"Taking these facts together, a higher crime rate among African Americans appears to be nearly inevitable. I think the main culprit here is an economic environment that affords people little opportunity to improve their income status, rather than a habit of racism within the justice system."
I fully agree with your analysis. The argument, therefor, that black people are punished more then white people because they are more criminal, bypasses the real reason. It still is the system that maintains these inequalities that is the root cause, therefor any conservatives saying "It's there own fault! They just are born criminals" is talking pure crap.
Apart from that, one can not exclude some racist prejudice by the courts (maybe partly uncounsiously) as well. For instance, with your above reasoning, it still can't be explained why the courts on average give much longer sentences *for the same sort of crimes* if they are commited by blacks then by whites.
You just say it was *meant* as an anonymous proxy or hotspot.
There is no law forbidding you to create a hotspot and/or to let your puter use as a proxy. there is also no law that requires you to keep a log.
And if you effectively act as a carrier, you *do* have carrier-status protection; there is no law (at least not where I leave) that provides that protection to companies, but not to individuals.
That said, you could be violating your TOS, you would still be liable (depending on the laws) if you were pointed out the illegal files and you didn't remove them, and genreally, it's not very safe to just open your puter in that way, without safeguards.
If one would go for such a defence, one would be FAR better of with Freenet. It's much safer, and with the added benefit it's probably not violating your TOS.
Indeed! We, the FBI are not EVIL. We are GOOD. We are the FRIEND you always wished for but never had! We are your best PAL, ever.
Trust us!
You, sir, make a very, very good point!
Since you are, without doubt, a legitmate user of the internet, please provide us with your login and passwords of all your emailaccounts or any other internetservice or tool you might use. Also, can we count on you to promote the use of encryption where we, as part of your trusted government, have the key/pasword of? It didn't work out the last time we and our pals on the NSA tried it, but with enough help of you and your ilk, we just might succeed, this time.
Thanks for your cooperation, and be sure to distribute our leafflets "Trust your Good Friend the FBI to Do what's Right". Please don't forget to place your name and address on that leaflet, however, because we try to change the law so we can make that obligatory.
To combat CRIMINALS ofcourse, not law-abiding citizens like you!
your friend,
the FBI
where did I see that before?
on
Safe and Insecure?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, the defence brought by the author is exactly the same as is done with Freenet (see a recent/. article about Freenet&paypal). Only, Freenet does it much, much safer.
Strange, I don't see many replies here crying faul and shouting that it is 'supporting childporn'. What? Keeping no log will provide a safehaven for all those myriads of baby-rapists out there, no?
Ah well...maybe one should forbid that too, then. And wile we're at it, all 'hot spots' should be forbidden too.
Shows how absurd those arguments were.
And furthermore, those people that claim that ISPs, as a carrier, have protections while we have not, don't know what they are talking about. If you use your puter/server as a carrier, then, by definition, you fall under the same protections (at least where I live). There is nothing in the law that says end-users can't have carrier-protection when they act as a carrier, but companies can.
You could still be violating your TOS, however, that is true. Though, it should be noted that some ISPs allow it, and in any case, a TOS-violation isn't that big a deal within a free market-economy where ISPs battle for marketshare.
E.g. 'passive', when meaning that the service could be abused, is valid for all other technologies I mentionned above too. The USA government at one time failed to see why encryption couldn't be used where they had the key of. It didn't work out that way.
First of all, all information is stored encrypted; there is no obvious way of 'filtering' particular content out. You can't just filter it like MIME-types, after all. Pure 'visual' recognitionsystems are known to give a lot of false negatives and erronious positives; it is extremely difficult to create one, and I don't believe there is a good one in existence, not even on the www. I also don't think it's the job of Freenet to divert it's limited time and resources to such a project, certainly not in this stage, even if the developers were willing to do it. Furthermore, it would have to be client-sided - in which case you could ask the same of the MS-OS/webbrowser; why don't they implement a visual recognitionsystem so that people don't get to see whatever it is they don't want to see?
Primitive filter-progs like that exist (netnanny, I believe), but they aren't mass-used, and they are developped by third parties. Similary, since Freenet is Open Source and can be forked, everyone that feels that strongly about it can fork it and make a recognition-filter-system. I suspect they will have a hard time, however, because a popular way to distribute images in Freenet is by use of a container (which is basically a zipped file).
Also, the main reason why Napster lost in court is because the court found that they could recognise and censor illegal material, and thus had an obligation to do so. If Freenet were to apply one censor-mechanism of the content, how long would it take for companies and governments to demand they censor other things as well?
"The position you outline above basically seems to say you don't approve of CP, but you do believe paedophiles have a right distribute CP."
The position I take is, that it is impossible to censor one thing, without creating the possibility of censoring other things. I also believe that technologies can be abused, but that that is true for all technologies; yet it does not mean they are 'supportive' of the abuse.
I would agree, however, that it would be most usefull if Freenet could use a google-like searchengine, instead of indexsites. Apart from the gain in user-ease, it would also mean 'save the children' people or the RIAA would not get offended as much or as fast by the visual appearance of what might be a working activelink to a Freesite that might contain illegal material.
The most easy way would be to create a js-based searchengine, but as yet, Ian vehemently oposes that. Feel free to urge him to change his mind.:-)
Indeed, and the word of importance is 'supporting'. No one on Freenet is supporting it.
Certainly, things like digital photography, email, encryption, proxies, yes, the internet itself makes it more easy for pedo's to make or distribute CP.
