It is about someone that was locked up for making a phone call (using a phone line), and then having no one believe that there was a computer error, even though there was public notice to double check anything that had a timestamp until it was verified that it handled the time change correctly. This error was caused by a tracking/surveliance system that was put in place to eliminate having to "run a trace" when someone called and someone needed to know for where. If you make a phone call, then it could very easily be you that is mistaken for a terrorist, though it is statistically unlikley. I think that taking blind faith in a computer system that automatically monitors your phone calls instead of doing investigative work to verify that a suspect is or is not lying because of something they did on a comminication network classifies in losing your right to "innocent until proven guilty" while online, but others may disagree.
If someone can say something, be it on a satelite broadcast, blog, newspaper, DVD, or any other means of communication that gets people ready to kill, be it a terrorist act, revolution, civil war, or invasion of another country then what they have to say needs to be delt with. That does not mean that killing is the answer, but if people are willing to kill, there is a problem that should have been resolved before that point in time. Silencing the messenger will only cause the issues to be temporarily burried where they can fester. That is the reason that the US Constitution specifically list Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech. I understand that Australia is not bound by the US Constitution, but right now the US goverment doesn't seem so concerned with it either. That doesn't mean it is not a sound theory that works, it has just proven inconvient for the people in power.
I agree for a recount of the facts that Wikipedia would not be a reliabe source, but for the publishing of prior art it seems to me that it should be more than acceptable. If someone post an idea in an article, and they can verify when the article was modified to include that idea, it should establish that no patent can be filled on that idea after the date it was posted i.e. published. I don't care if there are no refrences, it is no longer an original idea.
Unless the maintainer did something to make people believe that they were still downloading under the old license. If he was deleting post just because they mentioned that the license has changed, it sounds to me like people downloaded under the new license still believing that it was GPL code.
All your arguments hold if the question is can the maintainer change the license. The question posed in the summary is does the maintainer have an obligation to inform people of the license. The license is a contract between two enities. If one of those enities takes delibirate steps to withhold the terms of the contract until after the contract is in effect, the contract is null and void. This is the exact problem that most people have with shrink wrap licenses on commericially purchased software, and there have been some rullings that the licensing terms need to be made available before purchase. Most of the time the software companies claim that the terms were plainly listed on their website. If it can be shown that the maintainer did anything to prevent people from viewing those terms or misleading people into believing the terms were different than they actually were, that qualifies as fraud.
I haven't done the proper research to form an educated opinion so lets try deductive reasoning based on a few assumptions. Based on the summary I will take as fact that she was hired by the Democratic party to do P.R. work. I will also take as fact that she either currently works or has worked for the RIAA. I am going to make the assumption that she was hired by the Democratic party for a P.R. job based on experience in the P.R. field. I will make the assumption that this implies she did some kind of P.R. work for the RIAA. I will also assume from the current public opinion of the RIAA that none of the P.R. people that work or have recently worked for the RIAA are capable of performing the duties that the job requires. Even if this lady does not have an agenda, I don't think she is the right person for the job.
Marked police cars should not be worried about tipping of the bad guy. The purpose of having a marked car is to let the public know that the police are there. If the police are in an unmarked car then they should not be exempt from running the light. Emergency vehicles are allowed to run lights because the lights on the vehicle itself are designed to attrack enough attention to keep running the redlight from being a hazard to cross traffic. If an unmarked car is allowed to run the light, then there is no reason for the light, and certainly no justification to puttin a camera in 'for safety, because it is not for revenue generation' The entire justification for the cameras is that running red lights causes accidents. What part about not tipping off a suspect aka bad guy, eliminates the danger caused by running the light?
And some of those "can't be bothered to save the state" are data collection units that collect information from various machines that must run months at a time. When you have more than 6 or more machines running on different long term schedules attached to one computer, most of which have an end date determined by the test being run, not a set time, it is a nightmare to schedule an update and a reboot. Service packs also tend to break drivers. When you have dedicated equipment, you must wait for the equipment manufacturer to release a new driver before you can risk an update. Almost a third of the machines I deal with at work are control or data collection systems. We have lost several months worth of data due to an automitic reboot from a patch. These machines now have the automatic update turned off, and are patched once a year when the manufacturer is onsite to do yearly maintenance.
My desktop at work get automatic updates. My desktop at home gets manual updates every few months. This is because my work computer is designed to run a word processor and spreadsheet. If I lose my drivers, I can go into safe mode and still get my work done. My home system I use for run more periphrials and won't update until I don't have anything I need to do in case it takes me a few days to get drivers working again.
