live at 100 mph, but there are city bylaws which do place speed limits on that road. Many municipalities have bylaws restricting what you can do in city parks. Perhaps Chicago's rules are more restrictive than copyright statutes.
Thats how the cookie crumbles, it's not your fault at all, but it's part of the many risks of running a business.
Well, that's not exactly the point I was trying to make. Yes it is tough luck for the hotel owner, but I am more concerned about the steps hotel owners might take in the future to prevent such things from happening in the first place and the loss of privacy for guests that result.
The situation with a grisly murder is different for two reasons. First, they generally happen rather suddenly, so covert surveillance is not likely to prevent them, and thus no incentive is provided for hotel owners to install secret surveillance cameras in rooms. Second, many people wouldn't be bothered by the fact that a grisly murder took place in their room. Some might even find it exciting. But most people would find it creepy to stay in a room where a child was raped, and others wouldn't want to stay there anyway for fear that people might conclude they requested that room specifically. Nobody wants to look like a creepy pedophile, but many would like to brag that they slept in a room where a grisly murder took place.
The photos were not posted to punish the hotel owner but rather to find the hotel so they could get a list of people staying
I understand that, but as an unintended consequence, the hotel owner is punished since no one will want to stay in that room, or even that hotel since all the rooms probably look more or less alike.
As a result, hotel owners might take it upon themselves to police their guests through video surveillance in order to avoid such problems. That's the only point I was trying to make.
There is no 'interesting line' between privacy and law enforcement.
Okay. Here's the problem I have with the tactics the Toronto police used here. Nobody's going to want to stay in the hotel room where these indiscretions took place. Who would want to sleep on a bed where a 9 year old girl was raped? The hotel owner's not to blame, so why should they be penelized?
You might say the hotel owner should take some responsibility to police its guests. Fine, but do you want hidden security cameras in the hotel rooms you stay in? Would you mind if the midnight desk clerk sat in the back room secretly looking in on you to make sure you're not doing something illegal? The technology to do this is very inexpensive nowadays, and video cameras can be made incredibly small and easily hideable. We don't want to give hotel owners any incentive to do this, but if this kind of police work becomes routine, I fear it will be inevitable. So much for any privacy in your hotel room.
Perhaps you should read the article. The Supreme Court of Norway ruled against the defendant. If you read the article, it states that the District Court ruled with the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal, as you state, reversed the ruling and found in favor of the defendant. The Supreme Court, however, sided with the District Court and found for the Plaintiff.
randparent pointed out a possible third alternative:
The person was using Lynx, the bastard really tried to hack the tsunami relief site, and that's why he was arrested.
I agree. A good analogy to the grandparent's post regarding the child molestor eating an apple is this. Suppose you read a newspaper headline and article about a man arrested on charges of child molestation. Suppose the article was light on details, but a picture is shown of the accused who happens to be eating an apple at the time the picture was taken. Who in their right mind would jump to the conclusion: "Oh my God! The police think he's a child molestor just because he's eating an apple!" I think that's the point the great-grandparent was trying to make, and I think he was rightfully modded Insightful.
Having a human brain in a body incapable of acting as a human being is cruelty matched only by the very worst examples in human history.
So if a pregnant woman discovers through ultrasound that her baby is deformed somehow, or has a genetic disorder that may render it completely or partially paralyzed, she would be ethically obligated to have an abortion?
If Person-A tells Company-B to do something which may or may not be legal to Company-C...
But there's the catch. It is most certainly not illegal for an ISP to block e-mail from a particular domain. ISPs do it all the time. This is why Company B isn't liable. Person A, however, reported on Company C's behavior, and if Person A can't subtantiate those claims, Company C can sue for damages. Even if Person A is vindicated, this can end up costing Person A a lot of money, so Person A might very well settle out of court.
Seems like a million lawyers would jump at a countersuit on this one.
Problem is, many states don't have laws against frivilous lawsuits, so there may be no basis for a countersuit, especially if the spam itself were not illegal. This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America in which there'd be a loser pays system for lawsuits. Sadly, his ideas have been largely forgotten.
