Yes, of course, because only terrorists/hackers/(insert keyword here) would ever use or appreciate open and available wireless. Are you going to campaign against all the cybercafes, libraries, kinkos, and wireless hotspots open to the public throughout the nation as all being irresponsible? No, of course not; because it's much easier to simply legislate it and let the cops waste their time arresting people for nothing. I much prefer to not treat people as children.
What's irresponsible is those who would use someone's gift against another. If they give out free coffee at a homeless shelter and someone pours it on another person's head, will you declare that the shelter is "irresponsible"? If there's a problem with my open wireless and someone does something naughty, the feds may have all the logs they want (I log everything) so long as they present a warrant signed by a judge. While they're waiting, I shall invite them to check their email or surf the web on my wide open, free to use wireless network. I might even offer them some coffee if they're nice.
The state government may regulate my wide open wireless network if the good citizens of New Jersey decide they ought to. However, there is no interstate commerce, nor any commerce whatsoever, so any law made by the federal government on the subject ought be considered null and void, as it's a blatant and ridiculous 10th Amendment violation and an absurd encroachment on the sovereignty of the State of New Jersey. States are called states because they are sovereign, and any power not directly given to the federal government by the US Constitution automatically falls into the hands of the state as per the last amendment of the Bill of Rights. Regulation of a service which exists soley within the boarders of my state is implicitly subject to and only to the legislature of my state government. I used to let things like that slide; not anymore. We've given the federal government a lot of slack, and now they're trying to take the whole damn rope. So I say it's time to crack down on abuses like this and start doing it by the book. My wireless router has absolutely nothing to do with national security, and everyone with even half-ass knowledge of what's going on knows it. This is nothing more than ridiculous strutting and posturing by the Dept of Homeland Insecurity and the federal government. They need to quite waving their dicks around at the American people and start figuring something that will actually provide security to the American people without violating every single principle on which this country was founded. They need to look for ways to make us safer without stripping us of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Flooding the FBI, DOJ, and DOD with the personal history of every American citizen will make their job infinitely harder. Now, instead of looking for a needle in a haystack, they're looking for a needle in an ocean of needles. If ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected means we aren't as safe as me might otherwise be, then so be it. As a great man once said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." Those are the words of a true American hero. This ridiculous, "take whatever rights you need, just please don't let them hurt me" comes from the lips of a fucking coward. You wanna live in a brave new world? You really want to win the war on terror? Then grow a pair, stand up, and yell to all who will listen, "you may take our lives, but you'll never take our FREEDOM!"
(P.S. To the previous poster: the first two paragraphs were directed to you as a response to your post. The rest is another one of my rants directed towards the American people. Please do not take offense to anything said, as it was not intended to offend or degrade you in any way.)
"How did you measure 7 billionths of a processor cycle?"
Top10 Answers:
10) With a Ruler 9) Very Carefully 8) Rather Quickly 7) With a Stopwatch 6) Listened Carefully 5) Did it 7 Billion times 4) Measured it against how long CmdrTaco lasts in bed 3) Had the Comp travelling at.994c 2) Rough Guess
And the number 1 answer: 1) Rounded up from 6.9 billionths of a processor cycle
I already have patents on patents and lawsuits. So when your lawyer is done with him, kindly send him to me to discuss how much you will pay me for infringing on my patents.
(P.S. My name is Trademarked, so good luck figuring out how to write the check. Try making it out to cash... if you feel you can trust me;) )
"Does this mean that Phoenix renders a blank page faster than any other browser?"
On a P4 3.06GHz (with SMT enabled), Radeon 9700 pro, 1GB PC2700, 18GB Cheetah X15 15,000 RPM SCSI hard drive, the Opera browser rendered a blank page 0.00000000234 nanoseconds faster than Phoenix 0.5. I suppose this means there's room for improvement before 0.6 in the blank page rendering benchmark.
Feel free to continue your thoughts in my journal when you're feeling better.
