You would be guessing wrongly. However, don't you think that Jury Nullification is _slightly_ out of context here? Donwloading music that was copied and shared *outside* of fair use, in order to avoid paying for it clearly falls under the definition of theft. Using Jury Nullification of Law to justify such actions, makes you not only a thief, it also makes you a bad American.
OK. Most of your points are extremely insightful: P2P _has_ been demonized and the recording industry has its collective head up its a$$, but let's not forget what's festering at the root of this issue: Stealing is still stealing. No matter what impact illicit file sharing has on the wallets of the industry, it is still illegal. If the RIAA were to publish the results of its own study that proved that CD sales were not damaged by music sharing, they would still probably be bringing lawsuits against swappers, and they would still have every right to do so. Just because we don't like a law, doesn't mean it's OK to break it.
OK, I think you're missing the point, and we're moving close the realm of semantics here.
There are plenty of stores (at least in my area, and I'm talking Mom & Pop shops) that don't use UPCs, and will never use RFID. They deal with small manufacturers, suppliers, artisans, etc. who also don't use these tracking devices. Sure, the prices are higher, but then, so is the quality, the service, and yes, privacy. Some of these shops don't even accept credit cards. How's *that* for ensuring privacy? And if there are no stores like this in your area, how about second-hand shops? Thrift stores? Co-op and farmers' markets? What I'm trying to say is that if you only want to shop at Super-Mega-Mart, then yes, they'll be implementing methods of insuring operational efficiency and you're going to have to accept their policies. If you don't like them, then you *can* look for, and find alternatives if you put forth the effort to do so and are willing to accept the tradeoffs of convenience and cost.
Walmart doesn't buy from every manufacturer in the world, so your reasoning that everything will have an RFID tag is flawed. Think about bar coding. Does _everything_ you buy have a bar code on it? Most products do, but not all. There's no way that every manufacturer and every store is going to go with RFID. You may be forced to buy local, handcrafted items from boutique stores, but like I said, you have a choice.
It's refreshing to finally see so much coherent, sensible discussion of this topic. The conspiracy theories are, quite frankly, beginning to wear thin.
When put into perspective, this technology is like so many before it. The _possibilities_ for misuse are there, but the probability of widespread misuse, considering the implementation hurdles, cost, and effectiveness, is far outweighed by its valid uses.
Besides, there will always be vendors who will not use the technology. If you're really concerned about your "privacy," why waste your energy trying to hold back the tide? Take your dollars to the vendor that makes you more comfortable. You _still_ have the freedom of choice.
This goes a bit deeper than the knee-jerk reaction that _always_ follows events like the ones you've described. Although, I'm sure that the reaction by school districts nationwide, to the incident in Columbine made most high schools seem more like prisons to the students, this type of monitoring has become necessary because of tort law rather than criminal concern. Because the school/corporation is responsible for damage done by a student using its computers, and can be financially (and maybe criminally)liable for that damage (not to mention the negative publicity), it is IMPERATIVE TO ITS SURVIVAL for the entity to monitor and control that activity. This is not so much a case of infringed liberties as it is a case of our society (in general) shunning responsibility for its actions and always wanting to point the finger at somebody else. The ill effects of tort law don't just end there. Living in Massachussets, I can't go to the local bar and have more than a few drinks before I'm shut off because some judge decided that if I get in a car accident on my way home and cause damage, injury, or death, the bar is at fault and can be sued! This notion would set our Founding Fathers' heads spinning much faster than a breach of "liberties. "
Not that I think that wholesale monitoring is a good thing (For one thing, it wastes resources that could be put to better use), but I'm loathe to start accusing public and corporate entities of trying to control us, when it is WE who have forced them into this situation with frivolous lawsuits. If judges would stop holding the owners of facilites responsible for their misuse by the users, there would be no need for any of this.
As a musician, I strongly dislike the way that the music industry is run and think that anything bad that happens to them is just desserts, however, when it comes down to it, stealing is stealing. The fact that we know that they're ripping us off doesn't give us the right to do the same. Furthermore, if you choose to cross that line and obtain illegal copies of music (or software for that matter), you ought to be smart enough not to advertise that fact by making your illegal wares available to everybody else (including the folks from whom you stole).
Think about this for a second, everybody laughs when they read the newspaper story about the guy who gets pulled over for speeding and ends up with 15 years in prison because he has a trunk full of dope. Sharing illegal music and software is the same thing. So when you get busted by RIAA or the SIIA, why do you expect sympathy rather than laughter?