How does someone statistically walk down a street?
It's a quantum mechanical thing. Any time you go somewhere you are really taking all possible routes along all possible streets. Only when you are observed do the laws of statistics come into play and the routes collapse into one real route. So the surveillance cameras do indeed play a vital role of providing that observer. Caveat: it's been a while since I studied QM, so I might be slightly wrong here.
So you're saying a bit of unwanted adware on your computer is analogous to your bedroom burning down? Perhaps a better analogy might be that when the ink cartridge on the suit breaks, a bit of ink gets on your shirt as well. I still don't think you'd have much of a case the retailer.
Same way people get away with infringing copyright on a massive scale. They assume since the technology exists to allow them to do what they want, then rules no longer apply. Why shouldn't that work both ways?
Consider that this adware gets installed only if you attempt to download copyrighted material. A good analogy is a clothing store that attaches those little ink cartridges to clothing items that can only be removed by a device at the cash register. If you shoplift a suit, take it home, try to remove the cartridge and the suit that you shoplifted gets squirted with ink, can you sue the store for damaging your clothing?
This is not a "really smart" story, it's a fantasy. It's too many ill-informed people (with too much time on their hands) that have seen "I, Robot".
Well, 20 years ago, in the early days of PCs, people fantasized about the future when all computers would be connected and able to communicate with each other. And when vast stores of information would be available to everyone on their desktop. Also, such fantasies have included voice recognition and video conferencing, as well as video games where the characters looked "real". Well, yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact. And there's no reason to believe that today's science fiction will not be tomorrow's science fact.
There is, of course, some science fiction that defies the laws of physics as we know them. I doubt we'll ever have faster than light travel, or anti-gravity machines for instance. But there is no inherent reason why computing power can't someday reach the level of the human brain. If Moore's law continues, this is supposed to take under 30 years.
There is a world of difference between programming something to *act* as though it has emotions, and something actually having an emotional or original response.
Really? Can you explain precisely what that difference is? Many artificial intelligence programs have been written that can learn and grow beyond the knowledge imparted by the original programmer. As far as emotions go, are you certain that there really is a difference between "simulated" and real emotions?
Not until ICANN became less of an independant organization and more of an elected body.
The danger of making them an elected body is with that mandate comes power. Right now the Internet is basically unregulated. There are certain conventions followed, and certain preferred root nameservers which the vast majority use, but there are basically no rules governing the use of the Internet. This has been a good thing. How many other technologies have transformed the world as rapidly as the Internet has?
If we start building a political structure into the Internet, we will start to have laws and bureaucrats and innovation will suffer. Just look at just about any other areas where government has gotten involved. Soon we'll need licenses just to use the Internet.
What I don't get is why the EU had to reach an agreement with the US? The EU should just use GWB's strategy and do whatever the hell it wants.
Well, neither of the two systems would be useful if the frequencies overlapped and interfered with each other. Also wouldn't be too useful if the satellites collided with each other in their orbits. So some degree of cooperation is necessary.
Beyond that, certain design decisions could be made that allowed the two systems to interoperate in a way that maximized the gain in accuracy obtained with the extra redundancy. In addition it would probably be much easier for the European systems to do their initial calibration if they had cooperation from the US GPS folks.
Since you bring up up germany; do you sincerely beleive that a law designed to stop antisemitic propaganda is just as bad as a law that, say, limits the civil liberties of an ethnic minority like jews (or kurds for that matter).
Absolutely, because a group that is a minority today maybe a majority tomorrow and vice versa. Allow the government to outlaw any form of political speech, even if it may appear motivated by hate, and you open up the door to all kinds of abuse. Ask yourself this question. Which did more to facilitate the rise of Nazi-ism before and during WWII: propaganda against the Jews or government limits on free speech, threatening anyone who spoke out to defend the Jews and reveal the evil that was being perpetrated against them. In the USA, groups such as the KKK are prefectly allowed to spew their propaganda, and yet they remain a small minority and haven't convinced the mainstream population of anything except that they are bigots.
according to the laws of most countries that constitutes libel.
