The First Amendment is silent on the issues a shield law would cover. All it guarantees is that the Goverment cannot prevent you from publishing something - though it has been interpreted more widely than that.
Really? I saw 'freedom of the press shall not be abbridged.' It didn't say anything about it only covering your ability to print something. "The press" pretty clearly referes to journalists, and forcing phone records out of them seems to abridge their freedom to do their job effectively. After all, if the government can get any journalists phone records, who would talk to them?
Whether they should have their phone records seized is a no brainer and in a sane world they would be heaving a huge sigh of relief that was all that was happening to them.
Really, dumbass? Ever stop to think that ALL the records includes other contacts for other stories, which may have nothing to do with this grand jury investigation?
No of course not, because as long as your catching a terrorist, it doesn't matter what happens to people's rights.
but from my rather pragmatic standpoint the machine has one very important use: it allows me to get a coke with very little effort (while differentiating my debts from those of others).
Hmm.. my college had a vending machine capable of the same; you swiped your college id and made your choice. A fingerprint scanner is overkill if that's all the machine needs to do.
ICBMS are a complelty different animal and can't escape the earths gravity. In fact they are designed to be shot at a point in orbit and gravity does the rest.
Um, I'm not sure that's correct, since they can launch ICBMs from submarines...
You realize that the US is a member of the UN, so its no suprise that US troops were sent. Just because the US troops were present (which isn't a suprise at all) doesn't mean it wasn't the UN that was involved.
Well, if we went beyond running, unattended cars on my property, we'd be outside the bounds of the analogy - I wouldn't support trespass with the intent of using a wireless AP.
Sounds to me like there's a problem in your logic then. You don't need trespass; the car could be sitting on a public street (which a wireless signal could reach).
I don't hear any negative connotation to the word. That's just you.
Those of us that are freeloaders attach a negative connontation to the word. I guess it makes sense that people which ARE freeloaders see nothing wrong with it. Can't acknowledge what you're doing is wrong after all, can you?
If I don't interfere with any of his calls and his phone company allows him unlimited calls, why the hell not?
Because, as all worthless freeloaders refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as 'free.' First, you're assuming that you're not interfering with his calls. Do you know he wasn't using it for sure? With a cordless phone you could tell, but just connecting to a wireless network, you don't know if he's downloading something or not, do you? Even if you're slowing him down 0.5kbs, you're interfering. Also, you assume he has unlimited internet. For all you know, he's on a pay per hour dialup connection. There's a signficant number of people where this is true. Finally, it costs electricity to run the AP, the router, etc and that usage goes up when the device is being used. So you're actually costing him money. Not much perhaps, but stealing a 25 cent piece of candy is still stealing, is it not?
If I found myself with a faulty base station, I'd take it back and get a different one
An unsecured AP isn't faulty though is it? Security is an option.. one the user may not even know about. If you found your neighbor had a fault base, would you tell him and not use his line, or would you use it without him knowing? No need to answer, I know what you'd choose.
So don't break into someone else's system. See what I care. I share no such ethic, so you better lock your shit up.
I'll choose to do with my property what I want. And when you break in, I'll be sure you get whats coming to you, which is jail time.
Its pretty clear what kind of person you are, now that the truth is out; an entitled asshole that believes everyone owes him (otherwise you'd see that you have no right at all to what someone else has worked for and earned). You don't limit yourself to using unsecured wireless; you have no problem stealing anything. So keep doing what you're doing; I can only hope you'll end up with a bullet between your eyes.
Well, you could actually, you know, read the links which the OP of this thread plopped down. The very first one, where he linked the text "spraying photographers with pepper spray" and suprisingly enough, talks about Canadian police pepper spraying photographers COVERING a protest.
Also, forgot the traffic circles (which are meant to keep traffic 'free flowing) with traffic signals in them. Kind of defeats the purpose of the circle, I would think.
If they leave it on my property, running and unattended, they don't deserve a car.
Nice bit of rationalization there, don't you think? Why stop with a running, unattended car on your property? What about such a car anywhere? Indeed, why add in running and / or unattended? I know the thought bothers you, but its stealing, no matter where the car is, or what state its in.
Wifi access can be used sinultaneously by freeloaders and legitimate users, a car can't.