Just to fill you in on what's been happening, you can no have everything from your home to your library records to your computer legally searched without you ever knowing about it, and you can now be imprisoned secretly without a trial for the rest of your life. Those two things basically sum it up, and we already have one American citizen who was arrested on US soil who has been held since May 8th of this year without a phone call, lawyer, hearing, judge, jury, or an ounze of sunlight. He's kept in a windowless room cut off from the outside world in a cell where bright lights shine down on him 24/7. The government was gearing up for a national ID card (show me your papers), and the TIPS program (citizens spying on citizens... basically a KGB/Gestapo on steroids), but those got cut out in the new Homeland Security Act, which creates a massive beaurocracy which promises to get absolutely nothing done, but don't blow the whistle on their failure because they removed whistleblower protections and you might end up in jail.
Basically, our Attorney General (who lost his Senate bid to a dead man, Mel Carnahan) has taken the US Constitution along with the Bill of Rights and run them through shredders, then burned the shredded copies.
It's a bit of a cross between Animal Farm and 1984 right now, but we're just getting started. How do I feel? Scared; angry; pissed off. If you come "home", just remember to watch what you do, what you read, what you say. I honestly feel as though I'm taking a chance by posting this stuff on/., and that's pretty fucking sad. The land of the free, home of the brave is all but lost.
It is Civil Disobedience even if the establishment is unwilling or unable to punish you for it; or simply hasn't gotten around to it yet. The idea of Civil Disobedience is to put yourself at risk for being penalized for breaking the law which you see as unjust, and to be prepared to accept the consequences, that you may, by your arrest, expose the law as unjust and undesirable to the masses. Those participating in sit-ins during the civil rights movement were not always arrested, yet one would have a hard time convincing others that they did not participate in civil disobedience. I certainly do not compare my simple actions to their courageous actions; I only mean to more aptly define the parameters of Civil Disobedience.
In a just world, the place for an unjust person is in the prisons. But that assumes a perfect world in which we instantly know and can perfectly judge who is and is not unjust. In either Thoreau's example or mine (as they are merely inverses of one another), unrealisticly uniform standards of justice and unattainable knowledge are both required. Is it just for a poor man to steal a sheep from a wealthy man to feed his starving family after all other methods of feeding them have failed?
"Not fucked beyond the point of no return, but fucked none the less."
At what point are we fucked past the point of no return? And at what point should we begin thinking about replacing our current government with one that works better for us? Perhaps we should draw up a new Constitution; one that imposes immediate penalties for violations of it and which is clearer about certain points. I'm not suggesting violent overthrow or anything; but there certainly cannot be anything wrong with a peaceful "overthrow" of a corrupt government, right? All I'm saying is that if we do get to the point where we're fucked, shouldn't we at least have some idea of how to replace it and what to replace it with? Suggestions anyone? If anyone's interested, I'll start a journal entry on the subject.
You're probably right, and I'm probably writing down that which is commonly mis-pronounced. What you're saying makes a good bit more sense then what is commonly said (or at least what I hear when someone says it).
Blanket anti-Americanism is, much like other forms of prejudice, a crutch for the weak-minded. It's much easier to simply make broad generalizations about 265 million people than to actually say something of substance, right? If you truly wish to disintigrate (as per your "surface of the sun" statement) 265 million human beings, then I submit that you have surpassed the barbarity of Adolf Hitler himself. Several thousand men and women who were doing nothing but going to their job were murdered en masse. You can critique the foreign policy of the American government, and you can blame American corporations for whatever your nation's financial woes are, but you cannot possibly justify the murder of each person who was killed that day. If you really believe they got what they deserve, then please list all 3000+ Americans killed on Sept 11, 2001 and give a brief description of what each person has done to deserve death. Please think about what you say before you say it. You can blast the American government's past actions all you want, but this wasn't retaliation against a government; it was a summary execution of more than 3000 human beings. That in-it-of-itself is intrinsicly impossible to justify.
