The IRS is a little bit of a different scenario. The FBI is a government sactioned organization. The IRS is a completely illegal and unchecked organization. Even if congress hadn't granted the exemption, the IRS could have ignored congresses orders because the IRS is completely free of law. The IRS has the following unconstitutional rights:
1) search and siezure without a warrent (including use of illegal IRS swat teams) 2) they can take money from your bank accounts and other assests without premission from either you or the banks, or the courts (which by the way is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment which clearly states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") 3) They are above all laws. They can burn your house down while they illegally search it for files and they don't have to answer to you or anyone else.
Not to mention that Income Tax is unconstitutional, but I believe I have digressed enough.
And whats more the saftey of the country and the whole Internet. The government is claiming that this will increase national security. But in reality, it is just another door for the country to be invaded electronically, which is a major issue on other political fronts.
You are right, the government would have no reason to monitor most of "us". I think I speak rightly when I say that most/. readers are pretty innocent and not a threat. However, this system has no checks and balances. Lets assume for argument sake that you are not a prime suspect for monitoring. You are an average, law abiding guy, who pays his taxes. What if 30 years from now the laws change enough that you are considedred a threat, the government could continue to try to exert more control and then finally be at a point where YOU are out of control. YOU are now a prime suspect for monitoring.
However, that is an admittedly unlikely scenario. But consider this. Lets assume again (for argument sake) that you are Pro-Choice. Now lets assume that the government passes a law that makes abortion illegal (a much more likely scenario). Your daughter is pregnant, and you take her to get an abortion and it is discusses in an e-mail. BAM! Your thrown in jail because you were under monitoring because of your pro-choice tendencies.
Still too unfeasable? Ok. Lets say there is no anti-abortion law. Lets say that the new director of the FBI is a very strong pro-lifer, and he institutes secret policy to have all pro-choice people monitored. You are found talking about pro-choice in an e-mail. (And why wouldn't you talk about it in e-mail. It's legal, and your not the type of person who would be monitored anyway). But when the FBI director finds out, he has your FBI Record fabricated to include other violations such as felonies or murders.
I'm not saying that it is likely that these things will happen, but the existence of an (unchecked and unbalanced) system like Carnivore would allow such things to happen.
I apologize if I offended/confused anyone with the abortion scenario, it was simply the first that came to mind.
I completely agree. The geek community (or at least the/. geek community) seems to be rather insecure. Wether or not being anti or pro something is cool is not concerning me so much. People will always be somewhat insecure to express their own ideas, it is simply easier and more comfortable to agree. I am most concerned with people agreeing with these ideas arbitrarily, without really bothering to understand them first.
You also make a very good point about the word technology. People too often focus today on electronic and computer technology. But technology encompasses a much large group of "items" than that. I think that this thought is what is slowing the computer industry. The computer industry needs to be more connected with other industries.
I disagree that/. is not the place to be an individual. These days the large majority of posts tend to be juvinile and trivial. However, postings like yours are the ones that spark the interesting and worthwhile discussions.
Just to express my self and prove your point:
Napster should be shut down and/or reformed. But right now they are the lesser of two evils. The RIAA needs to be taken down a peg or two first. I think that many of the geek ideas and motivations reflect an "instant gratification" that is characteristic to the geek lifestyle. However, large political things such as the ones mentioned in Katz's article are things that still need to be handled slowly.
As far as Echelon and Carnivore, I am anti, but not completely. I beleve that the government should have some sort of electronic wire-tapping. They have just as much a need to protect themselves (and often it's citizens) as we have a right to privacy. But we need to find an adequate balance. Their power online should be no greater or uncontrollable than it is offline. Electronic wire-taps are fine, but warrents should have to be issued by judges to get them. These warrents should allow monitoring of a very narrow and specific amount of information (as the US Constitution stipulates in the Bill of Rights). Finally, that information gathered should be treated just like any other evidence. And you should have the same right to an "expectation of privacy" online as your do offline.
I realize that I have digressed here, but I think it was necessary.
The way an open market works, when a certain company abuses customers' rights, they should go out of business, they theoretically should be overrun by a competing company that doesn't abuse their customers. But as we have seen with Microsoft, this doesn't work. I think what we have to figure out and correct is not necessarily more laws that protect the consumers, but less laws so that the corporations have less of an ability to manipulate the consumer. What I continue to see is big business using government to manipulate and exploit the consumer. However, if we take away laws instead of creating more, then the government has less of an facility to be a tool of big business.