Your post implies that the only reason to not update a system is because of laziness. I think a lot more people are scared of updates than you realize. I also think that a lot more of them should be scared. I am guessing that you are pulling your sample of "two groups" from people that check email and write a few letters. Even basic users want to occasionally do things like transfer files to an mp3 player. I have seen several mp3 players that work fine with SP1 but still do not work with SP2, even with the special downloads and hotfixes. Should those people A) go out and rebuy a piece of hardware that still functions. B) Set automatic updates and forget about their devices, even if that is why they bought a computer, so they can be a good net-citzen or C) Not update their computers so that the software and hardware they bought still function as origionally intended?
Computer are tools, if a newer better version of a tool is not capable of doing the work of the older tool, you have to use the older tool. Even if the new tool is deemed safer and easier, it is useless if it can not be used to do the work it was intended.
Microsoft should be paid for the operating system when they sell a license to use the operating system. They should make the information available so that people can use the operating system in order to operate the computer by running software that does what the operator wants. If Microsoft does not wish to sell an operating system that can be used to operate a computer independently, they should redesign the XBox to include IE and Office and sell it as a console. When I buy a console I expect to be forced to run only the software that comes from the manufacturer. When I buy an operating system, I expect it to allow me to operate my computer. By double dipping their "IP rights" Microsoft is selling an operating system that does not let me use a computer for what I want, but for what they are willing to give me. Add to this the fact that Microsoft has also sold me a license to run a programming suite (Java, C#, Visual Basic) on their operating system, I think it is a reasonable assumption that people should be allowed to write programs that the operating system will actually operate.
They wrap your hardware up in drivers, wrap the drivers up with APIs, and then want you to pay to use those APIs. Accessing those APIs is the purpose of an operating system. That is what allows you to operate your hardware.
Very few people can clean files off a computer in such a way that there is not a detectable trail that something was erased. Most people can't even delete files without leaving a backup copy in a hidden folder, cache, media player library, or word document edit header. There was also a case with the RIAA where someone did have traces that the harddrive was cleaned, and the judge ruled in favor of the RIAA. By destroying the evidence, the defendent ruined any chance of showing that the RIAA's case was possible exagerated and got nailed for everything that was claimed.
If the RIAA is willing to pay a 3rd party to copy and examine the drive, then they are willing to pay for the procedures that can recover lost data. Some of them get expensive, but the RIAA can wright it off as PR funding.
Then you have her ship it back with the understanding that they will return the harddrive to factory settings, and that she will be billed for the shipping if the problem is determined to be a software setting instead of hardware. Offer to mail her the install disk for the standard $17 shipping if she does not have a restore disk made, and wishes to try the original operating system before sending it in and possible being responsible for the shipping problems. Once the computer is returned to original condition, there is no reason to refuse warrenty. If the computer can not be returned to original condition with a restore disk that the company provides, then there is a hardware problem. Phone techs have to put up with a lot harder problems than this, and have instructed customers to reinstall from the restore disk for problems that would have been a lot easier to fix if they weren't just following a script.
By making an attempt to censor the information themselves, then youtube loses their common carrier status and the safe harbour clause. They are no longer hosting information that is from a third party. The third party submits it to them, and they are the ones posting the information after review. This is what the coorporations that deal in nothing but taking the copyrights from the authors and claiming it for themselves wants. If they can get a ruling that requires any company that host content that might be infringing to censor themselves, then they can sue that company (i.e. deep pockets) when they find something instead of going after the person that actually post the content.
To die heroically is great if it is the most efficient means of accomplishing the thing you are willing to die for. If however, by waiting you can accomplish a stronger front, then to turn and run would have been the more heroic effort. The problem I see with the gag orders, is that they prevent people from talking about them, so that they prevent a unified front against them. Most people I talk to, tell me that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act does not effect them, and don't want to listen when you explain that they are not allowed to know if it ever effects them. If the goverment can take out the people willing to resist one by one, then they will have victory. If however, the people that are willing to resist wait until they can locate enough other people that they suspect are in the same predictiment, then they can start to accumulate enough force that they can not be ignored. If four thousand people all made a public statement at once, stating that they have been given one of these letters, and do not believe it was done for reasons of terrorist threat, then the goverment has to explain why they arrested 4000 people at once. That is the kind of thing that incites riots and gains the attention of other countries and goverments. It forces the goverment to show the world exactly what kind of tactics they are using.
