If now file sharing is criminalized, people will quickly pick up obfuscation mechanisms to protect themselves
File sharing was criminalized as soon as Newsweek published the first article describing what it was to the computer illiterate. I reasoned along the same lines as you're reasoning when they shut down Napster (oh, boy, now the file-sharers are going to create an underground, untraceable network), but it never materialized. If it didn't happen then, it's not going to happen now (not that I'm a big fan of the RIAA - just pointing out that you're making some big assumptions here).
compare an ecstasy drug-ring to a champion of civil liberties?
Did you expect the next landmark civil liberties supreme court decision to revolve around correspondence between heart surgeons discussing the best way to save the lives of starving African orphans? If civil liberties only apply to people above suspicion in the first place, there's not much point in having them, now, is there?
No, there aren't. If there was an anonymous channel that could be used to disclose security flaws, that channel would be used to anonymously trade music, or movies, or something "even worse" and its supporters would be jailed for enabling it.
Until an anonymous channel is created that doesn't require the support of non-anonymous administrators, there won't be any anonymous way to communicate anything.
As for why they cancelled the presentation, last year Cisco sued Black Hat conference organizers after a security researcher demonstrated a method for running unauthorized code on a Cisco router.
And still there are people, even here on Slashdot, who insist that anonymous speech is not a precondition for free speech.
A wired network for desktops. No floppies. No USB. The sensitive files stay within the building.
That doesn't guarantee security. If you really want to take security seriously, post snipers on the roof and have them shoot employees before they can make it into the building.
Amen, brother. It never ceases to amaze me how many people on/. argue that US censorship isn't really censorship because it's "appropriate censorship". We'll be oppressed, just like the Chinese, until more of us finally start to realize that we are.
Me too. It's too bad I have to live in the "keep doing it this way because we've always done it this way and can't envision a different way" world that some of you force upon the rest of us.
Which kind of makes the so called "Freedom of Speech" pointless.
I think you're confusing "pointless" with "ignored". I support freedom of speech - total, absolute, unregulated (and whatever your "what about" question is, the answer is, "yes, damn it"). A lot of people say they support freedom of speech, but don't really support it because they fear it. If you think that there ought to be freedom of speech with some regulations, then that's pointless, but that's you. If there are any regulations, then it's no more "free" than China or Stalinist Russia; it's just a different sort of lack of freedom.
Since you're in a posting mood, maybe you can enlighten me, because I've always wondered - can you see *anything* through the rear window of your pickup truck with all those guns and confederate flags obstructing your view?
Incidentally, do you know the answer to those questions? I was always under the impression that rich people "sponsored" their works, but I always wondered how that actually worked out - the history books don't talk much about it.
That's scary as hell, actually - talk about a chilling effect. They could have been pictures of dolphins, and you still would have convicted the guy because you're afraid of the way other people would look at you for examining the evidence. HFS. Not that I blame you... which is what scares me.
What's interesting is that I seem to recall this being fairly controversial in the late 70's/early 80's (although I was pretty young back then) whereas, now, mainstream popular opinion seems to have the law having been carved in stone by God and handed down to Moses. It looks to me like more evidence that people are essentially programmable - if you drum into their heads hard enough that "X is evil and X must be destroyed" (while simultaneously silencing all opposition - that's the key), then about 90% of them will internalize it and figure it was their idea to begin with.
As long as your pictures are legal they will be hosted here
Isn't that, er, the definition of censorship? Censorship = Banned by such-and-such government, ergo illegal? By this logic, over-the-air radio and television is "censorship free", even in China, since they're broadcasting anything they want as long as it's legal.
they use their new power to look at naked chics. Knowledge be damned.
I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but your post leaves me with the impression that you feel that censorship of naked chics is OK (because nobody should be looking at that anyway), but censorship of knowledge is a problem (agree with you there). Assuming that's where you're going (apologies if it wasn't) - how do you justify any censorship? Censorship is always wrong, period, end of story, because the justification is ALWAYS subjective. That means that a few people are deciding what everybody can and can't look at/read/talk about/think about. That's tyranny of a few over the many - do you think that that's ok?
Oddly enough, there appear to be many, many pro-censorship (as long as it's the good kind of censorship) proponents, even here on Slashdot, even here in America (where we're actually taught in first-grade civics class that censorship as a concept is wrong). They seem to moralize censorship - it's ok, as long as the purpose is noble enough. The ends justify the means. I've seen many posts here along the lines of "and don't give me this 'slippery slope' BS because we've been censoring naked chics on TV for decades and the Gestapo still doesn't kick in your door when you criticize Bush!" which completely misses the point that censorship itself is an evil concept, just like slavery, genocide, torture, etc. We should strive to eradicate the concept - if you want to protect your children, see to it that they only vaguely understand what the word means; don't look to justify it every time somebody proposes it.
That works as long as there's at least one country left that doesn't censor (because we gotta Protect The Children!). Don't expect that to last much longer.
Form Militias: the last ones I heard about burn to death, or were shot to death.
Well, technically, the constitution says that congress shall make no law against forming militias, it doesn't say anything about not killing everybody who does it. Hello loophole!
Lucky for the identity thief they ended up in the police station and not the morgue. If you were on the jury and the victim had beaten the thief to death... would you convict? I'm not sure I would.