In the US, libel can only be against an individual, not a group, and thus political speech isn't affected in most cases. Also, to prove libel, the injured party must prove the allegations are false and damaging, and in the case of public figures such as politicians, the burden is even higher, so as not to potentially affect any political speech. Also, in the US, libel is a civil, not a criminal offence. There is a huge difference! You can't go to jail or get a criminal record for a civil offence.
Re:As long as they come with an off switch.
on
Spies Riding Shotgun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So I could switch it off at the precise moment that it might become useful to the innocent old dear I'm about to run down by driving like a dickhead?
So, your assumption is that if I want a little privacy, I must be about to commit a crime. Why not insist that I have video cameras installed in my home in case I should decide to commit date rape some evening?
As long as they come with an off switch.
on
Spies Riding Shotgun
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I see nothing inherintly bad with this technology itself. In fact, it could prove quite useful at times. But it is vitally important that buyers be informed of these systems, and they must be equipped with an off switch.
Does anyone know if all existing systems such as On-star can be turned off easily by the driver?
Why should anyone regulate VOIP? If I'm streaming bits from my computer to my friends computer across the country, what business of the government is it if it's voice or anything else.
But one could turn that same argument around and ask: if regular telephone service is regulated, why should VOIP be exempt? Phones are phones so why should it matter if the voices travel over analog lines, or digital lines using the TCP/IP protocol? Why should one be regulated and the other not?
I'm not really in favor of regulation at all, so I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here. But the problem with these kind of analogies is they can be used both ways.
seems that Cananda is the only country to have the sense to tell the music industry to shove it
Are you talking about the same Canada that charges a tax (oops, levy) on all blank media (including data CD-Rs) that is paid out to the record industry?
It's just an ID tag. That's ALL. It has NO history information saved on it. It just uniquely identifies the "wearer" for purposes of database lookups.
Which makes the potential for abuse all the greater. If it were like a Medic Alert bracelet, and just contained a phrase like "allergic to aspirin" I wouldn't be too concerned if someone sniffed it. But a unique ID number could be used in all sorts of nasty ways, even if the sniffer didn't have access to the underlying database. Suppose you walk into a store and buy something. The computer silently reads your ID and creates a new record for you containing all your purchases. If you ever pay by credit card, then your name is linked to that number. Now you walk into any store in that chain and they can keep track not only of what you buy, but what aisles you walk down, and which types of products you stop to look at.
Is this kind of abuse likely? Probably not at the present time, but once most of the population is embedded with unique ID numbers, they can be used for all sorts of other purposes, much like social security numbers are today. (Why do I need an SSN to get a drivers license?)
Slashdot Mirror
TV and radio are both transmitted on public airwaves. There is only so much spectrum to go around, so in order to get a license, you must agree to conform to certain standards and specifications. As far as transportation goes, you are also generally using public land. For instance, railway companies generally get heavy discounts from the government on land purchases for tracks, in exchange for conforming to standards. And financial standards are designed to ensure compliance with tax rules, as well as other things.
Sale of music through an online service is a completely private transaction that doesn't directly involve public infrastructure. (Do you really want the Internet to be regarded as a public infrastructure regulated the same way as over-the-air TV broadcasts?) If we allow the government to mandate standards here, what will be next? Super-DMCA laws, or laws *requiring* DRM on all sales of copyrighted content? This is an area where the *market* should decide. Keep the government out!
Are you certain of this? IANAL, I'm just asking. The United States Code may not prohibit you from taking pictures for you own use, but does it also preclude other levels of government from placing more restrictions? For instance, there is nothing in the United States Code which says I can't drive down the street where I live at 100 mph, but there are city bylaws which do place speed limits on that road. Many municipalities have bylaws restricting what you can do in city parks. Perhaps Chicago's rules are more restrictive than copyright statutes.
Well, that's not exactly the point I was trying to make. Yes it is tough luck for the hotel owner, but I am more concerned about the steps hotel owners might take in the future to prevent such things from happening in the first place and the loss of privacy for guests that result.