You know, I really do wish more people would have the guts to speak up for Jose Padilla. If he didn't hate the US on May 7 (the day before his "arrest"), he sure as hell hates the US now. I would too in his position. At the moment, I'm pushing the ACLU to throw more weight into Padilla's case, because they're slackin' right now IMO. Please, continue to speak on behalf of Padilla so that all Americans may enjoy the rights built upon the graves of those who fought for them. There are people who truly love freedom, and I am one of them; so I therefore applaud your comment and you for speaking the truth in a world gone mad. Please, please continue to speak about what you know in your soul to be good and right.
I just opened my Wireless router wide open. Anyone with an 802.11b network card should have no problem immediately getting an IP address from my router and should have completely open and unrestricted access to the internet from anywhere within about 800ft of my house. I encourage every single one of the 250,000 daily slashdot readers who has a wireless access point or a wireless router to do the same thing. Secure your computers, open your wireless.
To hell with the Dept of Homeland insecurity and their ridiculous ranting. They can take their Gibsonesque FUD elsewhere.
This may be a troll; this may be flaimbait; but please allow me be the first to say:
Fuck The Dept of Homeland Security Fuck John Ashcroft Fuck Tom Ridge Fuck Poindexter
Fuck every single COWARD in this administration who is so afraid of his/her own shadow that they feel the need to break down every door on Earth to hunt down everyone who might be thinking about hurting them. Grow a Goddamn pair and get out of my home; you have no business here. Come back when you have balls and a brain and have a reasonable, legal, Constitutional suggestion for how to truly improve the security of this nation. Until then, just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up because you're not helping. I swear to Christ you people deserve to be put on trial for high treason. You've systematically stripped every single American of his/her rights and freedoms one by one, while simultaneously innundated our primary defenses against terrorists with tons and tons of completely irrelevant information. When we asked for a response to Sept 11, we didn't mean just any response; we wanted a REAL response. What the hell are you people thinking??? Have you all completely lost it?? Has every single person in this administration lost any and all sight of what their job is? Mr President, your job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That is your job description, and you need only worry about that. Please, take a moment to sit down and read the thing some time? If you simply do what it tells you to do, you'll automatically be doing everything that you're supposed to do.
This administration has, in my view, taken a complete "ends justify the means" position, and has decided that the rights, liberties, and lives of the American people are irrelevant sidenotes next to their political agendas. I am, at this point, absolutely disgusted with my own government; and I find that completely fucking pathetic.
I love my country with all my heart, but Goddamn my government's a bitch right now.
Don't worry, folks. I'm in the process of securing trademarks for "Copyright" and "Trademark".. and the patent office is about to approve my requests for patents on "method for obtaining compensation for others' transgressions" (lawsuits), and "method for securing rights of use for a model, practice, or invention" (obtaining patents).
By mid 2003, I'll be ready to sue the bejesus out of the RIAA and MPAA and any other abusive company that's been pissing us off along the way. On that note, any/.-reading lawyers wanna get rich with me?
"If you're in the right, then just a threat of legal action is often enough. If they know they can win, then they'll defend it."
No, if the cost of fighting a court battle (A) is greater than paying out the settlment (B), then settlement B is paid. Otherwise, they fight it out in court and generally win. In your case, They probably looked at how much you wanted, (let's say $10,000), and the legal dept estimated it'd take $100,000 to beat you in court because you really are entitled to the money, so it'll take some extra time and people to slam your case.
If you need any proof, take a look at the insurance business. There's a business that basically lives by hedging bets on who will sue, how much those lawsuits will cost, and how much settlements/payouts/payoffs will cost and rolls everything into a business formula that works.
" This isn't a settlement, this is outright extortion and threatening legal action. "
A threat to do something which is legal, (such as saying, "I'll sue you"), is perfectly legal; at least in the US. Basically, they're telling these people that a lawsuit is on the way, but that they can avoid legal action by entering into a settlement agreement. This is not extortion.