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo!
They are attemting to take away the first and third with these security letters. By keeping it secret, you cannot raise protest, or face your accuser. Just enough information needs to be leaked to let people be aware that there is a problem, but not enough to force the goverment to take out the people that can use the other boxes when the time comes.
And not hiring a company whose headcourter are located outside of your borders for major military contracts makes good strategic sense from a security standpoint.
Anyone's system breaks beyond economical repair. Must buy a new system. New system comes with Vista installed. Boss gets new system, subordinate gets bosses old system, because IT guy works for boss. Now boss sends out letter or email that has M$ new "enhanced" format of HTML or doc, and everyone has to upgrade.
Would you please give me written permission to read slashdot during my breaks, so that I can better understand the current issues with computer security and unauthorized use of company computers. And would you mind signing that with a blue pen and giving me the original and you can keep the photocopy.
They can actually store 7 x 6 in a DNA sequence for furture generations to read? I wonder what the question would read in about 3 million years. The power of DNA is to corrupt itself slightly.
First, you must put "Freedoms" into context. Most freedoms are not rights that you must use every day. A freedom is something that is there when you need it. Freedoms were not made to protect people as a mindless mob, but to protect each individual so that there individual ideas could be shared with the "mob." Freedoms are by no means unlimited, but must only be taken away with due process. That was the reason for a jury by peers. When you are convicted of a crime, then you will have some freedom removed. The constitution was not written to grant what freedoms that you have, but to limit the power of the goverment so that those freedoms could never be taken away without due process. With that in mind, if just one person has or can lose a freedom without due process, then you can also be denied that freedom. You may not need it now, but it is no longer protected for when you do.
Your freedom of speech has been severly limited. This does not mean that you are going to be arrested for saying something bad about your president. It means that if you go to a rally, you will be escorted to a "Free Speech Zone" where the only one you can pass your message on to, are the people that have heard it and agree. It means that you are not allowed to have your lawyer talk to the press and explain why you were accused of being a "terroist" because it would "incite violence" Why do you think are forefathers held the freedom of speech special enough to make it the first bill of rights. They didn't want to let everyone know that they were being oppressed and needed to write there congressman^H^H^H^H King a letter and tell him that you don't like the new tax he passed. It was to get people organized to FIGHT for there rights.
There are several people that are being convicted as "terrorist" for "weapon violations" What part of "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed" states that only "good" people can have a gun. I am not saying that terrorist should be armed, I am saying that I feel it is cyclic logic to state that they are terrorist because they had weapons illegally, but that having weapons is only a crime if you are a terrorist.
You have lost the right to be free from searches without a warrent. All they have to do is say that you had communication with someone that was a suspected terrorist, so you are a suspected terrorist and everyone you talk to will be added to the list.
You have lost your right to face your accuser. If you are investigated under the patriot act, then it is illegal for anyone to even tell you you are being investigated. How can you defend your self under those conditions? How do you preserve innoccent until proven guilty.
The big problem is that all these new laws and/or executive orders have wording that is similar in effect to 'associated/commincated with a suspected terrorist person/group/organization' There is no good definition of who this may be. By posting on slashdot, you have commincated with a few people that are know to have anti-goverment sentiments, so why would you think that these new 'regulations' could never be extended to you personally? Just because they haven't yet, does not mean that you still have those freedoms.
At what point is someone a terrorist or someone defending there rights to religion? If bombing a country is not an act that creates terror, what is. "Shock and Awe" does not mean you impress people with your skill to use minimal force to take out only those targets essential to eliminating a military counter attack with minimum loss of civilain life. Most people say that a terrorist intentionally attacks civilians and doesn't wear a uniform. If someone came into this country and started sooting people because they were christian, would you take the time to have a uniform made before grabbing a gun to defend yourself, just to make sure you were protected by the coneva convention. I am not saying that is what the US has done, but that there are definately examples where haveing a un
The problem with your analogy, is that transporting copyrighted goods is not illegal, copying them without permission is. When you buy a book at the book store, they are handing you a copyrighted piece of work. They do not have the right to make copies of that work, but that is not what they are doing, they are transfering ownership of a copy which is perfectly legal under copyright law. To complete your analogy, person 'A' would have to be arrested before person 'B' picked up the material from person 'A' with no evidence that person 'B' was going to have any contact with person 'A' and person 'A' had a legal and legitimate reason to have that information in his possession. Analogies should make a problem easier to understand, your comparison can only be made valid by making the analogy more complex than the original problem.