It's just a game. I mean come on, this can't be all that they are fighting about. If so, everyone in the company is being extremely childish. I mean, it's just a game, that isn't something that should break up friendship. I think that all the employee's should take a step back and forget their passionate ideas for a minute and look at just what is causing so much trouble. IT IS JUST A GAME!!! A string of 0's and 1's. Common guys, look at what you are doing.
Lets assume that we don't even need a country. Let's say you build some platform out in the middle of the ocean and offer co-location services on it for people. The machines are actually in international waters and therefore not under any jurisdiction. Theoretically, the government shouldn't be able to touch it. However, where are you getting your connection from? The line has to be running somewhere, and it's most likely somewhere that has very real laws (whether just ones or not). Some might suggest using wireless/satellite connections as well, but the people/companies who own those infrastructures are just as restricted. The only way to get an Internet that is truly free of laws of any form is to create an infrastructure that is independent of corporations and companies. If each individual who connects to the Internet owns their infrastructure, then the entire Internet would be owned by the people. As it is, the physical aspects that make up the Internet (the lines, switches, routers, fiber, and backbones) are owned by governments or corporations.
That is an optimistic point of view, but hey, it's just an idea.
That is an interesting point. Did the investigator that Metallica used (NetPD I believe it was) ACTUALLY prove that the users were pirating metallica songs, or did they simply look for people transfering MP3's that were named after Metallica songs? If so, are the actual names of the songs copyrighted material? or just the music itself?
Re:Microsoft is nogood dog but NOT GUILTY!!!
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
I agree, another examply of a superpowerful company that hurt the consumers is one that hits very close to home whith current talks about MS... MaBell. Even the current baby Bells are still too powerful to let (much) competition in. I live on East Coast US and the only other choice I have for phone service is RCN (Starpower). And since I'm getting my ADSL through BellAtlantic, if I switch to RCN for local phone, it will be more expensive in the long run because my ADSL rate will rise.
Katz is right. Over the past few years you can see a slow movement AWAY from a MS dominated society. The entire opensoure/linux movement has opened up another option for everyone to use, and the iMac brought back the success of MAC-OS tremendously. We can't all expect everyone to completely drop microsoft products overnight, it just doesn't work that way. If you look at the past few years, you can see that developers have gradually been beginning to develop for more OS's. Also, more and more large companies have been boosting support for things like Linux (Corel and IBM to name a few) as well as the rise of genuinely BIG Linux companies (RedHat & VA Linux Systems).
So Katz is right, the MS World has been falling apart for years now. I think that the ruling is simply another victory against MS in a long string of victories over the past few years.
I also certainly don't hope that the world ever becomes TOTALLY void of MS. Bear with me here. Another company needs equal competition just as much as MS does, we don't want another software superpower to arise after MS's fall. Also, all poor business practices aside, MS generally makes good software (relatively in a "closed-source" market). Generally many of Microsoft's products are effecient, clean, and easy to use (for all the newbies and families out there). Hopefully as MS continues to loose their power, they will begin to make their products better and (though I doubt it) begin to develop for other operating systems. I would love to see MS Office for Linux (or something of the sort... opensource of course:).
Shaun
Microsoft is nogood dog but NOT GUILTY!!!
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
I completely agree that MS has done some dirty shit in the past (and present I am sure). They are completely unfair with their competitors and far too powerful for their own good. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that they are in violation of anti-trust laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but the US anti-trust laws were created to protect the consumers and laborers? In the case of MS, neither of those parties have been harmed. ONLY the competitors have been harmed. And I don't believe that the laws were created to protect competitors!? So while MS has royally screwed many competitors, they haven't really done anything illegal as far as I can see (though I'm not a federal judge with years of university education). I'd appreciate feedback on this issue. If the anti-trust laws don't protect the competitors (which I dont' think they do) should they? Shaun
Great article. And I think it makes some very valid points and some very frightening realizations. Having our imformation chosen and censored by a large corporation is no better than having it censored by the government. This merger is just as much a threat as the CDA a few years ago. Something needs to be done.