Now, getting back on topic, the fact that Universities/Corporations are getting dragged into this mess is a serious issue. The real problem here is that the University is being put in a no-win situation. By surrendering the information, they are made to look like bad guys in the eyes of many. Oh, and has anyone considered the expenses that the university will incur because of issues like this? Implementing policies, procedures and technologies to hinder (note that I said "hinder" and not "prevent") illegal file sharing isn't cheap. How about legal costs?
I wonder why the cost of education continues to rise...
FWIW, I'm assuming you entered this field by your own volition. I don't know who promised you a day full of fun and games, but there's a reason it's called "work." When you work in a support role, you are a member of a service industry. Think about this for a minute. How many IT support personnel have you heard complain about the customer support at Dell, Compaq, (insert vendor name here)... saying that they were unhelpful and should never have a service-type job because they can't deal with their customers? Well guess what? As support personnel, WE too must provide service to our customers, whether they are company employees, or outside clients. People who whine about having to help their users with ridiculously inane "problems" give the rest of us a bad name. I know that most end-users are stupid, but it's our job to make them not feel stupid. If they understood the technology as we do, then we wouldn't have jobs. It's their job to process invoices, generate purchase orders (insert function here)... it's OUR job to help them utilize the business tools that our companies provide. If you want the company to implement computer proficiency testing during the screening process, consider the cost that will be added to employee acquisition. That cost will be reflected the next time you're due for a raise. I too get annoyed when my lunch is disrupted for something that is meaningless to me, however, it may not be meaningless to the user. If you don't want to be pestered while having your lunch, what you need to do is to communicate with your users. Establish clear guidelines for when and what you cannot be contacted. Most users will be very understanding if you put it into terms that are dear to them: "You wouldn't want me to interrupt your lunch to ask you the status of an invoice, so it's only fair that you not interrupt my lunch for a non-emergency situation."
If you're not the "communicating" type, you might want to consider another career path. You will never be happy doing this.
OK. You're problem is completely different. Unless you are a consultant and/or have a contract that states that you must provide and pay for a means through which you can be contacted at all times, it s not your responsibility. And if your employer is indeed threatening to fire you because you refuse to bear their business expenses, you shouldn't be talking to Slashdotters, you should be talking to a lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it is. Unless you actually want a JOB in technology.
I trust that another would come along to take their place soon enough. That's the thing about life. There's never seems to be a shortage of a$$holes.
You would be guessing wrongly. However, don't you think that Jury Nullification is _slightly_ out of context here? Donwloading music that was copied and shared *outside* of fair use, in order to avoid paying for it clearly falls under the definition of theft. Using Jury Nullification of Law to justify such actions, makes you not only a thief, it also makes you a bad American.
OK. Most of your points are extremely insightful: P2P _has_ been demonized and the recording industry has its collective head up its a$$, but let's not forget what's festering at the root of this issue: Stealing is still stealing. No matter what impact illicit file sharing has on the wallets of the industry, it is still illegal. If the RIAA were to publish the results of its own study that proved that CD sales were not damaged by music sharing, they would still probably be bringing lawsuits against swappers, and they would still have every right to do so. Just because we don't like a law, doesn't mean it's OK to break it.
OK, I think you're missing the point, and we're moving close the realm of semantics here. There are plenty of stores (at least in my area, and I'm talking Mom & Pop shops) that don't use UPCs, and will never use RFID. They deal with small manufacturers, suppliers, artisans, etc. who also don't use these tracking devices. Sure, the prices are higher, but then, so is the quality, the service, and yes, privacy. Some of these shops don't even accept credit cards. How's *that* for ensuring privacy? And if there are no stores like this in your area, how about second-hand shops? Thrift stores? Co-op and farmers' markets? What I'm trying to say is that if you only want to shop at Super-Mega-Mart, then yes, they'll be implementing methods of insuring operational efficiency and you're going to have to accept their policies. If you don't like them, then you *can* look for, and find alternatives if you put forth the effort to do so and are willing to accept the tradeoffs of convenience and cost.
Walmart doesn't buy from every manufacturer in the world, so your reasoning that everything will have an RFID tag is flawed. Think about bar coding. Does _everything_ you buy have a bar code on it? Most products do, but not all. There's no way that every manufacturer and every store is going to go with RFID. You may be forced to buy local, handcrafted items from boutique stores, but like I said, you have a choice.
It's refreshing to finally see so much coherent, sensible discussion of this topic. The conspiracy theories are, quite frankly, beginning to wear thin.
When put into perspective, this technology is like so many before it. The _possibilities_ for misuse are there, but the probability of widespread misuse, considering the implementation hurdles, cost, and effectiveness, is far outweighed by its valid uses.