Something to consider... a web page is a copyrighted work. Since you are no longer required to register copyright in order for them to be enforced, then all web pages are copyrighted. If you download a web page then you are making an electronic copy of that web page in your computer memory. Do you have written permission to be viewing this website? The bottom of the page I am typing states that comments are owned by poster and has a copyright notice to OSTG.
Unless there are severe consequences, I think it is a really bad idea to proscecute on the basis of "could have" commited a crime. For the cases where there would be substantial and irreversible harm for someone to commit a crime, then pass a seperate law making it illegal to plan or intend to commit that crime. Attempted murder is illegal, not because murder is illegal and they attempted it, but because "attempt to commit murder" has been put on the books as a crime. There are good reasons for this law. "Attempt to speed" would probably not be a good law for the books. The consequences for speeding can be very severe, but a large majority of the time, there is no reason not to actually wait until the person commits the crime of speeding before writting the ticket. If someone is going to have such a significant loss of income from copyrighting, there should be enough infringment, that they should be able to locate at least one person that it was downloaded to. If you do not have one piece of evidence that the copyright has actually been infringed, then send a C&D letter, if it is ignored, then file to have a court order for the material to be removed and court cost paid. If you still don't have any evidence of actual infringemnent by the time that this takes place, then this was all that was neccessary anyways.
They have changed up the website a little, and have more clearly worded the request, and have put it towards the bottom of the page since registration at the begining of the year. Still states it must be notorized at the school. They also changed it to state the parent/guardian had to pay for false enrollment. The affidavit I was required to sign clearly states the property holder is required to pay the fees if residence was changed without notifying the school. Hear is the link:
Did a little more research, and found that in Texas where I live, it is a matter of police over interpreting Texas penal code Sec. 38.02.
Failure to Identify.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
I have been told directly from several officers that if you are over 16 you are required to carry your id. I think the interpretation is along the lines of... if you don't show id, then they must suspect that the information you have given them is wrong.
I had them arrest a roommate once for auto theft because he left his wallet at home, and could not prove he was the person that was named on the registration.
Brown vs Texas ruled that an officer could not demand you identify yourself unless there was reasonable suspicion of a crime, which for some reason the school system thinks they are immune from following because it is to "protect the children"
I am in Texas, and was previously under the belief that any notaray was the equivelent of any other, hence the purpose of getting something notarized. All I can get out of the school board is that is is "official policy" that it be done in front of the principle. When I did take off work to show up at the appointed time, the principle was not there, the notary made a comment about me showing up 10 min before her time to go home and expecting her to drop what she is doing to fill out an affidavit. When the school did get back to me on this policy, it is not in any of the written policies, but if you go to the schools web site and follow several links, it "clearly" states in the print at the bottom of the banner on top of the webpage that affidavits must be filled out in person.
I will be happy to attend a parent/teacher conference if they will quit treating me like a prison inmate in order to see them. If they will treat it like any other business meeting instead of trying to pull rank I will be happy to see them. Now the kicker -- it isn't my kid, and I have no legal resposibility to care for this child, except that school "policy" has dictated that since I was kind enough to give her and her mother a roof over their head, I am now required to be the one to show up in person and take care of the paperwork.
Why does not being able to go to meeting with a teacher at a time the teacher dictates, on a day the teacher dictates, and forfeiting your civil rights because you "voluntarily" entered the premises, automatically mean that you do not have enough time for your kid? I know a lot of people that work swing shifts or non-standard hours that do not get their work schedule until 2 days before the start of the work week, including this childs mother. The kids get out of school at 2:30pm, I would love to have to work until only 2:30 in the afternoon so that I can make meetings the teachers have set up at 3:00, but even then I have a 45 min drive, and would be late and subject to criminal proscecution under this law. Parents should be involved with their kids, not neccessarily the kids' teacher. If the teacher wants to act like a dictator, then I refuse to bow down and worship them, if they want to treat me like a human being or better yet, a citizen, I will return in kind. If they want to ask me when a good time for a meeting is, and provide a reasonable schedule from which to pick, then I will accomidate.
One strike again knucklehead popping out kids, one strike for being to busy to take care of a kid. Do you have any constructive arguments to add to this discussion?