Wait, I guess that's 3. Oh well. It has to be affordable bandwidth too. And there of course have to be jobs. And for the really rich geeks there have to be rural areas nearby to drive their fast sports cars. And women, we all need women. And last but not least, entertainment (a theater, concerts, conventions, etc.)
"Denial-of-service attacks can be launched using any of dozens of programs available in hacker chat forums and on the Web" Or they could simply use ping. Which is an essential network tool that comes with just about every operating system. There is no need to blame the "dozens of programs". Blame the ethics of the people doing the DoS's.
Carmack speak more on why and how to turn it off
on
Another Software Spy
·
· Score: 1
check www.bluesnews.com and look at Carmacks new.plan update (or check the.plan yourself)
I completely agree. It is information that is unconnected to the user and helps the users in the long run.
People don't seem to realize quite how much information about them is sent across the net in an average day. In the big picture, this is very very small.
I'm sure they didn't have any idea people would freak out. And knowing ID, they follow the community so closely (becasue they are part of it... i mean you can e-mail Carmack if you are really that pissed and he will probably reply), that it will probably be addressed shortly. What is this talk about sueing them? common.. it's ID! I think at this point we should let them know that we are feeling violated, and that they should ask/tell us next time. Knee jerk reactions are anti-productive. It is better to let them know that we don't like it and they they should go no further than to overreact and threaten them.
I'm finding myself being a bit forgiving because it is the one software company that we all love, id software. These guys have always been the best, open to the community, serving the community. I guess it just comes as so much of a shock that they would do something more characteristic of "The Man". I don't mind giving out my video card info, but comon id, you really should tell us openly. I mean, id has always been in a sort of open disscussion with the whole gaming community. I'm sure that if you had asked us and told us that you were doing this we would all be more than willing.
Slashdot Mirror
**DIGRESSION**
The IRS is a little bit of a different scenario. The FBI is a government sactioned organization. The IRS is a completely illegal and unchecked organization. Even if congress hadn't granted the exemption, the IRS could have ignored congresses orders because the IRS is completely free of law. The IRS has the following unconstitutional rights:
1) search and siezure without a warrent (including use of illegal IRS swat teams)
2) they can take money from your bank accounts and other assests without premission from either you or the banks, or the courts (which by the way is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment which clearly states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.")
3) They are above all laws. They can burn your house down while they illegally search it for files and they don't have to answer to you or anyone else.
Not to mention that Income Tax is unconstitutional, but I believe I have digressed enough.
And whats more the saftey of the country and the whole Internet. The government is claiming that this will increase national security. But in reality, it is just another door for the country to be invaded electronically, which is a major issue on other political fronts.
You are right, the government would have no reason to monitor most of "us". I think I speak rightly when I say that most /. readers are pretty innocent and not a threat. However, this system has no checks and balances. Lets assume for argument sake that you are not a prime suspect for monitoring. You are an average, law abiding guy, who pays his taxes. What if 30 years from now the laws change enough that you are considedred a threat, the government could continue to try to exert more control and then finally be at a point where YOU are out of control. YOU are now a prime suspect for monitoring.
However, that is an admittedly unlikely scenario. But consider this. Lets assume again (for argument sake) that you are Pro-Choice. Now lets assume that the government passes a law that makes abortion illegal (a much more likely scenario). Your daughter is pregnant, and you take her to get an abortion and it is discusses in an e-mail. BAM! Your thrown in jail because you were under monitoring because of your pro-choice tendencies.
Still too unfeasable? Ok. Lets say there is no anti-abortion law. Lets say that the new director of the FBI is a very strong pro-lifer, and he institutes secret policy to have all pro-choice people monitored. You are found talking about pro-choice in an e-mail. (And why wouldn't you talk about it in e-mail. It's legal, and your not the type of person who would be monitored anyway). But when the FBI director finds out, he has your FBI Record fabricated to include other violations such as felonies or murders.
I'm not saying that it is likely that these things will happen, but the existence of an (unchecked and unbalanced) system like Carnivore would allow such things to happen.
I apologize if I offended/confused anyone with the abortion scenario, it was simply the first that came to mind.
