The proposed law will ban sending commercial emails without the recipient's prior consent
Perhaps the law could also prohibit businesses paying someone to send unsolicited email - and hold them accountable for the behaviour of the person they hire to send their (solicited) commercial emails.
It seems to me that this would have two effects:
1) It would make unsolicited email unprofitable, and
2) It would force businesses to keep their emailers on a short leash.
I suppose there must be something wrong with that idea or it would have been suggested long ago...
Innocent until proven guilty. Just because the goverment seems to be ignoring that matter doesn't mean we need lose sight of it.
I quite agree. I have seen far too many cases of trial by press release. Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence until their guilt is proven beyond resonable doubt in a court of law. It is the foundation of modern Anglo-American Criminal Justice.
And without even hearing the Defence case, I find it very easy to imagine some kid playing with a copy of the worm that he happened to get infected with and then getting turned in to the feds by one of our ever more patriotic/paranoid post-911 citizenry.
The sad part is that even if he is totally innocent (never wrote it, never spread it, never connected to a network) that isn't going to stop the Feds from throwing him in jail, letting him sit for six months, and then making him a plea-bargain deal he can't refuse that leaves him with a 2-5 year jail term and a felony record.
And the worst part is: The Feds will see it as justice because, hey, they KNOW he's guilty.
Fact for the day: The US imprisons a larger percentage of its population than ANY other nation on earth.
Re:writing viruses shouldnt be illegal
on
Blaster Writer Caught
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
writing viruses shouldnt be illegal
I am pretty sure it isn't illegal. What is illegal is putting it on someone's computer or network without permission, intentionally spreading it (in an active form) or allowing it to spread itself across space one does not own.
Since a virus is nothing more than a computer program, it would be incredibly difficult to make writing one illegal without catching a lot of legitimate software in the same net.
eg - Under a literal interpretation of one of Britain's early "anti-virus/anti-trojan" statutes, Windows 95 would have qualified as a 70 megabyte trojan!
Alleged writer. Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
That was pre-911. Now it is "You're guilty because we say so. Either plead guilty now or A) be charged with enough trumped-up bullshit to keep you in jail for life, or B) we will just hold you for eternity as a 'material witness'".
As long as there is profit to be made, there will be an enterprising capitalist there to take advantage.
Quite true. Perhaps the best solution lies in stopping the profit. If it were illegal for businesses to use or pay for spam, then the spammers would drop off because there would no longer be a profit to be made (except of course in the scams). Obviously it would still be a seriously uphill battle, but at least there would be a fighting chance that we do not have now.
Unfortunately, most governments are loathe to interfere with business any more than they have to. Even really slimey businesses.
'Did someone recently wave a flag somewhere that signalled "OK everyone, act like complete c**ts to each other"?'
Yup. It was called "the 1990's" - and it was so popular that it was held over for another decade or so.
Obviously, anything I might say at this point about this type of greed and self-interest being the ultimate expressions of the capitalist philosophy would have to be considered a "troll" or "Flamebait", so I won't say any of those things...
SCO is obviously going to pick a soft target and hope for a settlement. Then, bolstered by this, they will attempt to intimidate a few hundred million out of other users by making "lawsuit" noises.
If we are to truly take the wind from SCO's sails at this point, we need to cut off their revenue stream. To do this, one of the injured parties (any of the Linux Distributors, for example) must go into court and ask for an injunction to prevent SCO from attempting to collect any licence fees from Linux users or distributors until such time as they prove their claims - either to the Kernel developers or (failing that) to a court of law. Since SCO has a) announced a price list, and b) sold a licence they cannot argue that they are NOT pursuing licencing, so injunctive relief is a valid request for Linux distributors at this time.
Because SCO's current action smells more of extortion than of copyright-licencing there is a pretty good chance that any halfway-decent lawyer (sorry for the oxymoron) could walk out court with a temporary injunction almost immediately
I would think that the sheer insanity of SCO's position ("You have our code but we won't tell you what it is") would be all the excuse a judge would need to step in.