Slashdot Mirror
It is about someone that was locked up for making a phone call (using a phone line), and then having no one believe that there was a computer error, even though there was public notice to double check anything that had a timestamp until it was verified that it handled the time change correctly. This error was caused by a tracking/surveliance system that was put in place to eliminate having to "run a trace" when someone called and someone needed to know for where. If you make a phone call, then it could very easily be you that is mistaken for a terrorist, though it is statistically unlikley. I think that taking blind faith in a computer system that automatically monitors your phone calls instead of doing investigative work to verify that a suspect is or is not lying because of something they did on a comminication network classifies in losing your right to "innocent until proven guilty" while online, but others may disagree.
If someone can say something, be it on a satelite broadcast, blog, newspaper, DVD, or any other means of communication that gets people ready to kill, be it a terrorist act, revolution, civil war, or invasion of another country then what they have to say needs to be delt with. That does not mean that killing is the answer, but if people are willing to kill, there is a problem that should have been resolved before that point in time. Silencing the messenger will only cause the issues to be temporarily burried where they can fester. That is the reason that the US Constitution specifically list Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech. I understand that Australia is not bound by the US Constitution, but right now the US goverment doesn't seem so concerned with it either. That doesn't mean it is not a sound theory that works, it has just proven inconvient for the people in power.
I agree for a recount of the facts that Wikipedia would not be a reliabe source, but for the publishing of prior art it seems to me that it should be more than acceptable. If someone post an idea in an article, and they can verify when the article was modified to include that idea, it should establish that no patent can be filled on that idea after the date it was posted i.e. published. I don't care if there are no refrences, it is no longer an original idea.
Unless the maintainer did something to make people believe that they were still downloading under the old license. If he was deleting post just because they mentioned that the license has changed, it sounds to me like people downloaded under the new license still believing that it was GPL code.
All your arguments hold if the question is can the maintainer change the license. The question posed in the summary is does the maintainer have an obligation to inform people of the license. The license is a contract between two enities. If one of those enities takes delibirate steps to withhold the terms of the contract until after the contract is in effect, the contract is null and void. This is the exact problem that most people have with shrink wrap licenses on commericially purchased software, and there have been some rullings that the licensing terms need to be made available before purchase. Most of the time the software companies claim that the terms were plainly listed on their website. If it can be shown that the maintainer did anything to prevent people from viewing those terms or misleading people into believing the terms were different than they actually were, that qualifies as fraud.
I haven't done the proper research to form an educated opinion so lets try deductive reasoning based on a few assumptions. Based on the summary I will take as fact that she was hired by the Democratic party to do P.R. work. I will also take as fact that she either currently works or has worked for the RIAA. I am going to make the assumption that she was hired by the Democratic party for a P.R. job based on experience in the P.R. field. I will make the assumption that this implies she did some kind of P.R. work for the RIAA. I will also assume from the current public opinion of the RIAA that none of the P.R. people that work or have recently worked for the RIAA are capable of performing the duties that the job requires. Even if this lady does not have an agenda, I don't think she is the right person for the job.
Marked police cars should not be worried about tipping of the bad guy. The purpose of having a marked car is to let the public know that the police are there. If the police are in an unmarked car then they should not be exempt from running the light. Emergency vehicles are allowed to run lights because the lights on the vehicle itself are designed to attrack enough attention to keep running the redlight from being a hazard to cross traffic. If an unmarked car is allowed to run the light, then there is no reason for the light, and certainly no justification to puttin a camera in 'for safety, because it is not for revenue generation' The entire justification for the cameras is that running red lights causes accidents. What part about not tipping off a suspect aka bad guy, eliminates the danger caused by running the light?
Just like he used 52 hostages as a pawn to gain political popularity over Carter?
l
http://www.aiipowmia.com/other/iranhstgcrss80.htm
And some of those "can't be bothered to save the state" are data collection units that collect information from various machines that must run months at a time. When you have more than 6 or more machines running on different long term schedules attached to one computer, most of which have an end date determined by the test being run, not a set time, it is a nightmare to schedule an update and a reboot. Service packs also tend to break drivers. When you have dedicated equipment, you must wait for the equipment manufacturer to release a new driver before you can risk an update. Almost a third of the machines I deal with at work are control or data collection systems. We have lost several months worth of data due to an automitic reboot from a patch. These machines now have the automatic update turned off, and are patched once a year when the manufacturer is onsite to do yearly maintenance.
My desktop at work get automatic updates. My desktop at home gets manual updates every few months. This is because my work computer is designed to run a word processor and spreadsheet. If I lose my drivers, I can go into safe mode and still get my work done. My home system I use for run more periphrials and won't update until I don't have anything I need to do in case it takes me a few days to get drivers working again.