Shaun
ICQ:1634382
I paid cash for mine at Linux Expo.. so I'm safe :)
I completely agree. The geek community (or at least the /. geek community) seems to be rather insecure. Wether or not being anti or pro something is cool is not concerning me so much. People will always be somewhat insecure to express their own ideas, it is simply easier and more comfortable to agree. I am most concerned with people agreeing with these ideas arbitrarily, without really bothering to understand them first.
/. is not the place to be an individual. These days the large majority of posts tend to be juvinile and trivial. However, postings like yours are the ones that spark the interesting and worthwhile discussions.
You also make a very good point about the word technology. People too often focus today on electronic and computer technology. But technology encompasses a much large group of "items" than that. I think that this thought is what is slowing the computer industry. The computer industry needs to be more connected with other industries.
I disagree that
Just to express my self and prove your point:
Napster should be shut down and/or reformed. But right now they are the lesser of two evils. The RIAA needs to be taken down a peg or two first. I think that many of the geek ideas and motivations reflect an "instant gratification" that is characteristic to the geek lifestyle. However, large political things such as the ones mentioned in Katz's article are things that still need to be handled slowly.
As far as Echelon and Carnivore, I am anti, but not completely. I beleve that the government should have some sort of electronic wire-tapping. They have just as much a need to protect themselves (and often it's citizens) as we have a right to privacy. But we need to find an adequate balance. Their power online should be no greater or uncontrollable than it is offline. Electronic wire-taps are fine, but warrents should have to be issued by judges to get them. These warrents should allow monitoring of a very narrow and specific amount of information (as the US Constitution stipulates in the Bill of Rights). Finally, that information gathered should be treated just like any other evidence. And you should have the same right to an "expectation of privacy" online as your do offline.
I realize that I have digressed here, but I think it was necessary.
Shaun Jamieson
ICQ: 1634382
The way an open market works, when a certain company abuses customers' rights, they should go out of business, they theoretically should be overrun by a competing company that doesn't abuse their customers. But as we have seen with Microsoft, this doesn't work. I think what we have to figure out and correct is not necessarily more laws that protect the consumers, but less laws so that the corporations have less of an ability to manipulate the consumer. What I continue to see is big business using government to manipulate and exploit the consumer. However, if we take away laws instead of creating more, then the government has less of an facility to be a tool of big business.
This sort of situation sounds like one that is more likely to cause a judge to prohibit such acts. And THAT is a dangerous precident.
It's just a game. I mean come on, this can't be all that they are fighting about. If so, everyone in the company is being extremely childish. I mean, it's just a game, that isn't something that should break up friendship. I think that all the employee's should take a step back and forget their passionate ideas for a minute and look at just what is causing so much trouble. IT IS JUST A GAME!!! A string of 0's and 1's. Common guys, look at what you are doing.
Shaun Jamieson
Lets assume that we don't even need a country. Let's say you build some platform out in the middle of the ocean and offer co-location services on it for people. The machines are actually in international waters and therefore not under any jurisdiction. Theoretically, the government shouldn't be able to touch it. However, where are you getting your connection from? The line has to be running somewhere, and it's most likely somewhere that has very real laws (whether just ones or not). Some might suggest using wireless/satellite connections as well, but the people/companies who own those infrastructures are just as restricted. The only way to get an Internet that is truly free of laws of any form is to create an infrastructure that is independent of corporations and companies. If each individual who connects to the Internet owns their infrastructure, then the entire Internet would be owned by the people. As it is, the physical aspects that make up the Internet (the lines, switches, routers, fiber, and backbones) are owned by governments or corporations.
That is an optimistic point of view, but hey, it's just an idea.
That is an interesting point. Did the investigator that Metallica used (NetPD I believe it was) ACTUALLY prove that the users were pirating metallica songs, or did they simply look for people transfering MP3's that were named after Metallica songs? If so, are the actual names of the songs copyrighted material? or just the music itself?
I agree, another examply of a superpowerful company that hurt the consumers is one that hits very close to home whith current talks about MS... MaBell. Even the current baby Bells are still too powerful to let (much) competition in. I live on East Coast US and the only other choice I have for phone service is RCN (Starpower). And since I'm getting my ADSL through BellAtlantic, if I switch to RCN for local phone, it will be more expensive in the long run because my ADSL rate will rise.