"Consider a bill coming from... the Cable TV company for not watching commercials" "I can't threaten them with legal action like they can."
Welcome to the world of ultra powerful multi-national megacorporations. You can threaten to sue them, but even if you get it into court, you'll most likely not be able to sustain legal action (mainly due to costs) and almost certainly won't be able to afford a legal team capable of matching that of said corporation. The fact is that when it comes to civil lawsuits, the one who has more money to throw at the suit almost always wins. Why is that? Because our justice system wasn't designed with multi-billion dollar corporations paying a 12-lawyer legal team with 50 para-legals in mind. Thomas Jefferson would be offended if he saw what our legal system is used for these days, and he'd probably do a complete re-write on article III.
You can threaten them all you like, and their legal department will file it in the dumpster. Your tax dollars at work.
This isn't like a motor vehicle; the person who owns the ISP account is responsible for how it's used. This is why a company can be liable for its employees' copyright infringment.
Maybe it would be a good idea for them to sell the content they've downloaded on eBay to raise funds for paying the bills or hiring a lawyer... Yeah, I'm sure that'd solve all their problems.
Re:First amendment? Gimme a break!
on
The Wireless City
·
· Score: 2
Well, sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't trolling. On the other hand, calling me names, insulting me, etc simply shows that even you place little value in your argument. So let's take a look at the only identifiable argument in your comment, shall we?
"you are comparing the apples of communications in a private context with the oranges of government attempting to control speech, especially political speech. It is the latter which is protected by the first amendment."
No, I wasn't talking about evesdropping at all. In fact, I don't think I ever once mentioned anything about evesdropping in that comment. The reason? In a public place using a public service, you have little expectation of privacy; especially with something as inherently insecure as 802.11b. On the other hand, the government selectively making websites unavailable to users is censorship, and is a violation of the first amendment as interpreted many, many times by the Supreme Court. The right to be heard is just as important as the right to speak. As for someone giving me internet access, I have a reasonable expectation that they will comply with a privacy policy which is made available to me upon request.
Someone already ripped the part about censorship being legal and right, so I'll work over the next part.
"And it only applies to Americans anyway, not illegal immigrants."
Ever heard the saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? If you deny basic rights to guests in our country (be they here legally or otherwise) then you run the risk of your citizens being treated very poorly elsewhere around the world. If you truly believe in the value of freedom and democracy, then you'll have no problem overlooking where those practicing said freedom are from.
Selectively applied freedom is the definition of tyranny.
Not true at all. John Ashcroft isn't. He lost his election bid to a dead manand neither is this guy.
Re:What about security?
on
The Wireless City
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Please allow me to translate for all left wondering. Note: These are not my views, only what I'm reading between the lines of the previous poster's comments.
"What security precautions have they taken to ensure that terrorists don't utilize this wireless connectivity to access bomb-making instructions from the Internet?"
Are they spying on everyone who uses the network? If not, they should. Can't have those hackers/terrorists/pedophiles/'bad people'/etc using the network; only Good People(tm).
"And even if they've been responsible enough to put a filter on the information available,"
And even if they're 'responsible' enough to censor the information (in violation of the first amendment),
"what about all the non-savvy folk in the park who don't have firewalls?"
We need to protect people from themselves; save the children; treat all people like children - pick any of the above.
"Are we to just stand by while their hard drives are violated by swarthy assailants?"
We need to arrest all 'hackers' and those thinking about 'hacking'. We also need to force security software and anti-virus software on all users of the network regardless of whether it will cause problems for them or whether they want it or not.
Hmm.. wouldn't it be easier to shoot all the citizens instead of trying to mess with all this? That seems to be the Final Solution(tm) you're seeking here anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, of course, because only terrorists/hackers/(insert keyword here) would ever use or appreciate open and available wireless. Are you going to campaign against all the cybercafes, libraries, kinkos, and wireless hotspots open to the public throughout the nation as all being irresponsible? No, of course not; because it's much easier to simply legislate it and let the cops waste their time arresting people for nothing. I much prefer to not treat people as children.