The fact that freeloaders (interesting that you pick such a negative term to describe people using others' wireless wihtout asking) can use the connection at the same time as a legitimate user is irrelevent. You are EXPECTING to use something which someone else is providing without thier permission.
The person who setup the wireless point paid for the AP, paid for the internet connection and paid for the computer to use on the wireless network. They should be able to use it, without being slowed down by some asshole sitting in his car outside.
You want a better analogy then fine, here's one. You discover your cordless phone can talk to the base station of your neighbors cordless phone; is it now ethical to use HIS landline to make calls? Especially since he may not even be aware that others can use it? Please correct me if i'm wrong, but in my computer ethics class, we decided it was unethical to break into someone elses system, even if they did something stupid (like leave it unlocked). The same goes for wireless.
Ugh.. I had the misfortune to drive around Boston as well. Poor signage (exits without any kind of labels, or street name signs which tell you the intersecting road, but NOT the one you're on (I guess its not possible to end up on a large road and NOT know what one it is...) 4 lane roads with 2 lane roads running paraell on both sides, but with no obvious way to GET to those side roads... to say it was frustrating is an understatement.
Actually there is a way to change the profile from a local user to domain user without losing anything. You need to fix the file permissions on the users directory so the new user has full access, then load the user registry hive from the current profile, and give the user full permissions there as well. Finally, there are a couple of registry settings to change; basically you're just telling windows that this profile belongs to this SID.
Its really pretty easy, and you don't lose ANYTHING.
No, its also unethical to drives someone else's car without permission. Its stealing, even if you mean to bring it back. The common sense definition of stealing is taking something which isn't yours, regardless of your intent to return it.
Using WiFi access for which you don't have permission is unethical.
The telcos have been lobying against Net Neutrality and have been explicitly saying that it would be a good thing to let them tier the Internet. What could possibly make you think they won't use this power once they have gained it? This isn't reading between the lines, it their stated policy.
I agree that's what they want; but there won't be a law FORCING telco's to tier; the law would only say they could.
There are strict laws here that dictate what "France Telecom" can and can't do with it's limited monopoly. These laws have created a highly competitive market for ISP's and a lot of people are getting over 10Mbs ADSL 2+ for 25 to 30/month and also get 400+ channel TV and free phone. ISP's, such as "Free" have their own backbones and only rent the "last mile" from "France Telecom". I don't see how one ISP could now throttle some traffic and not seen it's costomers leaving in droves. That's how a competitive market should work, the US is loosing it's ranking in Internet access speed and should seriously look into the causes.
I agree, this is how things should work in the US.
No its not, your point was "Americans have often been incapable of criticising themselves, labelling people with dissenting opinions as traitors." There's a world of difference between liberal and traitor.
Creating employement in a 3rd world country while putting first worlders out of work, in an attempt to push EVERYONE into poverty, is evil.
I like that employers in the US offer healthcare and must provide reasonablly safe working conditions, and can't force us to work to death; its a shame we have to give that up to 'compete' so that some asshole white old rich guy adds a few more million to his bank account.
Dual core is cheaper than dual processor. Now that dual core processors are around, they will become more common for the average user, and we should (hopfully) see more programs that take advantage of that.
No, actually its not. The WiFi signal and the internet connection are things I am paying for, much like the cordless phone and telephone connection I also pay for. You have no more right to use my WiFi connection than you do to use my cordless phone base to make or answer my calls.
"If you left your car running on my front lawn, why shouldn't I use it until you tell me otherwise?"
You can order the owner to move the car, but you CANNOT take off with it yourself. Its still grand theft auto, dumbass, even if those conditions you set forth are true. At most you'd be allowed to move it off your lawn; in the case of radio signals, you may not cause harmful interfence per FCC regulations.
Eventually it becomes expected and you can not legally prevent them from accessing that path.
If its your property, I fail to see how anyone would tell you that you couldn't put up a fence at anytime. Also, I believe that you can post a no tresspassing sign at any time, since its now clear you don't want people there.
By your logic, its legal to use his cordless phone base to make your own phone calls as well. Sorry, but leaving an network unsecurity is NOT inviting anyone in, any more than leaving your door open invites people into your house.
Slashdot Mirror
The First Amendment is silent on the issues a shield law would cover. All it guarantees is that the Goverment cannot prevent you from publishing something - though it has been interpreted more widely than that.