Your post implies that the only reason to not update a system is because of laziness. I think a lot more people are scared of updates than you realize. I also think that a lot more of them should be scared. I am guessing that you are pulling your sample of "two groups" from people that check email and write a few letters. Even basic users want to occasionally do things like transfer files to an mp3 player. I have seen several mp3 players that work fine with SP1 but still do not work with SP2, even with the special downloads and hotfixes. Should those people A) go out and rebuy a piece of hardware that still functions. B) Set automatic updates and forget about their devices, even if that is why they bought a computer, so they can be a good net-citzen or C) Not update their computers so that the software and hardware they bought still function as origionally intended?
Computer are tools, if a newer better version of a tool is not capable of doing the work of the older tool, you have to use the older tool. Even if the new tool is deemed safer and easier, it is useless if it can not be used to do the work it was intended.
Microsoft should be paid for the operating system when they sell a license to use the operating system. They should make the information available so that people can use the operating system in order to operate the computer by running software that does what the operator wants. If Microsoft does not wish to sell an operating system that can be used to operate a computer independently, they should redesign the XBox to include IE and Office and sell it as a console. When I buy a console I expect to be forced to run only the software that comes from the manufacturer. When I buy an operating system, I expect it to allow me to operate my computer. By double dipping their "IP rights" Microsoft is selling an operating system that does not let me use a computer for what I want, but for what they are willing to give me. Add to this the fact that Microsoft has also sold me a license to run a programming suite (Java, C#, Visual Basic) on their operating system, I think it is a reasonable assumption that people should be allowed to write programs that the operating system will actually operate.
They wrap your hardware up in drivers, wrap the drivers up with APIs, and then want you to pay to use those APIs. Accessing those APIs is the purpose of an operating system. That is what allows you to operate your hardware.
Very few people can clean files off a computer in such a way that there is not a detectable trail that something was erased. Most people can't even delete files without leaving a backup copy in a hidden folder, cache, media player library, or word document edit header. There was also a case with the RIAA where someone did have traces that the harddrive was cleaned, and the judge ruled in favor of the RIAA. By destroying the evidence, the defendent ruined any chance of showing that the RIAA's case was possible exagerated and got nailed for everything that was claimed.
If the RIAA is willing to pay a 3rd party to copy and examine the drive, then they are willing to pay for the procedures that can recover lost data. Some of them get expensive, but the RIAA can wright it off as PR funding.
Then you have her ship it back with the understanding that they will return the harddrive to factory settings, and that she will be billed for the shipping if the problem is determined to be a software setting instead of hardware. Offer to mail her the install disk for the standard $17 shipping if she does not have a restore disk made, and wishes to try the original operating system before sending it in and possible being responsible for the shipping problems. Once the computer is returned to original condition, there is no reason to refuse warrenty. If the computer can not be returned to original condition with a restore disk that the company provides, then there is a hardware problem. Phone techs have to put up with a lot harder problems than this, and have instructed customers to reinstall from the restore disk for problems that would have been a lot easier to fix if they weren't just following a script.
By making an attempt to censor the information themselves, then youtube loses their common carrier status and the safe harbour clause. They are no longer hosting information that is from a third party. The third party submits it to them, and they are the ones posting the information after review. This is what the coorporations that deal in nothing but taking the copyrights from the authors and claiming it for themselves wants. If they can get a ruling that requires any company that host content that might be infringing to censor themselves, then they can sue that company (i.e. deep pockets) when they find something instead of going after the person that actually post the content.
To die heroically is great if it is the most efficient means of accomplishing the thing you are willing to die for. If however, by waiting you can accomplish a stronger front, then to turn and run would have been the more heroic effort. The problem I see with the gag orders, is that they prevent people from talking about them, so that they prevent a unified front against them. Most people I talk to, tell me that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act does not effect them, and don't want to listen when you explain that they are not allowed to know if it ever effects them. If the goverment can take out the people willing to resist one by one, then they will have victory. If however, the people that are willing to resist wait until they can locate enough other people that they suspect are in the same predictiment, then they can start to accumulate enough force that they can not be ignored. If four thousand people all made a public statement at once, stating that they have been given one of these letters, and do not believe it was done for reasons of terrorist threat, then the goverment has to explain why they arrested 4000 people at once. That is the kind of thing that incites riots and gains the attention of other countries and goverments. It forces the goverment to show the world exactly what kind of tactics they are using.
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo!