What's irresponsible is those who would use someone's gift against another. If they give out free coffee at a homeless shelter and someone pours it on another person's head, will you declare that the shelter is "irresponsible"? If there's a problem with my open wireless and someone does something naughty, the feds may have all the logs they want (I log everything) so long as they present a warrant signed by a judge. While they're waiting, I shall invite them to check their email or surf the web on my wide open, free to use wireless network. I might even offer them some coffee if they're nice.
The state government may regulate my wide open wireless network if the good citizens of New Jersey decide they ought to. However, there is no interstate commerce, nor any commerce whatsoever, so any law made by the federal government on the subject ought be considered null and void, as it's a blatant and ridiculous 10th Amendment violation and an absurd encroachment on the sovereignty of the State of New Jersey. States are called states because they are sovereign, and any power not directly given to the federal government by the US Constitution automatically falls into the hands of the state as per the last amendment of the Bill of Rights. Regulation of a service which exists soley within the boarders of my state is implicitly subject to and only to the legislature of my state government. I used to let things like that slide; not anymore. We've given the federal government a lot of slack, and now they're trying to take the whole damn rope. So I say it's time to crack down on abuses like this and start doing it by the book. My wireless router has absolutely nothing to do with national security, and everyone with even half-ass knowledge of what's going on knows it. This is nothing more than ridiculous strutting and posturing by the Dept of Homeland Insecurity and the federal government. They need to quite waving their dicks around at the American people and start figuring something that will actually provide security to the American people without violating every single principle on which this country was founded. They need to look for ways to make us safer without stripping us of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Flooding the FBI, DOJ, and DOD with the personal history of every American citizen will make their job infinitely harder. Now, instead of looking for a needle in a haystack, they're looking for a needle in an ocean of needles. If ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected means we aren't as safe as me might otherwise be, then so be it. As a great man once said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." Those are the words of a true American hero. This ridiculous, "take whatever rights you need, just please don't let them hurt me" comes from the lips of a fucking coward. You wanna live in a brave new world? You really want to win the war on terror? Then grow a pair, stand up, and yell to all who will listen, "you may take our lives, but you'll never take our FREEDOM!"
Please see this post for more information.
(P.S. To the previous poster: the first two paragraphs were directed to you as a response to your post. The rest is another one of my rants directed towards the American people. Please do not take offense to anything said, as it was not intended to offend or degrade you in any way.)
"How did you measure 7 billionths of a processor cycle?"
.994c
Top10 Answers:
10) With a Ruler
9) Very Carefully
8) Rather Quickly
7) With a Stopwatch
6) Listened Carefully
5) Did it 7 Billion times
4) Measured it against how long CmdrTaco lasts in bed
3) Had the Comp travelling at
2) Rough Guess
And the number 1 answer:
1) Rounded up from 6.9 billionths of a processor cycle
" I've-already-patented-the-excessive-use-of-hyphens
;) )
You'll-be-hearing-from-my-lawyer."
I already have patents on patents and lawsuits. So when your lawyer is done with him, kindly send him to me to discuss how much you will pay me for infringing on my patents.
(P.S. My name is Trademarked, so good luck figuring out how to write the check. Try making it out to cash... if you feel you can trust me
-Loki(tm)
"Does this mean that Phoenix renders a blank page faster than any other browser?"
On a P4 3.06GHz (with SMT enabled), Radeon 9700 pro, 1GB PC2700, 18GB Cheetah X15 15,000 RPM SCSI hard drive, the Opera browser rendered a blank page 0.00000000234 nanoseconds faster than Phoenix 0.5. I suppose this means there's room for improvement before 0.6 in the blank page rendering benchmark.
Feel free to continue your thoughts in my journal when you're feeling better.
/., and that's pretty fucking sad. The land of the free, home of the brave is all but lost.
