This is only the Court of First Instance. Scarlet will appeal, and this may very well drag on for several more years. The decision may be overturned; and I expect it will be.
What I don't know, IANAL : Is Scarlet already obliged to enforce this ass-hat decision while the case is appealed ? If so, as a Scarlet customer I will have to figure out a way to subvert Le Filtre P2P until I find another ISP. Sorry Scarlet;-(
Tangentially, it's worth noting that SABAM tries to set a precedent by taking on a small ISP (at the time this case started rolling they were quite small compared to Skynet and Telenet). I don't see them trying to pull this shit on Skynet/Belgacom. Odds are they'd get crushed like a puppy trying to stop a bus. (Wishful thinking)
Your car analogy is flawed. FTA : "The idea is that the electronics will be wrapped in a fluid-filled bag" Better analogy : strapping yourself in a 10 inch layer of bubblewrapping before driving your car. (Hmm... something to try when I drive home from work. Gotta keep those non-geek colleagues a bit scared.)
You have a good point about the information awareness and public opinion. Although the impact of public opinion on foreign policy seems minimal. I remember a *lot* of protesting and public outcry in the UK against invasion of Iraq... with very little result. Makes you think about the kind of leaders we have nowadays.
I'm all for international war-crime tribunals. We need more of that.
Unfortunately the rules don't seem to apply when some of the mightier nations commit crimes against humanity. Might = Right, it seems.
It's easy to pick on e.g. Serbia and condemn high-level officers (that were beyond doubt guilty as sin); But if it's USA/coalition troops, only soldiers get convicted while the brass stays out of harm's way. Also, they get convicted domestically, not before an international court. (!)
The rules only apply if you're not the one enforcing them ?
>Winning a war in modern times means that the war has ended - and that's something > that nowdays never happens because there will always be "resistance (one man may > call it "freedom-fighters", another calls it "terrorist").
This may be because nowadays in the aftermath of war, the conquered people are not utterly crushed/slaughtered, as Machiavelli suggests.
(Corollary, the only humane option is to avoid war if at all possible.)
It depends on the cost of having detailed sat images, regularly updated, versus the benefits of detecting these violations.
Thankfully, the expense is way too high for mundane infractions like the ones we all commit now and then:)
I would be surprised if something like this isn't automated yet. I can't imagine any decent intel shops running analysis of satellite imagery with humans as first line. The volume of data and risk of intel leaks thru people make automation a more viable option.
Just like deleting spam from my mailbox will stop spammers and scammers from flooding everyones mailbox ? Yeah, right... It only takes a minority of paying idiots to give these people the funds to keep on bugging the rest of us. And in the case of RIAA, I'm sure they have plenty of dough in their coffers to go to war with and outlast most grassroots attempts at heightening consumer awareness.
<sarcasm>Voting with our wallet probably hurts them less than copyright infringement</sarcasm>
I agree that it's easier than having a separate ID for everything, but the privacy and security issues by using a potentially exposable key are not trivial. If you pay taxes for a public service, you would at least want it to be secure enough so some Joe Shmuck can't impersonate as you and go shopping on your credit.
It would be more secure to use a common identifier that is only known inside the systems that need to use/share personal data. Something like a technical primary key, only people with sufficient security clearance (eg. a DBA at the IRS) ought to be able to see those keys without passing thru software that requires authentication and authorisation for data retrieval.
(Of course, if they get printed on envelopes because some idiot at PR thought it would look impressive on mailings etc. this is still not a watertight system...)
Linking individuals back to the secured personal data with false positives or negatives is a bit trickier, but not impossible. We already have the technology to create systems that prevent human error, but I guess the main reason something like this hasn't been implemented yet is that it would cost mucho dinero to convert the whole country to a new system; and cause a lot of confusion in the transitional period. (Also, this would create another pork barrel + ensuing political rope-pulling over gov't contracts. Hmm... maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. Sigh.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not touching that with a ten foot moderation.
... at least now we will be safe !
Time to start encrypting/anonymizing everything, i guess.
This is only the Court of First Instance. Scarlet will appeal, and this may very well drag on for several more years. The decision may be overturned; and I expect it will be.
;-(
What I don't know, IANAL : Is Scarlet already obliged to enforce this ass-hat decision while the case is appealed ?
If so, as a Scarlet customer I will have to figure out a way to subvert Le Filtre P2P until I find another ISP. Sorry Scarlet
Tangentially, it's worth noting that SABAM tries to set a precedent by taking on a small ISP (at the time this case started rolling they were quite small compared to Skynet and Telenet).