They are attemting to take away the first and third with these security letters. By keeping it secret, you cannot raise protest, or face your accuser. Just enough information needs to be leaked to let people be aware that there is a problem, but not enough to force the goverment to take out the people that can use the other boxes when the time comes.
And not hiring a company whose headcourter are located outside of your borders for major military contracts makes good strategic sense from a security standpoint.
You forgot a few steps...
Anyone's system breaks beyond economical repair. Must buy a new system. New system comes with Vista installed. Boss gets new system, subordinate gets bosses old system, because IT guy works for boss. Now boss sends out letter or email that has M$ new "enhanced" format of HTML or doc, and everyone has to upgrade.
Dear Upper Management:
Would you please give me written permission to read slashdot during my breaks, so that I can better understand the current issues with computer security and unauthorized use of company computers. And would you mind signing that with a blue pen and giving me the original and you can keep the photocopy.
Thank You.
They can actually store 7 x 6 in a DNA sequence for furture generations to read? I wonder what the question would read in about 3 million years. The power of DNA is to corrupt itself slightly.
or you could just put a penny in a jar every day, and buy a new one ever three years.
First, you must put "Freedoms" into context. Most freedoms are not rights that you must use every day. A freedom is something that is there when you need it. Freedoms were not made to protect people as a mindless mob, but to protect each individual so that there individual ideas could be shared with the "mob." Freedoms are by no means unlimited, but must only be taken away with due process. That was the reason for a jury by peers. When you are convicted of a crime, then you will have some freedom removed. The constitution was not written to grant what freedoms that you have, but to limit the power of the goverment so that those freedoms could never be taken away without due process. With that in mind, if just one person has or can lose a freedom without due process, then you can also be denied that freedom. You may not need it now, but it is no longer protected for when you do.
Your freedom of speech has been severly limited. This does not mean that you are going to be arrested for saying something bad about your president. It means that if you go to a rally, you will be escorted to a "Free Speech Zone" where the only one you can pass your message on to, are the people that have heard it and agree. It means that you are not allowed to have your lawyer talk to the press and explain why you were accused of being a "terroist" because it would "incite violence" Why do you think are forefathers held the freedom of speech special enough to make it the first bill of rights. They didn't want to let everyone know that they were being oppressed and needed to write there congressman^H^H^H^H King a letter and tell him that you don't like the new tax he passed. It was to get people organized to FIGHT for there rights.
There are several people that are being convicted as "terrorist" for "weapon violations" What part of "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed" states that only "good" people can have a gun. I am not saying that terrorist should be armed, I am saying that I feel it is cyclic logic to state that they are terrorist because they had weapons illegally, but that having weapons is only a crime if you are a terrorist.
You have lost the right to be free from searches without a warrent. All they have to do is say that you had communication with someone that was a suspected terrorist, so you are a suspected terrorist and everyone you talk to will be added to the list.
You have lost your right to face your accuser. If you are investigated under the patriot act, then it is illegal for anyone to even tell you you are being investigated. How can you defend your self under those conditions? How do you preserve innoccent until proven guilty.
The big problem is that all these new laws and/or executive orders have wording that is similar in effect to 'associated/commincated with a suspected terrorist person/group/organization' There is no good definition of who this may be. By posting on slashdot, you have commincated with a few people that are know to have anti-goverment sentiments, so why would you think that these new 'regulations' could never be extended to you personally? Just because they haven't yet, does not mean that you still have those freedoms.
At what point is someone a terrorist or someone defending there rights to religion? If bombing a country is not an act that creates terror, what is. "Shock and Awe" does not mean you impress people with your skill to use minimal force to take out only those targets essential to eliminating a military counter attack with minimum loss of civilain life. Most people say that a terrorist intentionally attacks civilians and doesn't wear a uniform. If someone came into this country and started sooting people because they were christian, would you take the time to have a uniform made before grabbing a gun to defend yourself, just to make sure you were protected by the coneva convention. I am not saying that is what the US has done, but that there are definately examples where haveing a un
The problem with your analogy, is that transporting copyrighted goods is not illegal, copying them without permission is. When you buy a book at the book store, they are handing you a copyrighted piece of work. They do not have the right to make copies of that work, but that is not what they are doing, they are transfering ownership of a copy which is perfectly legal under copyright law. To complete your analogy, person 'A' would have to be arrested before person 'B' picked up the material from person 'A' with no evidence that person 'B' was going to have any contact with person 'A' and person 'A' had a legal and legitimate reason to have that information in his possession. Analogies should make a problem easier to understand, your comparison can only be made valid by making the analogy more complex than the original problem.