Just to fill you in on what's been happening, you can no have everything from your home to your library records to your computer legally searched without you ever knowing about it, and you can now be imprisoned secretly without a trial for the rest of your life. Those two things basically sum it up, and we already have one American citizen who was arrested on US soil who has been held since May 8th of this year without a phone call, lawyer, hearing, judge, jury, or an ounze of sunlight. He's kept in a windowless room cut off from the outside world in a cell where bright lights shine down on him 24/7. The government was gearing up for a national ID card (show me your papers), and the TIPS program (citizens spying on citizens... basically a KGB/Gestapo on steroids), but those got cut out in the new Homeland Security Act, which creates a massive beaurocracy which promises to get absolutely nothing done, but don't blow the whistle on their failure because they removed whistleblower protections and you might end up in jail.
Basically, our Attorney General (who lost his Senate bid to a dead man, Mel Carnahan) has taken the US Constitution along with the Bill of Rights and run them through shredders, then burned the shredded copies.
It's a bit of a cross between Animal Farm and 1984 right now, but we're just getting started. How do I feel? Scared; angry; pissed off. If you come "home", just remember to watch what you do, what you read, what you say. I honestly feel as though I'm taking a chance by posting this stuff on
It is Civil Disobedience even if the establishment is unwilling or unable to punish you for it; or simply hasn't gotten around to it yet. The idea of Civil Disobedience is to put yourself at risk for being penalized for breaking the law which you see as unjust, and to be prepared to accept the consequences, that you may, by your arrest, expose the law as unjust and undesirable to the masses. Those participating in sit-ins during the civil rights movement were not always arrested, yet one would have a hard time convincing others that they did not participate in civil disobedience. I certainly do not compare my simple actions to their courageous actions; I only mean to more aptly define the parameters of Civil Disobedience.
In a just world, the place for an unjust person is in the prisons. But that assumes a perfect world in which we instantly know and can perfectly judge who is and is not unjust. In either Thoreau's example or mine (as they are merely inverses of one another), unrealisticly uniform standards of justice and unattainable knowledge are both required. Is it just for a poor man to steal a sheep from a wealthy man to feed his starving family after all other methods of feeding them have failed?
"Not fucked beyond the point of no return, but fucked none the less."
At what point are we fucked past the point of no return? And at what point should we begin thinking about replacing our current government with one that works better for us? Perhaps we should draw up a new Constitution; one that imposes immediate penalties for violations of it and which is clearer about certain points. I'm not suggesting violent overthrow or anything; but there certainly cannot be anything wrong with a peaceful "overthrow" of a corrupt government, right? All I'm saying is that if we do get to the point where we're fucked, shouldn't we at least have some idea of how to replace it and what to replace it with? Suggestions anyone? If anyone's interested, I'll start a journal entry on the subject.
You're probably right, and I'm probably writing down that which is commonly mis-pronounced. What you're saying makes a good bit more sense then what is commonly said (or at least what I hear when someone says it).
Blanket anti-Americanism is, much like other forms of prejudice, a crutch for the weak-minded. It's much easier to simply make broad generalizations about 265 million people than to actually say something of substance, right? If you truly wish to disintigrate (as per your "surface of the sun" statement) 265 million human beings, then I submit that you have surpassed the barbarity of Adolf Hitler himself. Several thousand men and women who were doing nothing but going to their job were murdered en masse. You can critique the foreign policy of the American government, and you can blame American corporations for whatever your nation's financial woes are, but you cannot possibly justify the murder of each person who was killed that day. If you really believe they got what they deserve, then please list all 3000+ Americans killed on Sept 11, 2001 and give a brief description of what each person has done to deserve death. Please think about what you say before you say it. You can blast the American government's past actions all you want, but this wasn't retaliation against a government; it was a summary execution of more than 3000 human beings. That in-it-of-itself is intrinsicly impossible to justify.