Really? I saw 'freedom of the press shall not be abbridged.' It didn't say anything about it only covering your ability to print something. "The press" pretty clearly referes to journalists, and forcing phone records out of them seems to abridge their freedom to do their job effectively. After all, if the government can get any journalists phone records, who would talk to them?
Whether they should have their phone records seized is a no brainer and in a sane world they would be heaving a huge sigh of relief that was all that was happening to them.
Really, dumbass? Ever stop to think that ALL the records includes other contacts for other stories, which may have nothing to do with this grand jury investigation?
No of course not, because as long as your catching a terrorist, it doesn't matter what happens to people's rights.
but from my rather pragmatic standpoint the machine has one very important use: it allows me to get a coke with very little effort (while differentiating my debts from those of others).
Hmm.. my college had a vending machine capable of the same; you swiped your college id and made your choice. A fingerprint scanner is overkill if that's all the machine needs to do.
ICBMS are a complelty different animal and can't escape the earths gravity. In fact they are designed to be shot at a point in orbit and gravity does the rest.
Um, I'm not sure that's correct, since they can launch ICBMs from submarines...
If your source was reputable, I'm sure they could do better than host it on Angel Fire, of all places..
You realize that the US is a member of the UN, so its no suprise that US troops were sent. Just because the US troops were present (which isn't a suprise at all) doesn't mean it wasn't the UN that was involved.
Well, if we went beyond running, unattended cars on my property, we'd be outside the bounds of the analogy - I wouldn't support trespass with the intent of using a wireless AP.
Sounds to me like there's a problem in your logic then. You don't need trespass; the car could be sitting on a public street (which a wireless signal could reach).
I don't hear any negative connotation to the word. That's just you.
Those of us that are freeloaders attach a negative connontation to the word. I guess it makes sense that people which ARE freeloaders see nothing wrong with it. Can't acknowledge what you're doing is wrong after all, can you?
If I don't interfere with any of his calls and his phone company allows him unlimited calls, why the hell not?
Because, as all worthless freeloaders refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as 'free.' First, you're assuming that you're not interfering with his calls. Do you know he wasn't using it for sure? With a cordless phone you could tell, but just connecting to a wireless network, you don't know if he's downloading something or not, do you? Even if you're slowing him down 0.5kbs, you're interfering. Also, you assume he has unlimited internet. For all you know, he's on a pay per hour dialup connection. There's a signficant number of people where this is true. Finally, it costs electricity to run the AP, the router, etc and that usage goes up when the device is being used. So you're actually costing him money. Not much perhaps, but stealing a 25 cent piece of candy is still stealing, is it not?
If I found myself with a faulty base station, I'd take it back and get a different one
An unsecured AP isn't faulty though is it? Security is an option.. one the user may not even know about. If you found your neighbor had a fault base, would you tell him and not use his line, or would you use it without him knowing? No need to answer, I know what you'd choose.
So don't break into someone else's system. See what I care. I share no such ethic, so you better lock your shit up.
I'll choose to do with my property what I want. And when you break in, I'll be sure you get whats coming to you, which is jail time.
Its pretty clear what kind of person you are, now that the truth is out; an entitled asshole that believes everyone owes him (otherwise you'd see that you have no right at all to what someone else has worked for and earned). You don't limit yourself to using unsecured wireless; you have no problem stealing anything. So keep doing what you're doing; I can only hope you'll end up with a bullet between your eyes.
Well, you could actually, you know, read the links which the OP of this thread plopped down. The very first one, where he linked the text "spraying photographers with pepper spray" and suprisingly enough, talks about Canadian police pepper spraying photographers COVERING a protest.
Wow... talk about dense.
Also, forgot the traffic circles (which are meant to keep traffic 'free flowing) with traffic signals in them. Kind of defeats the purpose of the circle, I would think.
If they leave it on my property, running and unattended, they don't deserve a car.
Nice bit of rationalization there, don't you think? Why stop with a running, unattended car on your property? What about such a car anywhere? Indeed, why add in running and / or unattended? I know the thought bothers you, but its stealing, no matter where the car is, or what state its in.
Wifi access can be used sinultaneously by freeloaders and legitimate users, a car can't.
The fact that freeloaders (interesting that you pick such a negative term to describe people using others' wireless wihtout asking) can use the connection at the same time as a legitimate user is irrelevent. You are EXPECTING to use something which someone else is providing without thier permission.