... a web page is a copyrighted work. Since you are no longer required to register copyright in order for them to be enforced, then all web pages are copyrighted. If you download a web page then you are making an electronic copy of that web page in your computer memory. Do you have written permission to be viewing this website? The bottom of the page I am typing states that comments are owned by poster and has a copyright notice to OSTG.
Something to consider
Unless there are severe consequences, I think it is a really bad idea to proscecute on the basis of "could have" commited a crime. For the cases where there would be substantial and irreversible harm for someone to commit a crime, then pass a seperate law making it illegal to plan or intend to commit that crime. Attempted murder is illegal, not because murder is illegal and they attempted it, but because "attempt to commit murder" has been put on the books as a crime. There are good reasons for this law. "Attempt to speed" would probably not be a good law for the books. The consequences for speeding can be very severe, but a large majority of the time, there is no reason not to actually wait until the person commits the crime of speeding before writting the ticket. If someone is going to have such a significant loss of income from copyrighting, there should be enough infringment, that they should be able to locate at least one person that it was downloaded to. If you do not have one piece of evidence that the copyright has actually been infringed, then send a C&D letter, if it is ignored, then file to have a court order for the material to be removed and court cost paid. If you still don't have any evidence of actual infringemnent by the time that this takes place, then this was all that was neccessary anyways.
They have changed up the website a little, and have more clearly worded the request, and have put it towards the bottom of the page since registration at the begining of the year. Still states it must be notorized at the school. They also changed it to state the parent/guardian had to pay for false enrollment. The affidavit I was required to sign clearly states the property holder is required to pay the fees if residence was changed without notifying the school. Hear is the link:
http://www.pasadenaisd.org/studentsvcs/frame.htm
Then click Enrollment on the top menu, because you can't even link directly to the page.
Did a little more research, and found that in Texas where I live, it is a matter of police over interpreting Texas penal code Sec. 38.02.
... if you don't show id, then they must suspect that the information you have given them is wrong.
Failure to Identify.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
I have been told directly from several officers that if you are over 16 you are required to carry your id. I think the interpretation is along the lines of
I had them arrest a roommate once for auto theft because he left his wallet at home, and could not prove he was the person that was named on the registration.
Brown vs Texas ruled that an officer could not demand you identify yourself unless there was reasonable suspicion of a crime, which for some reason the school system thinks they are immune from following because it is to "protect the children"
I am in Texas, and was previously under the belief that any notaray was the equivelent of any other, hence the purpose of getting something notarized. All I can get out of the school board is that is is "official policy" that it be done in front of the principle. When I did take off work to show up at the appointed time, the principle was not there, the notary made a comment about me showing up 10 min before her time to go home and expecting her to drop what she is doing to fill out an affidavit. When the school did get back to me on this policy, it is not in any of the written policies, but if you go to the schools web site and follow several links, it "clearly" states in the print at the bottom of the banner on top of the webpage that affidavits must be filled out in person.
I will be happy to attend a parent/teacher conference if they will quit treating me like a prison inmate in order to see them. If they will treat it like any other business meeting instead of trying to pull rank I will be happy to see them. Now the kicker -- it isn't my kid, and I have no legal resposibility to care for this child, except that school "policy" has dictated that since I was kind enough to give her and her mother a roof over their head, I am now required to be the one to show up in person and take care of the paperwork.
Why does not being able to go to meeting with a teacher at a time the teacher dictates, on a day the teacher dictates, and forfeiting your civil rights because you "voluntarily" entered the premises, automatically mean that you do not have enough time for your kid? I know a lot of people that work swing shifts or non-standard hours that do not get their work schedule until 2 days before the start of the work week, including this childs mother. The kids get out of school at 2:30pm, I would love to have to work until only 2:30 in the afternoon so that I can make meetings the teachers have set up at 3:00, but even then I have a 45 min drive, and would be late and subject to criminal proscecution under this law. Parents should be involved with their kids, not neccessarily the kids' teacher. If the teacher wants to act like a dictator, then I refuse to bow down and worship them, if they want to treat me like a human being or better yet, a citizen, I will return in kind. If they want to ask me when a good time for a meeting is, and provide a reasonable schedule from which to pick, then I will accomidate.
One strike again knucklehead popping out kids, one strike for being to busy to take care of a kid. Do you have any constructive arguments to add to this discussion?