You know, I really do wish more people would have the guts to speak up for Jose Padilla. If he didn't hate the US on May 7 (the day before his "arrest"), he sure as hell hates the US now. I would too in his position. At the moment, I'm pushing the ACLU to throw more weight into Padilla's case, because they're slackin' right now IMO. Please, continue to speak on behalf of Padilla so that all Americans may enjoy the rights built upon the graves of those who fought for them. There are people who truly love freedom, and I am one of them; so I therefore applaud your comment and you for speaking the truth in a world gone mad. Please, please continue to speak about what you know in your soul to be good and right.
I just opened my Wireless router wide open. Anyone with an 802.11b network card should have no problem immediately getting an IP address from my router and should have completely open and unrestricted access to the internet from anywhere within about 800ft of my house. I encourage every single one of the 250,000 daily slashdot readers who has a wireless access point or a wireless router to do the same thing. Secure your computers, open your wireless.
To hell with the Dept of Homeland insecurity and their ridiculous ranting. They can take their Gibsonesque FUD elsewhere.
This may be a troll; this may be flaimbait; but please allow me be the first to say:
Fuck The Dept of Homeland Security
Fuck John Ashcroft
Fuck Tom Ridge
Fuck Poindexter
Fuck every single COWARD in this administration who is so afraid of his/her own shadow that they feel the need to break down every door on Earth to hunt down everyone who might be thinking about hurting them. Grow a Goddamn pair and get out of my home; you have no business here. Come back when you have balls and a brain and have a reasonable, legal, Constitutional suggestion for how to truly improve the security of this nation. Until then, just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up because you're not helping. I swear to Christ you people deserve to be put on trial for high treason. You've systematically stripped every single American of his/her rights and freedoms one by one, while simultaneously innundated our primary defenses against terrorists with tons and tons of completely irrelevant information. When we asked for a response to Sept 11, we didn't mean just any response; we wanted a REAL response. What the hell are you people thinking??? Have you all completely lost it?? Has every single person in this administration lost any and all sight of what their job is? Mr President, your job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That is your job description, and you need only worry about that. Please, take a moment to sit down and read the thing some time? If you simply do what it tells you to do, you'll automatically be doing everything that you're supposed to do.
This administration has, in my view, taken a complete "ends justify the means" position, and has decided that the rights, liberties, and lives of the American people are irrelevant sidenotes next to their political agendas. I am, at this point, absolutely disgusted with my own government; and I find that completely fucking pathetic.
I love my country with all my heart, but Goddamn my government's a bitch right now.
"They felt the American year was killing off their French culture."
... Don't the French usually surrender when that starts happening?
Killing?
Don't worry, folks. I'm in the process of securing trademarks for "Copyright" and "Trademark" .. and the patent office is about to approve my requests for patents on "method for obtaining compensation for others' transgressions" (lawsuits), and "method for securing rights of use for a model, practice, or invention" (obtaining patents).
/.-reading lawyers wanna get rich with me?
By mid 2003, I'll be ready to sue the bejesus out of the RIAA and MPAA and any other abusive company that's been pissing us off along the way. On that note, any
"Oh great! Now we will have to pay them extra NOT to sing. Either way, the cost of taxi rides will go up."
Sounds like some shit Verizon would pull.
"To all Verizon customers: starting Jan 1, 2003, you will be charged a $10 monthly fee to not have your telephone ring 24 hours per day non-stop."
"If you're in the right, then just a threat of legal action is often enough. If they know they can win, then they'll defend it."
No, if the cost of fighting a court battle (A) is greater than paying out the settlment (B), then settlement B is paid. Otherwise, they fight it out in court and generally win. In your case, They probably looked at how much you wanted, (let's say $10,000), and the legal dept estimated it'd take $100,000 to beat you in court because you really are entitled to the money, so it'll take some extra time and people to slam your case.
If you need any proof, take a look at the insurance business. There's a business that basically lives by hedging bets on who will sue, how much those lawsuits will cost, and how much settlements/payouts/payoffs will cost and rolls everything into a business formula that works.
