maybe you shoulf think your plan through a little more. one thing you forgot to mention - corporations only gain control over people by buying off lawmakers. ooops, i mean lobbying. be careful what you wish for...
artists lose their rights when they sign their art over to their pimps, who can do whatever they want with it. the solution is to stop listening to bands on RIAA labels. check out some of the bands on mp3.com for example...
this is a good point - when everything, including justice, is bought and sold, all we can do is choose not to buy the shit (movies) the MPAA is peddling.
"An ISP cannot "give" encryption to customers. Crypto lives at the ends of the link and the ISP only has control over the link itself."
maybe they alone can't give encryption to their customers, but they can host things like Freedom servers (zks), which facilitates this. it also defeats single-point sniffing.
i'm with you, but encryption in and of itself is only part of the solution. if they can see the email headers, chances are they can find out who you are. then they come to you house and demand that you give them your encryption key. of course, for now at least, you would've had to do something interesting to get that kind of attention. i agree that if everyone encrypted their email, gov'ts might finally clue in. unfortunately, that isn't happening.
actually, they know exactly what they are doing. it's called filling the coffers. have you ever wondered why it is illegal to set up your own numbers game?
it's even funnier that you missed my point. drug dealers don't hide from their customers. they do hide from law enforcement however because it is illegal to sell drugs. if it were legal, you could buy drugs on eBay... as far as the trust thing goes, you have to to trust the people you deal with on an anonymous network because half the people are government agents fresh out of entrapment school. reputation capital is an interesting thing - you check check it out. you seem to have your mind firmly made up on this issue, which is too bad, but don't forget "shady dealings" might be political free speech in an oppressive country. or maybe that's just libertarian rhetoric...?
still more: fraud will always be a problem, but a company's reputation capital is what will make this system usable. do you know what happens to drug dealers that sell bad shit? they don't stay in business long. this protocol will help users in ways your middle of the road, rock the vote, save the children, please tax me view doesn't realize.
"He thinks that people who are rich should stay rich and no one should get anything for free, because you have to take it from somebody else, and that's stealing. All logical and correct. "
not correct. AFAICT, you have misrepresented the man. the nature of trade is that you give and you get something back in return. he is talking about the redistribution of wealth by governments. if you want them to do this, that's fine. but if not, they are stealing from you, no matter how you slice it. that is the key point of the argument.
in this example, maybe the above is the crime the authorities like the FBI should concentrate on. from my experience, murderers are more dangerous than text.
a strange article. like others have said, the author clearly has an agenda here, and misrepresents libertarian ideals somewhat. remember, it is about freewill. the ability to choose, not what you should choose. big companies using the net to sell their warez doesn't mean you can't use it for your own pruposes.
oh well. i was pleasantly suprised with the comments in this thread...not the usual/. banter.
on the net, reputation captial is important. yes, talent is rewarded on the net. that's how it should be. the irony is katz attempting to label the people with this talent as a certain race, gender, or political affiliation. he doesn't seem to get it. THESE THINGS DON'T FUCKING MATTER ON THE NET. what you know does.
communities grow around those with similar interests. what is the problem with women turning to women's communities to talk about women's issues? honestly jon, on one hand you recognize the net as a place of freedom and diversity, then on the other hand you suggest that it should be dumbed down to include those you can't even operate a mouse. what gives?
Slashdot Mirror
you know, you might be on to something :-)
seriously - the nerve! no one should ever, under any circumstance, create wealth for themself.
for my money, you just can't beat the good old Canadian sense of humor...
"Taxation WILL begin once not paying (only fair) taxes begins to hurt much-loved and desired social programs."
much-loved and desired by whom?
remember, this will only be a problem IF you upgrade to Win2000.
huh? the guy is a bit skeptical maybe, but i wouldn't say inflammatory...
maybe you shoulf think your plan through a little more. one thing you forgot to mention - corporations only gain control over people by buying off lawmakers. ooops, i mean lobbying. be careful what you wish for...
artists lose their rights when they sign their art over to their pimps, who can do whatever they want with it. the solution is to stop listening to bands on RIAA labels. check out some of the bands on mp3.com for example...
exactly right.
this is a good point - when everything, including justice, is bought and sold, all we can do is choose not to buy the shit (movies) the MPAA is peddling.
"An ISP cannot "give" encryption to customers. Crypto lives at the ends of the link and the ISP only has control over the link itself."
maybe they alone can't give encryption to their customers, but they can host things like Freedom servers (zks), which facilitates this. it also defeats single-point sniffing.
it's kind of like how cancer starts in humans.
i'm with you, but encryption in and of itself is only part of the solution. if they can see the email headers, chances are they can find out who you are. then they come to you house and demand that you give them your encryption key. of course, for now at least, you would've had to do something interesting to get that kind of attention. i agree that if everyone encrypted their email, gov'ts might finally clue in. unfortunately, that isn't happening.
actually, they know exactly what they are doing. it's called filling the coffers. have you ever wondered why it is illegal to set up your own numbers game?
are you saying that poor people are inherently stupid?
it's even funnier that you missed my point. drug dealers don't hide from their customers. they do hide from law enforcement however because it is illegal to sell drugs. if it were legal, you could buy drugs on eBay...
as far as the trust thing goes, you have to to trust the people you deal with on an anonymous network because half the people are government agents fresh out of entrapment school. reputation capital is an interesting thing - you check check it out.
you seem to have your mind firmly made up on this issue, which is too bad, but don't forget "shady dealings" might be political free speech in an oppressive country. or maybe that's just libertarian rhetoric...?
still more:
fraud will always be a problem, but a company's reputation capital is what will make this system usable. do you know what happens to drug dealers that sell bad shit? they don't stay in business long. this protocol will help users in ways your middle of the road, rock the vote, save the children, please tax me view doesn't realize.
"He thinks that people who are rich should stay rich and no one should get anything for free, because you have to take it from somebody else, and that's stealing. All logical and correct. "
not correct. AFAICT, you have misrepresented the man. the nature of trade is that you give and you get something back in return. he is talking about the redistribution of wealth by governments. if you want them to do this, that's fine. but if not, they are stealing from you, no matter how you slice it. that is the key point of the argument.
"If it were not wildly off-topic, I would launch into a detailed discussion of social-contract theory"
yes - that and if social contracts were not without merit.
"And another physician is shot to death ...."
in this example, maybe the above is the crime the authorities like the FBI should concentrate on. from my experience, murderers are more dangerous than text.
a strange article. like others have said, the author clearly has an agenda here, and misrepresents libertarian ideals somewhat. remember, it is about freewill. the ability to choose, not what you should choose. big companies using the net to sell their warez doesn't mean you can't use it for your own pruposes.
/. banter.
oh well. i was pleasantly suprised with the comments in this thread...not the usual
masterbate all the live long day...
...for a free (as in sex) operating system
on the net, reputation captial is important. yes, talent is rewarded on the net. that's how it should be. the irony is katz attempting to label the people with this talent as a certain race, gender, or political affiliation. he doesn't seem to get it. THESE THINGS DON'T FUCKING MATTER ON THE NET. what you know does.
communities grow around those with similar interests. what is the problem with women turning to women's communities to talk about women's issues? honestly jon, on one hand you recognize the net as a place of freedom and diversity, then on the other hand you suggest that it should be dumbed down to include those you can't even operate a mouse. what gives?
if you don't want to make the trade they are asking, don't do it. doesn't seem like a problem to me.