Katz is right. Over the past few years you can see a slow movement AWAY from a MS dominated society. The entire opensoure/linux movement has opened up another option for everyone to use, and the iMac brought back the success of MAC-OS tremendously. We can't all expect everyone to completely drop microsoft products overnight, it just doesn't work that way. If you look at the past few years, you can see that developers have gradually been beginning to develop for more OS's. Also, more and more large companies have been boosting support for things like Linux (Corel and IBM to name a few) as well as the rise of genuinely BIG Linux companies (RedHat & VA Linux Systems).
:).
So Katz is right, the MS World has been falling apart for years now. I think that the ruling is simply another victory against MS in a long string of victories over the past few years.
I also certainly don't hope that the world ever becomes TOTALLY void of MS. Bear with me here. Another company needs equal competition just as much as MS does, we don't want another software superpower to arise after MS's fall. Also, all poor business practices aside, MS generally makes good software (relatively in a "closed-source" market). Generally many of Microsoft's products are effecient, clean, and easy to use (for all the newbies and families out there). Hopefully as MS continues to loose their power, they will begin to make their products better and (though I doubt it) begin to develop for other operating systems. I would love to see MS Office for Linux (or something of the sort... opensource of course
Shaun
I completely agree that MS has done some dirty shit in the past (and present I am sure). They are completely unfair with their competitors and far too powerful for their own good. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that they are in violation of anti-trust laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but the US anti-trust laws were created to protect the consumers and laborers? In the case of MS, neither of those parties have been harmed. ONLY the competitors have been harmed. And I don't believe that the laws were created to protect competitors!? So while MS has royally screwed many competitors, they haven't really done anything illegal as far as I can see (though I'm not a federal judge with years of university education). I'd appreciate feedback on this issue. If the anti-trust laws don't protect the competitors (which I dont' think they do) should they? Shaun
Great article. And I think it makes some very valid points and some very frightening realizations. Having our imformation chosen and censored by a large corporation is no better than having it censored by the government. This merger is just as much a threat as the CDA a few years ago. Something needs to be done.
Lots of Bandwidth!
Wait, I guess that's 3. Oh well. It has to be affordable bandwidth too. And there of course have to be jobs. And for the really rich geeks there have to be rural areas nearby to drive their fast sports cars. And women, we all need women. And last but not least, entertainment (a theater, concerts, conventions, etc.)
They are trying to bar sites that publish info about DeCSS? Isn't that suppression of freedom of press and/or freedom of speech (in the US at least)?
"Denial-of-service attacks can be launched using any of dozens of programs available in hacker chat forums and on the Web" Or they could simply use ping. Which is an essential network tool that comes with just about every operating system. There is no need to blame the "dozens of programs". Blame the ethics of the people doing the DoS's.
check www.bluesnews.com and look at Carmacks new .plan update (or check the .plan yourself)
I completely agree. It is information that is unconnected to the user and helps the users in the long run.
People don't seem to realize quite how much information about them is sent across the net in an average day. In the big picture, this is very very small.
I know... but "id" gets lost in the context of a paragraph. I kept typing "id" in my post and it didn't look right so I switched it to "ID"
:)
besides... it's changed over the past few years to many times
I'm sure they didn't have any idea people would freak out. And knowing ID, they follow the community so closely (becasue they are part of it... i mean you can e-mail Carmack if you are really that pissed and he will probably reply), that it will probably be addressed shortly. What is this talk about sueing them? common.. it's ID! I think at this point we should let them know that we are feeling violated, and that they should ask/tell us next time. Knee jerk reactions are anti-productive. It is better to let them know that we don't like it and they they should go no further than to overreact and threaten them.
I'm finding myself being a bit forgiving because it is the one software company that we all love, id software. These guys have always been the best, open to the community, serving the community. I guess it just comes as so much of a shock that they would do something more characteristic of "The Man". I don't mind giving out my video card info, but comon id, you really should tell us openly. I mean, id has always been in a sort of open disscussion with the whole gaming community. I'm sure that if you had asked us and told us that you were doing this we would all be more than willing.
it is also the home of MCI Worldcom and UUnet (ok... well technically MCI Worldcom is in DC)
I sent in this story too... looks like someone beat me to it :)
the courts also said he "shall not access computers... himself or through third parties"... that mean he can't order a quarter pounder at McDonalds.