Slashdot Mirror
More advanced than video or photo? You mean holographs or something?
File sharing was criminalized as soon as Newsweek published the first article describing what it was to the computer illiterate. I reasoned along the same lines as you're reasoning when they shut down Napster (oh, boy, now the file-sharers are going to create an underground, untraceable network), but it never materialized. If it didn't happen then, it's not going to happen now (not that I'm a big fan of the RIAA - just pointing out that you're making some big assumptions here).
I admire your courageous efforts to go out on a limb and commit yourself to such a controversial stance.
Did you expect the next landmark civil liberties supreme court decision to revolve around correspondence between heart surgeons discussing the best way to save the lives of starving African orphans? If civil liberties only apply to people above suspicion in the first place, there's not much point in having them, now, is there?
You mean like the way I was never supposed to have to reveal my social security number in order to prove my identity?
No, there aren't. If there was an anonymous channel that could be used to disclose security flaws, that channel would be used to anonymously trade music, or movies, or something "even worse" and its supporters would be jailed for enabling it.
Until an anonymous channel is created that doesn't require the support of non-anonymous administrators, there won't be any anonymous way to communicate anything.
And still there are people, even here on Slashdot, who insist that anonymous speech is not a precondition for free speech.
That doesn't guarantee security. If you really want to take security seriously, post snipers on the roof and have them shoot employees before they can make it into the building.
Amen, brother. It never ceases to amaze me how many people on /. argue that US censorship isn't really censorship because it's "appropriate censorship". We'll be oppressed, just like the Chinese, until more of us finally start to realize that we are.
Me too. It's too bad I have to live in the "keep doing it this way because we've always done it this way and can't envision a different way" world that some of you force upon the rest of us.
I think you're confusing "pointless" with "ignored". I support freedom of speech - total, absolute, unregulated (and whatever your "what about" question is, the answer is, "yes, damn it"). A lot of people say they support freedom of speech, but don't really support it because they fear it. If you think that there ought to be freedom of speech with some regulations, then that's pointless, but that's you. If there are any regulations, then it's no more "free" than China or Stalinist Russia; it's just a different sort of lack of freedom.
Since you're in a posting mood, maybe you can enlighten me, because I've always wondered - can you see *anything* through the rear window of your pickup truck with all those guns and confederate flags obstructing your view?
Incidentally, do you know the answer to those questions? I was always under the impression that rich people "sponsored" their works, but I always wondered how that actually worked out - the history books don't talk much about it.
Thanks, I was looking everywhere for that link.
That's scary as hell, actually - talk about a chilling effect. They could have been pictures of dolphins, and you still would have convicted the guy because you're afraid of the way other people would look at you for examining the evidence. HFS. Not that I blame you... which is what scares me.
Good to see that it takes more than rhetorical hyperbole to sway your opinion of somebody.
Well, go ahead, but I gotta warn you - when I posted those same pictures, people complained and wanted me to take 'em down...
What's interesting is that I seem to recall this being fairly controversial in the late 70's/early 80's (although I was pretty young back then) whereas, now, mainstream popular opinion seems to have the law having been carved in stone by God and handed down to Moses. It looks to me like more evidence that people are essentially programmable - if you drum into their heads hard enough that "X is evil and X must be destroyed" (while simultaneously silencing all opposition - that's the key), then about 90% of them will internalize it and figure it was their idea to begin with.
Or they've already been carted away by the Swedish Bureau of Investigation because somebody posted an image somebody else deems "harmful".
Isn't that, er, the definition of censorship? Censorship = Banned by such-and-such government, ergo illegal? By this logic, over-the-air radio and television is "censorship free", even in China, since they're broadcasting anything they want as long as it's legal.
I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but your post leaves me with the impression that you feel that censorship of naked chics is OK (because nobody should be looking at that anyway), but censorship of knowledge is a problem (agree with you there). Assuming that's where you're going (apologies if it wasn't) - how do you justify any censorship? Censorship is always wrong, period, end of story, because the justification is ALWAYS subjective. That means that a few people are deciding what everybody can and can't look at/read/talk about/think about. That's tyranny of a few over the many - do you think that that's ok?
Oddly enough, there appear to be many, many pro-censorship (as long as it's the good kind of censorship) proponents, even here on Slashdot, even here in America (where we're actually taught in first-grade civics class that censorship as a concept is wrong). They seem to moralize censorship - it's ok, as long as the purpose is noble enough. The ends justify the means. I've seen many posts here along the lines of "and don't give me this 'slippery slope' BS because we've been censoring naked chics on TV for decades and the Gestapo still doesn't kick in your door when you criticize Bush!" which completely misses the point that censorship itself is an evil concept, just like slavery, genocide, torture, etc. We should strive to eradicate the concept - if you want to protect your children, see to it that they only vaguely understand what the word means; don't look to justify it every time somebody proposes it.
That works as long as there's at least one country left that doesn't censor (because we gotta Protect The Children!). Don't expect that to last much longer.
Well, technically, the constitution says that congress shall make no law against forming militias, it doesn't say anything about not killing everybody who does it. Hello loophole!
Well, this statement is false.
Lucky for the identity thief they ended up in the police station and not the morgue. If you were on the jury and the victim had beaten the thief to death... would you convict? I'm not sure I would.