Besides, there will always be vendors who will not use the technology. If you're really concerned about your "privacy," why waste your energy trying to hold back the tide? Take your dollars to the vendor that makes you more comfortable. You _still_ have the freedom of choice.
This goes a bit deeper than the knee-jerk reaction that _always_ follows events like the ones you've described. Although, I'm sure that the reaction by school districts nationwide, to the incident in Columbine made most high schools seem more like prisons to the students, this type of monitoring has become necessary because of tort law rather than criminal concern. Because the school/corporation is responsible for damage done by a student using its computers, and can be financially (and maybe criminally)liable for that damage (not to mention the negative publicity), it is IMPERATIVE TO ITS SURVIVAL for the entity to monitor and control that activity. This is not so much a case of infringed liberties as it is a case of our society (in general) shunning responsibility for its actions and always wanting to point the finger at somebody else. The ill effects of tort law don't just end there. Living in Massachussets, I can't go to the local bar and have more than a few drinks before I'm shut off because some judge decided that if I get in a car accident on my way home and cause damage, injury, or death, the bar is at fault and can be sued! This notion would set our Founding Fathers' heads spinning much faster than a breach of "liberties. "
Not that I think that wholesale monitoring is a good thing (For one thing, it wastes resources that could be put to better use), but I'm loathe to start accusing public and corporate entities of trying to control us, when it is WE who have forced them into this situation with frivolous lawsuits. If judges would stop holding the owners of facilites responsible for their misuse by the users, there would be no need for any of this.
Hello!?! This is the horse. I'm dead, so you can stop hitting me.
Accept it now and save yourself years of worry and frustration. Privacy is nothing more than a nostalgic memory.
If you want privacy, dig a hole, climb in it, and pull the dirt over yourself.
As a musician, I strongly dislike the way that the music industry is run and think that anything bad that happens to them is just desserts, however, when it comes down to it, stealing is stealing. The fact that we know that they're ripping us off doesn't give us the right to do the same. Furthermore, if you choose to cross that line and obtain illegal copies of music (or software for that matter), you ought to be smart enough not to advertise that fact by making your illegal wares available to everybody else (including the folks from whom you stole).
Think about this for a second, everybody laughs when they read the newspaper story about the guy who gets pulled over for speeding and ends up with 15 years in prison because he has a trunk full of dope. Sharing illegal music and software is the same thing. So when you get busted by RIAA or the SIIA, why do you expect sympathy rather than laughter?
Now, getting back on topic, the fact that Universities/Corporations are getting dragged into this mess is a serious issue. The real problem here is that the University is being put in a no-win situation. By surrendering the information, they are made to look like bad guys in the eyes of many. Oh, and has anyone considered the expenses that the university will incur because of issues like this? Implementing policies, procedures and technologies to hinder (note that I said "hinder" and not "prevent") illegal file sharing isn't cheap. How about legal costs?
I wonder why the cost of education continues to rise...
And now it's stuck with me. Very colorful metaphor.
FWIW, I'm assuming you entered this field by your own volition. I don't know who promised you a day full of fun and games, but there's a reason it's called "work." When you work in a support role, you are a member of a service industry. Think about this for a minute. How many IT support personnel have you heard complain about the customer support at Dell, Compaq, (insert vendor name here)... saying that they were unhelpful and should never have a service-type job because they can't deal with their customers? Well guess what? As support personnel, WE too must provide service to our customers, whether they are company employees, or outside clients. People who whine about having to help their users with ridiculously inane "problems" give the rest of us a bad name. I know that most end-users are stupid, but it's our job to make them not feel stupid. If they understood the technology as we do, then we wouldn't have jobs. It's their job to process invoices, generate purchase orders (insert function here)... it's OUR job to help them utilize the business tools that our companies provide. If you want the company to implement computer proficiency testing during the screening process, consider the cost that will be added to employee acquisition. That cost will be reflected the next time you're due for a raise. I too get annoyed when my lunch is disrupted for something that is meaningless to me, however, it may not be meaningless to the user. If you don't want to be pestered while having your lunch, what you need to do is to communicate with your users. Establish clear guidelines for when and what you cannot be contacted. Most users will be very understanding if you put it into terms that are dear to them: "You wouldn't want me to interrupt your lunch to ask you the status of an invoice, so it's only fair that you not interrupt my lunch for a non-emergency situation." If you're not the "communicating" type, you might want to consider another career path. You will never be happy doing this.
OK. You're problem is completely different. Unless you are a consultant and/or have a contract that states that you must provide and pay for a means through which you can be contacted at all times, it
s not your responsibility. And if your employer is indeed threatening to fire you because you refuse to bear their business expenses, you shouldn't be talking to Slashdotters, you should be talking to a lawyer.