The situation with a grisly murder is different for two reasons. First, they generally happen rather suddenly, so covert surveillance is not likely to prevent them, and thus no incentive is provided for hotel owners to install secret surveillance cameras in rooms. Second, many people wouldn't be bothered by the fact that a grisly murder took place in their room. Some might even find it exciting. But most people would find it creepy to stay in a room where a child was raped, and others wouldn't want to stay there anyway for fear that people might conclude they requested that room specifically. Nobody wants to look like a creepy pedophile, but many would like to brag that they slept in a room where a grisly murder took place.
I understand that, but as an unintended consequence, the hotel owner is punished since no one will want to stay in that room, or even that hotel since all the rooms probably look more or less alike.
As a result, hotel owners might take it upon themselves to police their guests through video surveillance in order to avoid such problems. That's the only point I was trying to make.
Okay. Here's the problem I have with the tactics the Toronto police used here. Nobody's going to want to stay in the hotel room where these indiscretions took place. Who would want to sleep on a bed where a 9 year old girl was raped? The hotel owner's not to blame, so why should they be penelized?
You might say the hotel owner should take some responsibility to police its guests. Fine, but do you want hidden security cameras in the hotel rooms you stay in? Would you mind if the midnight desk clerk sat in the back room secretly looking in on you to make sure you're not doing something illegal? The technology to do this is very inexpensive nowadays, and video cameras can be made incredibly small and easily hideable. We don't want to give hotel owners any incentive to do this, but if this kind of police work becomes routine, I fear it will be inevitable. So much for any privacy in your hotel room.
Right. The government would never pass a law that would result in a huge invasion of privacy.
I agree. A good analogy to the grandparent's post regarding the child molestor eating an apple is this. Suppose you read a newspaper headline and article about a man arrested on charges of child molestation. Suppose the article was light on details, but a picture is shown of the accused who happens to be eating an apple at the time the picture was taken. Who in their right mind would jump to the conclusion: "Oh my God! The police think he's a child molestor just because he's eating an apple!" I think that's the point the great-grandparent was trying to make, and I think he was rightfully modded Insightful.
So if a pregnant woman discovers through ultrasound that her baby is deformed somehow, or has a genetic disorder that may render it completely or partially paralyzed, she would be ethically obligated to have an abortion?
But there's the catch. It is most certainly not illegal for an ISP to block e-mail from a particular domain. ISPs do it all the time. This is why Company B isn't liable. Person A, however, reported on Company C's behavior, and if Person A can't subtantiate those claims, Company C can sue for damages. Even if Person A is vindicated, this can end up costing Person A a lot of money, so Person A might very well settle out of court.
Problem is, many states don't have laws against frivilous lawsuits, so there may be no basis for a countersuit, especially if the spam itself were not illegal. This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America in which there'd be a loser pays system for lawsuits. Sadly, his ideas have been largely forgotten.
It's a quantum mechanical thing. Any time you go somewhere you are really taking all possible routes along all possible streets. Only when you are observed do the laws of statistics come into play and the routes collapse into one real route. So the surveillance cameras do indeed play a vital role of providing that observer. Caveat: it's been a while since I studied QM, so I might be slightly wrong here.
Same way people get away with infringing copyright on a massive scale. They assume since the technology exists to allow them to do what they want, then rules no longer apply. Why shouldn't that work both ways?
Consider that this adware gets installed only if you attempt to download copyrighted material. A good analogy is a clothing store that attaches those little ink cartridges to clothing items that can only be removed by a device at the cash register. If you shoplift a suit, take it home, try to remove the cartridge and the suit that you shoplifted gets squirted with ink, can you sue the store for damaging your clothing?
Well, 20 years ago, in the early days of PCs, people fantasized about the future when all computers would be connected and able to communicate with each other. And when vast stores of information would be available to everyone on their desktop. Also, such fantasies have included voice recognition and video conferencing, as well as video games where the characters looked "real". Well, yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact. And there's no reason to believe that today's science fiction will not be tomorrow's science fact.