The person who setup the wireless point paid for the AP, paid for the internet connection and paid for the computer to use on the wireless network. They should be able to use it, without being slowed down by some asshole sitting in his car outside.
You want a better analogy then fine, here's one. You discover your cordless phone can talk to the base station of your neighbors cordless phone; is it now ethical to use HIS landline to make calls? Especially since he may not even be aware that others can use it? Please correct me if i'm wrong, but in my computer ethics class, we decided it was unethical to break into someone elses system, even if they did something stupid (like leave it unlocked). The same goes for wireless.
Ahh, but you ARE subsidizing the big dig; the federal government steals your money, and then gives it to MA. Nice huh?
Ugh.. I had the misfortune to drive around Boston as well. Poor signage (exits without any kind of labels, or street name signs which tell you the intersecting road, but NOT the one you're on (I guess its not possible to end up on a large road and NOT know what one it is...) 4 lane roads with 2 lane roads running paraell on both sides, but with no obvious way to GET to those side roads... to say it was frustrating is an understatement.
Actually there is a way to change the profile from a local user to domain user without losing anything. You need to fix the file permissions on the users directory so the new user has full access, then load the user registry hive from the current profile, and give the user full permissions there as well. Finally, there are a couple of registry settings to change; basically you're just telling windows that this profile belongs to this SID.
Its really pretty easy, and you don't lose ANYTHING.
No, its also unethical to drives someone else's car without permission. Its stealing, even if you mean to bring it back. The common sense definition of stealing is taking something which isn't yours, regardless of your intent to return it.
Using WiFi access for which you don't have permission is unethical.
The telcos have been lobying against Net Neutrality and have been explicitly saying that it would be a good thing to let them tier the Internet. What could possibly make you think they won't use this power once they have gained it? This isn't reading between the lines, it their stated policy.
I agree that's what they want; but there won't be a law FORCING telco's to tier; the law would only say they could.
There are strict laws here that dictate what "France Telecom" can and can't do with it's limited monopoly. These laws have created a highly competitive market for ISP's and a lot of people are getting over 10Mbs ADSL 2+ for 25 to 30/month and also get 400+ channel TV and free phone. ISP's, such as "Free" have their own backbones and only rent the "last mile" from "France Telecom". I don't see how one ISP could now throttle some traffic and not seen it's costomers leaving in droves. That's how a competitive market should work, the US is loosing it's ranking in Internet access speed and should seriously look into the causes.
I agree, this is how things should work in the US.
No its not, your point was "Americans have often been incapable of criticising themselves, labelling people with dissenting opinions as traitors." There's a world of difference between liberal and traitor.
If they don't care, I fail to see why they'd pepper spray people taking pictures...
So if you like something you should find the most expensive way to purchase it? Bull, and you know it.
Perhaps one that IS a genuine disc, but included an invalid license key?
Creating employement in a 3rd world country while putting first worlders out of work, in an attempt to push EVERYONE into poverty, is evil.
I like that employers in the US offer healthcare and must provide reasonablly safe working conditions, and can't force us to work to death; its a shame we have to give that up to 'compete' so that some asshole white old rich guy adds a few more million to his bank account.
Dual core is cheaper than dual processor. Now that dual core processors are around, they will become more common for the average user, and we should (hopfully) see more programs that take advantage of that.
However, he also probably had a more enjoyable life while he was still alive.
No, actually its not. The WiFi signal and the internet connection are things I am paying for, much like the cordless phone and telephone connection I also pay for. You have no more right to use my WiFi connection than you do to use my cordless phone base to make or answer my calls.
"If you left your car running on my front lawn, why shouldn't I use it until you tell me otherwise?"
You can order the owner to move the car, but you CANNOT take off with it yourself. Its still grand theft auto, dumbass, even if those conditions you set forth are true. At most you'd be allowed to move it off your lawn; in the case of radio signals, you may not cause harmful interfence per FCC regulations.
Eventually it becomes expected and you can not legally prevent them from accessing that path.
If its your property, I fail to see how anyone would tell you that you couldn't put up a fence at anytime. Also, I believe that you can post a no tresspassing sign at any time, since its now clear you don't want people there.
By your logic, its legal to use his cordless phone base to make your own phone calls as well. Sorry, but leaving an network unsecurity is NOT inviting anyone in, any more than leaving your door open invites people into your house.