This would cut SCO off from their anticipated revenue stream for the forseeable future, and could even trigger a stock collapse since there was no likelihood of any corporate growth until the completion of the lawsuits sometime in the next few decades.
Ah. Good point. I suppose it that case they would have threatened to strip him of his citizenship and then deport him back to the Middle-east, probably telling him that he might never see his wife and kids again...
After having weasel DOJ lawyers wave "possible life inprisonment" and "possible execution" in his face every day for the past 4 months - possibly even threatening to deport his family - of course he pleaded guilty to a 7 year sentence. They probably threatened to delay the trial that long and just leave him in jail - or send him to concentration camp X-Ray.
I, for one, don't know if he is guilty or innocent, but I sure-as-hell am not going to believe a plea bargain arragement. Most of you predicted that the Patriot Act would be used in exactly that way - to force plea agreements.
As far as I am concerned, the government's case remains unproven.
Who's for getting some high profile advocates to claim that SCO has pirated BSD code? If they can spread FUD, why can't the open source community?
Why do you think that is just FUD? Some fairly respected journalists have stated that they have sources inside SCO who anonymously claim that just that sort of action has occured.
While I am sure that SCO would have been overjoyed if their infiltrators had managed to start a riot, I doubt if they cared very much either way.
The purpose of infiltrating the demonstration with pre-made signs - particularly signs bearing slogans linking Linux with unlawful activities, Communism, support for piracy, or Iraq - was to tarnish the reputations of Linux supporters, at least in the eyes of the mainstream press and the Tech-ignorant public in general.
If the public turns against Linux it doesn't matter if SCO wins or loses the lawsuit - SCO's masters [Microsoft] will see to it SCO doesn't suffer.
In my experience, a far better book for beginners than Qbasic for Dummies is The Idiot's Guide to Qbasic. It is very straight forward and much easier for an absolute beginner to understand.
Setting the Wayback machine a bit further, Perhaps the best "beginner's basic" book that I have ever seen was How to program the Commodore 64 (If you have never programmed a computer before). Although very system specific, it explained concepts like arrays in language a beginner might actually understand.
M$ gives them money, they knowingly distributed their code under the umbrella of GPL, now they are going after linux - perhaps to try to test, and defeat, GPL.
And even if MS/SCO loses, Microsoft wins - because Bill will then be able to point to the case as graphic proof of the "viral nature" of the GPL.
No wonder this whole deal has the sickly stench of Microsoft about it. For them it is a no-lose situation. (Unless, of course, Novell manages to derail it...)
this is the way it had to end-- the RIAA would lose face to the public if they went for criminal charges,
Yes, a face-saving solution was important to the RIAA. But,when one considers the Filesharing decision last week that let Streamcast and Grokster off the hook, Does anyone think it is possible that the settlement reached is NOT to pay $17000, but to say they have agreed to pay $17000 ?
"Actually, he was held without charge but with the public's knowledge. The parent post is right, this isn't even close to being disappeared,"
Actually, the government wouldn't even admit that they had him for several weeks. And he certainly wasn't given access to legal representation. Then the government declared a fair bit of the information surrounding his case was "secret" and therefore did not have to be revealed in court.
Except for the "never seen again" part, that sounds pretty damn close to "disappeared" to me.
And now that the time initially set by the judge was about to expire, and the court would likely set him free, the feds have charged Hawash with every crime the can think of (If he were a little older, no doubt he would also be charged with the Lindburgh kidnapping) figuring that they can hold him for another year before it is even likely to come to trial.
Then, in 6 months or so, they might offer him a plea bargain "he can't refuse", all the while making noises about executions, life imprisonment, taking away his family's citizenship, etc. Then, once they extort a guilty plea from him, he won't even be able to appeal!
I don't know what we have here, but it sure ain't justice.