I don't see them trying to pull this shit on Skynet/Belgacom. Odds are they'd get crushed like a puppy trying to stop a bus. (Wishful thinking)
Your car analogy is flawed.
FTA : "The idea is that the electronics will be wrapped in a fluid-filled bag"
Better analogy : strapping yourself in a 10 inch layer of bubblewrapping before driving your car.
(Hmm... something to try when I drive home from work. Gotta keep those non-geek colleagues a bit scared.)
Joe Lieberman moved to France or something ?
>Soooo.... That would be 100%?
For small amounts of 100% : yes.
Don't worry, we'll have [0,001% of the speed of light * distance] time to react when we first spot it. That's plenty of time to *CARRIER LOST*
You have a good point about the information awareness and public opinion.
Although the impact of public opinion on foreign policy seems minimal. I remember a *lot* of protesting and public outcry in the UK against invasion of Iraq... with very little result. Makes you think about the kind of leaders we have nowadays.
I'm all for international war-crime tribunals. We need more of that.
Unfortunately the rules don't seem to apply when some of the mightier nations commit crimes against humanity.
Might = Right, it seems.
It's easy to pick on e.g. Serbia and condemn high-level officers (that were beyond doubt guilty as sin); But if it's USA/coalition troops, only soldiers get convicted while the brass stays out of harm's way. Also, they get convicted domestically, not before an international court. (!)
The rules only apply if you're not the one enforcing them ?
>Winning a war in modern times means that the war has ended - and that's something
> that nowdays never happens because there will always be "resistance (one man may
> call it "freedom-fighters", another calls it "terrorist").
This may be because nowadays in the aftermath of war, the conquered people are not utterly crushed/slaughtered, as Machiavelli suggests.
(Corollary, the only humane option is to avoid war if at all possible.)
Also, war is not the kind of activity for which everybody candidly shares their data, during or after the facts.
This model may be useful for strategic think-tanks when running through different tactical scenarios, though.
Maybe it is assumed that if you can't afford a car, you can't afford taxes.
(just kidding)
Yup, same here.
It depends on the cost of having detailed sat images, regularly updated, versus the benefits of detecting these violations. Thankfully, the expense is way too high for mundane infractions like the ones we all commit now and then :)
I would be surprised if something like this isn't automated yet. I can't imagine any decent intel shops running analysis of satellite imagery with humans as first line. The volume of data and risk of intel leaks thru people make automation a more viable option.
better for wildlife, because radiation keeps all those pesky polluting humans away ?
They'd be better off by setting up a fake al qaeda think tank and have the 'terrorists' do the thinking for them.
Meanwhile, president Nixon will be sighted in multiple places at the same time.
Statler & Waldorf would have a field day with these.
> This is so "Star Trek" to the geek in me. :)
This needs an LCARS gui
Yes, zis is true. In ze motherland vee no longer use benzeen in our zoft drinks !
You forgot the "In Soviet Russia" part.
Just like deleting spam from my mailbox will stop spammers and scammers from flooding everyones mailbox ? Yeah, right...
It only takes a minority of paying idiots to give these people the funds to keep on bugging the rest of us.
And in the case of RIAA, I'm sure they have plenty of dough in their coffers to go to war with and outlast most grassroots attempts at heightening consumer awareness.
<sarcasm>Voting with our wallet probably hurts them less than copyright infringement</sarcasm>
>... asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' ...
What's next ? Furlongs and gallons ?
I agree that it's easier than having a separate ID for everything, but the privacy and security issues by using a potentially exposable key are not trivial. If you pay taxes for a public service, you would at least want it to be secure enough so some Joe Shmuck can't impersonate as you and go shopping on your credit.
It would be more secure to use a common identifier that is only known inside the systems that need to use/share personal data. Something like a technical primary key, only people with sufficient security clearance (eg. a DBA at the IRS) ought to be able to see those keys without passing thru software that requires authentication and authorisation for data retrieval.
(Of course, if they get printed on envelopes because some idiot at PR thought it would look impressive on mailings etc. this is still not a watertight system...)
Linking individuals back to the secured personal data with false positives or negatives is a bit trickier, but not impossible.
We already have the technology to create systems that prevent human error, but I guess the main reason something like this hasn't been implemented yet is that it would cost mucho dinero to convert the whole country to a new system; and cause a lot of confusion in the transitional period.
(Also, this would create another pork barrel + ensuing political rope-pulling over gov't contracts. Hmm... maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. Sigh.)