A couple of points seem to be missing from the discussion here.
First, is the ISP's ability to volunteer the information. If I were on the receiving end of that fax, I would have provided the information too (once I was sure it really was the police, and not just some scam). My defense to criticism would be: -illegal activity/failing to secure your system puts you in breach of your TOS*. We owe you nothing. -they're our records we can do whatever we want with them. You breached your TOS, remember. -we are a good Canadian company and don't fear the police. In fact we want to help them in their efforts to get the bad people off the streets.
Another point is that having an IP address does not mean charges will be laid. It is mearly one step in the investigation.
*These are both terms in my ISP's TOS. I should also point out that my ISP has refused to give IP's to copywrite lawyers waving civil lawsuits around. I think its fair to say that criminal code would be handled differently.
the article only seems to look at on-line email services (gmail, aol, hotmail...). I had expected them to address what this practice is doing to corperate mail servers.
Or is this article just trying to tell the suits that they can use gmail and to quit harrassing tech support for a larger mailbox?
I very much agree with your view of the college - student relationship. I'm paying money to be there, I have reasonable demands and expectations that I require to be met. Same as if I were buying goods or services from any business.
If the role of colleges is to prepare us for the workforce / life in the real world, perhaps they should demonstrate how lapses in judgement can get you fired, no matter how prestigious you think you are.
Don't most IT'ers make enough to not have side job
not if you're just starting out, have a student loan, bought a new car (because you have to respond to calls at stupid hours in stupid places), want to save up for a house......
personally, being on call 1 week in 3 totally screws up being able to have a side job.
And my point is that if/when somebody notices you're missing, S&R WILL be called out. Whether you want them or not.
It doesn't matter if you sign some waiver, or swear up and down that you want to offer yourself up as bear food, our society has chosen to look after its members in spite of their incompetance.
A lot of folks who go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will not appeal to most of them
I don't care what appeals to you. If you expect S&R to bail you out of a mess, a little RFID tag is not too much to ask.
Believing that "Darwin doesn't apply to me" is often the first step in proving that it does.
regional legislation in a global economy: perhaps there's better wording for this. what i'm referring to is products that are made for a specific countries copywright, digital rights management, and other laws, and being released without changes to other countries.Should Canada, Japan etc have to put up with the consequences of American legislation (eg DMCA).
This works both ways. Websites hosted in other countries that are accessed from places where the content of that website is illegal.
When the Monsanto agent/sale rep/dealer shows up, he's packing a contract that is a half inch thick and written in greek. You start to read it, but it's not easy to understand, pretty soon your eyes just glaze over, and you sign the bottom line. Hiding somewhere in there is a clause that lets Monsanto reps have access to your land (even if its posted no trespassing) so they can check to see if you've kept up your end of the contract. Sound like any EULA you've ever read? This farmer hasn't broken any laws. He's not accused of breaking any laws. All of this is because of a contract. The Monsanto reps only had to find some traces of the genetic markers in his field. Traces do the farmer no good at all. Roundup is a herbicide that kills broadleaf plants, including non-modified canola. To get any value from the 'illegitimate' plants, the whole field would have to have been of roundup ready canola.(so he could spray the field, and not kill off his own crop). In my opinion, this case legitimizes all the things we fear from abusive EULAs.It legitimizes giving up your rights to a contract that you can't be expected to understand. It legitimizes giving up those rights, even after the practical use of the contract expire (I've uninstalled MediaPlayer, but I can't unsign the Licence agreement). It legitimizes contract law over common sense. Today its Monsanto. Tomorrow it could be Mircrosoft, or RIAA (ever read the small print on the cd case before you buy it?).
i've done an inventory here:
number of original CD's: 97
number of 'burned' cd's (with original): 23
number of 'burned' cd's (no original): 4
number of non music burned cd's: 26
the thing that bugs me is that there is always an assumption that the cd-r will be used for illegal music. that just isn't true.
i live in Canada and have been given the 'privilege' of paying a levy to the artist's organization/union for every CD-r that i buy. of the lot that i have, i think only 4 would qualify as fee-worthy. and even so, not illegal, because i have paid the fee (my intepretation of the law. shared by many)
i made duplicates of my favourite music because i spent a lot of time on the road, and i kept the original CD's at home. when handleing and sunshine wreck a cd, it only costs me a buck to burn another. fair use.
i shouldn't have to pay a levy to the artists for my copy of linux. i shouldn't be accused of being a thief by some jack-ass-in-a-tie just because i bought a stack of blank cd-r.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of points seem to be missing from the discussion here.
First, is the ISP's ability to volunteer the information. If I were on the receiving end of that fax, I would have provided the information too (once I was sure it really was the police, and not just some scam). My defense to criticism would be:
-illegal activity/failing to secure your system puts you in breach of your TOS*. We owe you nothing.