"When you compare the actions of John Ashcroft to the 8million Jews killed by Hitler, you trivialize their deaths."
But even Hitler had to start somewhere - detaining Jews without due process, for example.
The "material witness" abductions, Concentration Camp X-ray, and State Security Police/Department of Homeland Security (Gestapo) strike me as a damn fine start for Mr. Ashcroft.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the law could also prohibit businesses paying someone to send unsolicited email - and hold them accountable for the behaviour of the person they hire to send their (solicited) commercial emails.
It seems to me that this would have two effects: 1) It would make unsolicited email unprofitable, and 2) It would force businesses to keep their emailers on a short leash.
I suppose there must be something wrong with that idea or it would have been suggested long ago...
Well... At least it helps us understand the "dot com bubble" a lot better...
I quite agree. I have seen far too many cases of trial by press release. Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence until their guilt is proven beyond resonable doubt in a court of law. It is the foundation of modern Anglo-American Criminal Justice.
And without even hearing the Defence case, I find it very easy to imagine some kid playing with a copy of the worm that he happened to get infected with and then getting turned in to the feds by one of our ever more patriotic/paranoid post-911 citizenry.
The sad part is that even if he is totally innocent (never wrote it, never spread it, never connected to a network) that isn't going to stop the Feds from throwing him in jail, letting him sit for six months, and then making him a plea-bargain deal he can't refuse that leaves him with a 2-5 year jail term and a felony record.
And the worst part is: The Feds will see it as justice because, hey, they KNOW he's guilty.
Fact for the day: The US imprisons a larger percentage of its population than ANY other nation on earth.
I am pretty sure it isn't illegal. What is illegal is putting it on someone's computer or network without permission, intentionally spreading it (in an active form) or allowing it to spread itself across space one does not own.
Since a virus is nothing more than a computer program, it would be incredibly difficult to make writing one illegal without catching a lot of legitimate software in the same net.
eg - Under a literal interpretation of one of Britain's early "anti-virus/anti-trojan" statutes, Windows 95 would have qualified as a 70 megabyte trojan!
Alleged writer. Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
That was pre-911. Now it is "You're guilty because we say so. Either plead guilty now or A) be charged with enough trumped-up bullshit to keep you in jail for life, or B) we will just hold you for eternity as a 'material witness'".
Yeah. And his cellmate won't have to worry about being charged with Statutory Rape, either. ;+)
That just gives the RIAA (or the Israelis) a really good place to kick him.
Quite true. Perhaps the best solution lies in stopping the profit. If it were illegal for businesses to use or pay for spam, then the spammers would drop off because there would no longer be a profit to be made (except of course in the scams). Obviously it would still be a seriously uphill battle, but at least there would be a fighting chance that we do not have now.
Unfortunately, most governments are loathe to interfere with business any more than they have to. Even really slimey businesses.
Besides, lawyers are like the mythical hydra - strike one down and two more take its place. They reproduce by binary fission - just like all bacteria
Yup. It was called "the 1990's" - and it was so popular that it was held over for another decade or so.
Obviously, anything I might say at this point about this type of greed and self-interest being the ultimate expressions of the capitalist philosophy would have to be considered a "troll" or "Flamebait", so I won't say any of those things...
If we are to truly take the wind from SCO's sails at this point, we need to cut off their revenue stream. To do this, one of the injured parties (any of the Linux Distributors, for example) must go into court and ask for an injunction to prevent SCO from attempting to collect any licence fees from Linux users or distributors until such time as they prove their claims - either to the Kernel developers or (failing that) to a court of law. Since SCO has a) announced a price list, and b) sold a licence they cannot argue that they are NOT pursuing licencing, so injunctive relief is a valid request for Linux distributors at this time.
Because SCO's current action smells more of extortion than of copyright-licencing there is a pretty good chance that any halfway-decent lawyer (sorry for the oxymoron) could walk out court with a temporary injunction almost immediately
I would think that the sheer insanity of SCO's position ("You have our code but we won't tell you what it is") would be all the excuse a judge would need to step in.