There is, of course, some science fiction that defies the laws of physics as we know them. I doubt we'll ever have faster than light travel, or anti-gravity machines for instance. But there is no inherent reason why computing power can't someday reach the level of the human brain. If Moore's law continues, this is supposed to take under 30 years.
There is a world of difference between programming something to *act* as though it has emotions, and something actually having an emotional or original response.
Really? Can you explain precisely what that difference is? Many artificial intelligence programs have been written that can learn and grow beyond the knowledge imparted by the original programmer. As far as emotions go, are you certain that there really is a difference between "simulated" and real emotions?
The danger of making them an elected body is with that mandate comes power. Right now the Internet is basically unregulated. There are certain conventions followed, and certain preferred root nameservers which the vast majority use, but there are basically no rules governing the use of the Internet. This has been a good thing. How many other technologies have transformed the world as rapidly as the Internet has?
If we start building a political structure into the Internet, we will start to have laws and bureaucrats and innovation will suffer. Just look at just about any other areas where government has gotten involved. Soon we'll need licenses just to use the Internet.
Well, neither of the two systems would be useful if the frequencies overlapped and interfered with each other. Also wouldn't be too useful if the satellites collided with each other in their orbits. So some degree of cooperation is necessary.
Beyond that, certain design decisions could be made that allowed the two systems to interoperate in a way that maximized the gain in accuracy obtained with the extra redundancy. In addition it would probably be much easier for the European systems to do their initial calibration if they had cooperation from the US GPS folks.
Absolutely, because a group that is a minority today maybe a majority tomorrow and vice versa. Allow the government to outlaw any form of political speech, even if it may appear motivated by hate, and you open up the door to all kinds of abuse. Ask yourself this question. Which did more to facilitate the rise of Nazi-ism before and during WWII: propaganda against the Jews or government limits on free speech, threatening anyone who spoke out to defend the Jews and reveal the evil that was being perpetrated against them. In the USA, groups such as the KKK are prefectly allowed to spew their propaganda, and yet they remain a small minority and haven't convinced the mainstream population of anything except that they are bigots.
according to the laws of most countries that constitutes libel.
In the US, libel can only be against an individual, not a group, and thus political speech isn't affected in most cases. Also, to prove libel, the injured party must prove the allegations are false and damaging, and in the case of public figures such as politicians, the burden is even higher, so as not to potentially affect any political speech. Also, in the US, libel is a civil, not a criminal offence. There is a huge difference! You can't go to jail or get a criminal record for a civil offence.
So, your assumption is that if I want a little privacy, I must be about to commit a crime. Why not insist that I have video cameras installed in my home in case I should decide to commit date rape some evening?
Does anyone know if all existing systems such as On-star can be turned off easily by the driver?
But one could turn that same argument around and ask: if regular telephone service is regulated, why should VOIP be exempt? Phones are phones so why should it matter if the voices travel over analog lines, or digital lines using the TCP/IP protocol? Why should one be regulated and the other not?
I'm not really in favor of regulation at all, so I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here. But the problem with these kind of analogies is they can be used both ways.
Are you talking about the same Canada that charges a tax (oops, levy) on all blank media (including data CD-Rs) that is paid out to the record industry?
Which makes the potential for abuse all the greater. If it were like a Medic Alert bracelet, and just contained a phrase like "allergic to aspirin" I wouldn't be too concerned if someone sniffed it. But a unique ID number could be used in all sorts of nasty ways, even if the sniffer didn't have access to the underlying database. Suppose you walk into a store and buy something. The computer silently reads your ID and creates a new record for you containing all your purchases. If you ever pay by credit card, then your name is linked to that number. Now you walk into any store in that chain and they can keep track not only of what you buy, but what aisles you walk down, and which types of products you stop to look at.
Is this kind of abuse likely? Probably not at the present time, but once most of the population is embedded with unique ID numbers, they can be used for all sorts of other purposes, much like social security numbers are today. (Why do I need an SSN to get a drivers license?)
People better beware of me then. Check out my Slashdot User ID number.
And what exactly does this have to do with RFID tags? Why can't we accomplish the same thing with a card carried in our wallet?