" This isn't a settlement, this is outright extortion and threatening legal action. "
A threat to do something which is legal, (such as saying, "I'll sue you"), is perfectly legal; at least in the US. Basically, they're telling these people that a lawsuit is on the way, but that they can avoid legal action by entering into a settlement agreement. This is not extortion.
"Consider a bill coming from ... the Cable TV company for not watching commercials"
"I can't threaten them with legal action like they can."
Welcome to the world of ultra powerful multi-national megacorporations. You can threaten to sue them, but even if you get it into court, you'll most likely not be able to sustain legal action (mainly due to costs) and almost certainly won't be able to afford a legal team capable of matching that of said corporation. The fact is that when it comes to civil lawsuits, the one who has more money to throw at the suit almost always wins. Why is that? Because our justice system wasn't designed with multi-billion dollar corporations paying a 12-lawyer legal team with 50 para-legals in mind. Thomas Jefferson would be offended if he saw what our legal system is used for these days, and he'd probably do a complete re-write on article III.
You can threaten them all you like, and their legal department will file it in the dumpster. Your tax dollars at work.
"3) which family member used the computer?"
This isn't like a motor vehicle; the person who owns the ISP account is responsible for how it's used. This is why a company can be liable for its employees' copyright infringment.
Settlments in lieu of lawsuits are quite common and perfectly legal in the US, and most other countries I'd suspect.
Maybe it would be a good idea for them to sell the content they've downloaded on eBay to raise funds for paying the bills or hiring a lawyer... Yeah, I'm sure that'd solve all their problems.
Well, sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't trolling. On the other hand, calling me names, insulting me, etc simply shows that even you place little value in your argument. So let's take a look at the only identifiable argument in your comment, shall we?
"you are comparing the apples of communications in a private context with the oranges of government attempting to control speech, especially political speech. It is the latter which is protected by the first amendment."
No, I wasn't talking about evesdropping at all. In fact, I don't think I ever once mentioned anything about evesdropping in that comment. The reason? In a public place using a public service, you have little expectation of privacy; especially with something as inherently insecure as 802.11b. On the other hand, the government selectively making websites unavailable to users is censorship, and is a violation of the first amendment as interpreted many, many times by the Supreme Court. The right to be heard is just as important as the right to speak. As for someone giving me internet access, I have a reasonable expectation that they will comply with a privacy policy which is made available to me upon request.
Someone already ripped the part about censorship being legal and right, so I'll work over the next part.
"And it only applies to Americans anyway, not illegal immigrants."
Ever heard the saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? If you deny basic rights to guests in our country (be they here legally or otherwise) then you run the risk of your citizens being treated very poorly elsewhere around the world. If you truly believe in the value of freedom and democracy, then you'll have no problem overlooking where those practicing said freedom are from.
Selectively applied freedom is the definition of tyranny.
"They are your representitives don't you know?"
Not true at all. John Ashcroft isn't. He lost his election bid to a dead manand neither is this guy.
Please allow me to translate for all left wondering.
Note: These are not my views, only what I'm reading between the lines of the previous poster's comments.
"What security precautions have they taken to ensure that terrorists don't utilize this wireless connectivity to access bomb-making instructions from the Internet?"
Are they spying on everyone who uses the network? If not, they should. Can't have those hackers/terrorists/pedophiles/'bad people'/etc using the network; only Good People(tm).
"And even if they've been responsible enough to put a filter on the information available,"
And even if they're 'responsible' enough to censor the information (in violation of the first amendment),
"what about all the non-savvy folk in the park who don't have firewalls?"
We need to protect people from themselves; save the children; treat all people like children - pick any of the above.
"Are we to just stand by while their hard drives are violated by swarthy assailants?"
We need to arrest all 'hackers' and those thinking about 'hacking'. We also need to force security software and anti-virus software on all users of the network regardless of whether it will cause problems for them or whether they want it or not.
Hmm.. wouldn't it be easier to shoot all the citizens instead of trying to mess with all this? That seems to be the Final Solution(tm) you're seeking here anyway.