This would cut SCO off from their anticipated revenue stream for the forseeable future, and could even trigger a stock collapse since there was no likelihood of any corporate growth until the completion of the lawsuits sometime in the next few decades.
Ah. Good point. I suppose it that case they would have threatened to strip him of his citizenship and then deport him back to the Middle-east, probably telling him that he might never see his wife and kids again...
I, for one, don't know if he is guilty or innocent, but I sure-as-hell am not going to believe a plea bargain arragement. Most of you predicted that the Patriot Act would be used in exactly that way - to force plea agreements.
As far as I am concerned, the government's case remains unproven.
They are still offering the source code for download. Check out ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/current/SRPMS
Why do you think that is just FUD? Some fairly respected journalists have stated that they have sources inside SCO who anonymously claim that just that sort of action has occured.
While I am sure that SCO would have been overjoyed if their infiltrators had managed to start a riot, I doubt if they cared very much either way.
The purpose of infiltrating the demonstration with pre-made signs - particularly signs bearing slogans linking Linux with unlawful activities, Communism, support for piracy, or Iraq - was to tarnish the reputations of Linux supporters, at least in the eyes of the mainstream press and the Tech-ignorant public in general.
If the public turns against Linux it doesn't matter if SCO wins or loses the lawsuit - SCO's masters [Microsoft] will see to it SCO doesn't suffer.
In my experience, a far better book for beginners than Qbasic for Dummies is The Idiot's Guide to Qbasic. It is very straight forward and much easier for an absolute beginner to understand.
Setting the Wayback machine a bit further, Perhaps the best "beginner's basic" book that I have ever seen was How to program the Commodore 64 (If you have never programmed a computer before). Although very system specific, it explained concepts like arrays in language a beginner might actually understand.
And even if MS/SCO loses, Microsoft wins - because Bill will then be able to point to the case as graphic proof of the "viral nature" of the GPL.
No wonder this whole deal has the sickly stench of Microsoft about it. For them it is a no-lose situation. (Unless, of course, Novell manages to derail it...)
Yes! That is even better than the "browser formerly known as phoenix". And it is sooo appropriate!
Isn't that what Sklyarov said?
Yes, a face-saving solution was important to the RIAA. But,when one considers the Filesharing decision last week that let Streamcast and Grokster off the hook, Does anyone think it is possible that the settlement reached is NOT to pay $17000, but to say they have agreed to pay $17000 ?
Just a thought.
Well, At least it would give you a good reason to read your spam! :+)
"I suppose even donating to his defense fund (if there is one) could be risky."
Not at all. Not as long as you contribute cash . . . anonymously."Actually, he was held without charge but with the public's knowledge. The parent post is right, this isn't even close to being disappeared,"
Actually, the government wouldn't even admit that they had him for several weeks. And he certainly wasn't given access to legal representation. Then the government declared a fair bit of the information surrounding his case was "secret" and therefore did not have to be revealed in court.
Except for the "never seen again" part, that sounds pretty damn close to "disappeared" to me.
And now that the time initially set by the judge was about to expire, and the court would likely set him free, the feds have charged Hawash with every crime the can think of (If he were a little older, no doubt he would also be charged with the Lindburgh kidnapping) figuring that they can hold him for another year before it is even likely to come to trial.
Then, in 6 months or so, they might offer him a plea bargain "he can't refuse", all the while making noises about executions, life imprisonment, taking away his family's citizenship, etc. Then, once they extort a guilty plea from him, he won't even be able to appeal!
I don't know what we have here, but it sure ain't justice.
But even Hitler had to start somewhere - detaining Jews without due process, for example.
The "material witness" abductions, Concentration Camp X-ray, and State Security Police/Department of Homeland Security (Gestapo) strike me as a damn fine start for Mr. Ashcroft.