"They can't just block small sections of netblocks (because a spam-happy ISP will just allocate new IP's to their paying spammer customer) - the only way they can police the offence is to ban the block."
Of course they can. What ever happened to erring on the side of caution? If the ISP hands the spammers new IPs (and a lot of ISPs won't), then go ahead and block those too.
When some thing like DRM blocks our fair use, we are quick to point to the betamax case and demand a presumption of innocence. So why try and say its fine to black hole a whole subnet regarless of the other innocent people that are using it?
Surely you don't believe a '3 month' promise on this particular issue counts for much.
There is no problem with the act of people's number plates being scanned in Florida (its not even a place I am going to visit in the next few years.) The only problem here is the fact that as technology lets people do this, it will happen more and more. The 3 month rule could change next week.
Slashdot Mirror
"They can't just block small sections of netblocks (because a spam-happy ISP will just allocate new IP's to their paying spammer customer) - the only way they can police the offence is to ban the block." Of course they can. What ever happened to erring on the side of caution? If the ISP hands the spammers new IPs (and a lot of ISPs won't), then go ahead and block those too. When some thing like DRM blocks our fair use, we are quick to point to the betamax case and demand a presumption of innocence. So why try and say its fine to black hole a whole subnet regarless of the other innocent people that are using it?
Surely you don't believe a '3 month' promise on this particular issue counts for much.
There is no problem with the act of people's number plates being scanned in Florida (its not even a place I am going to visit in the next few years.)
The only problem here is the fact that as technology lets people do this, it will happen more and more. The 3 month rule could change next week.