-they're our records we can do whatever we want with them. You breached your TOS, remember.
-we are a good Canadian company and don't fear the police. In fact we want to help them in their efforts to get the bad people off the streets.
Another point is that having an IP address does not mean charges will be laid. It is mearly one step in the investigation.
*These are both terms in my ISP's TOS. I should also point out that my ISP has refused to give IP's to copywrite lawyers waving civil lawsuits around. I think its fair to say that criminal code would be handled differently.
Why we all have legit full versions of XP lying about after we bought full versions of Vista to upgrade our systems.
Really.
And some of us also have liscences left on our action pack subscriptions.
But the diplomats had a pack of hamburger and a couple 2x4's in their truck and weren't allowed to cross the border.....
You can take your ball and go home... we'd rather play hockey, anyway.
the article only seems to look at on-line email services (gmail, aol, hotmail...). I had expected them to address what this practice is doing to corperate mail servers. Or is this article just trying to tell the suits that they can use gmail and to quit harrassing tech support for a larger mailbox?
I very much agree with your view of the college - student relationship. I'm paying money to be there, I have reasonable demands and expectations that I require to be met. Same as if I were buying goods or services from any business.
If the role of colleges is to prepare us for the workforce / life in the real world, perhaps they should demonstrate how lapses in judgement can get you fired, no matter how prestigious you think you are.
not if you're just starting out, have a student loan, bought a new car (because you have to respond to calls at stupid hours in stupid places), want to save up for a house......
personally, being on call 1 week in 3 totally screws up being able to have a side job.
"N, ay?"
"D, ay?"
Yet another testement to the wonderful public education system found south of 49.
It's correctly spelt:
"C, eh?"
"N, eh?"
"D, eh?"
Personally, I blame Webster's policy of "spell it how you want, we'll make it legit"
So long as we have Stompin' Tom Connors, we'll be happy.
It doesn't matter if you sign some waiver, or swear up and down that you want to offer yourself up as bear food, our society has chosen to look after its members in spite of their incompetance.
A lot of folks who go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will not appeal to most of them
I don't care what appeals to you. If you expect S&R to bail you out of a mess, a little RFID tag is not too much to ask.
Believing that "Darwin doesn't apply to me" is often the first step in proving that it does.
regional legislation in a global economy: perhaps there's better wording for this. what i'm referring to is products that are made for a specific countries copywright, digital rights management, and other laws, and being released without changes to other countries.Should Canada, Japan etc have to put up with the consequences of American legislation (eg DMCA). This works both ways. Websites hosted in other countries that are accessed from places where the content of that website is illegal.
When the Monsanto agent/sale rep/dealer shows up, he's packing a contract that is a half inch thick and written in greek. You start to read it, but it's not easy to understand, pretty soon your eyes just glaze over, and you sign the bottom line. Hiding somewhere in there is a clause that lets Monsanto reps have access to your land (even if its posted no trespassing) so they can check to see if you've kept up your end of the contract. Sound like any EULA you've ever read?
This farmer hasn't broken any laws. He's not accused of breaking any laws. All of this is because of a contract.
The Monsanto reps only had to find some traces of the genetic markers in his field. Traces do the farmer no good at all. Roundup is a herbicide that kills broadleaf plants, including non-modified canola. To get any value from the 'illegitimate' plants, the whole field would have to have been of roundup ready canola.(so he could spray the field, and not kill off his own crop).
In my opinion, this case legitimizes all the things we fear from abusive EULAs.It legitimizes giving up your rights to a contract that you can't be expected to understand. It legitimizes giving up those rights, even after the practical use of the contract expire (I've uninstalled MediaPlayer, but I can't unsign the Licence agreement). It legitimizes contract law over common sense.
Today its Monsanto. Tomorrow it could be Mircrosoft, or RIAA (ever read the small print on the cd case before you buy it?).
i believe, however that demand is exceeding production, even though we pay a premium for 'green power'. but its a fee i'm willing to pay.
i've done an inventory here: number of original CD's: 97 number of 'burned' cd's (with original): 23 number of 'burned' cd's (no original): 4 number of non music burned cd's: 26 the thing that bugs me is that there is always an assumption that the cd-r will be used for illegal music. that just isn't true. i live in Canada and have been given the 'privilege' of paying a levy to the artist's organization/union for every CD-r that i buy. of the lot that i have, i think only 4 would qualify as fee-worthy. and even so, not illegal, because i have paid the fee (my intepretation of the law. shared by many) i made duplicates of my favourite music because i spent a lot of time on the road, and i kept the original CD's at home. when handleing and sunshine wreck a cd, it only costs me a buck to burn another. fair use. i shouldn't have to pay a levy to the artists for my copy of linux. i shouldn't be accused of being a thief by some jack-ass-in-a-tie just because i bought a stack of blank cd-r.