One would be hardpressed to say they 'support' it in the strict sense, however, and when using the broad sense, it would basically mean (when following the same reasoning) that you should abolish all of the above technologies.
And now for the actual content/FUD: when you start the node, you get the Fproxy page. There, you have 5 activelinks, which exist of indexsites. Indexsites represent the total amount of what can be found on the network, much as google/yahoo/altavista with the www (though they use also a searchengine, which isn't possible on Freenet yet).
Those indexsites give a big list of all links, which, I repeat, is in a vast majority NOT about CP. Furthermore, they are shown in a random fashion (depending on the section) between all the other links. Therefor, it can not be called 'prominently displayed'.
Furthermore, there already has been done some research of the content of Freenet by external parties, and they came to the conclusion that CP made out 4% of the total amount of content. Hardly a 'major use', thus, even by a far stretch.
This is what I mean with the typical FUD. Yes, CP can be found on Freenet. It probably can be found on the regular net too. And yes, it can be seen as a drawback, as I have said myself on my Flog. But I dislike the disproportionate reaction of some hysterical 'save the children' people. Fact is, the percentage of CP is minute, and the more people would insert other content in it, the lesser that percentage would become in comparison.
To see CP on Freenet, you still have to search for it actively (of course, if one clicks on 'pedo&hitler', one might assume what the content is going to be).
And that you can't decide what is in your store or not is paramount to the anonymising purpose of Freenet.
And if you "didn't find anything else" I'm left wondering where you looked. I've found a lot of stuff that wasn't CP, in fact, the vast majority isn't, contrary to what FUD-people claim. Granted, I'm on the unstable build, but as far as I have noticed, the stable build does not differ much.
Freedom of speech does not hinge on responsability. The one is perfectly possible without the other, as Freenet proves.
If someone can make you accountable for what you say, you unevitably create the possibility of shutting that person up, and thus, censorship.
The ultimate question thus becomes; do you want to risk censorship if it gives you accountability? That's the trade-off. Obviously, you prefer the latter, while I prefer the lack of censorship above being able to make someone accountable for what he says.
That explains it. A -1 post is way below my treshold.;-)
He was clearly talking crap. At least about this Freenet/paypal issue.
There is little ambiguity about the fact that a paypal-account is meant. There is a lot more ambiguity about what 'use of a proxy' means. Both Ian and toad deny they have used a proxy to access the account, and developping a 'proxy' seems an absurd reason to freeze an account.
Granted, I have urged many times that they would put out a 'finance'-page, which openly discloses the monetary 'ins&outs'. It still isn't there, but I do not have the feeling anyone, not even Ian or Toad objects to it, it's just a primarily technical issue, notably finding someone who has the time and willingness (and capability) to write some shell-scripts so it can be automated.
I do not think Ian meant paypal closed anything else then there paypal-account, however.
It still sucks, ethically. And I'm not even sure it would be legal (in my country) for a company to just cut all your contractual obligations one-sided, whether they say so in their contract hundred times or not.
There have been numerous tries of companies to dissolve their responsability and claim they can do so because it says so in their contract, but the courts thusfar do not seem to agree with the that ultra-capitalistic viewpoint that, if it's in the contract, companies have the inherent right to do so.
I'm always surprised to see those kinds of remarks. Seems to me like it's comming from a viewpoint that establishes the business/marketrule of the capitalistic system above all else.
Alas, I neither agree, nor accept this as a premise: one can not absolve all practises like that on the grounds of pure capitalistic reasoning. Businesses that disregard their contracts do not live in a closed bubble, and the social impact is always there, which is why there are laws too.
And it doesn't matter if they say 'we can change it whenever we want'...well, duh, of course they would *like* that, but imagine companies or businessmen could say that whenever thyey want, then, clearly, clients or customers would soon have no rights at all. It's difficult enough as it is, to legaly fight a company that has the power to hire scores of the best lawyers.
Most companies still try it though, and even here you see a lot of them claiming that, if you purchase something online, you can not just change your mind and return it, or have to bear the costs of returning it when it's delivered damaged/not working, etc. Their defence is the same: "But it says so clearly in our contract!" Well, good try, but the courts (at least here) have ruled otherwise: it still remains an infringement of your rights, even if it's put a hundred times in the contract.
So, you see, it's not as simple as saying "it was in their contract, so they are in their right".
"If you are completely free to choose (where all possible options are available), then it is completely fair to say that you shouldn't complain about certain options"
vs.
"That is true and in real life, the question of choice is never absolute. You never have infinite choice and rarely no choice."
That says it all, really.
Since absolute free choice does not exist (dixit yourself), it is not 'completely fair' to say that you shouldn't complain about certain options.
If it's not completely fair, it's partially unfair, which makes it a weak response (because of the unfairness of the response) to criticism, which was what I argumented in my first post.
No one will argue it's unfair when people actually give counter-arguments to the criticism instead of just saying 'bugger off', however.
I would like to point to a former post I made which mentionned this earlier, about the two-slit experiment:
"An interesting theory trying to explain this seemingly inexplicable result, is by taking the hypothetical possibility that the bands are created by photons that exceed the speed of light. Only when they revert to another (visible) quantummechanical state (by hitting the wall, for instance) do they become noticable.
This is not impossible, because, contrary to what most ppl think, lightspeed is in fact an average; within one beam, there can be photons that are moving slightly slower, and photons that move slightly faster then the speed of light.
This, however, leads to the conclusion that those particular photons come from - at least potentially - another time or space. So, the film 'paycheck' might not be complete bullocks after all (though it's doubtfull we are ever going to be able to create a usefull 'time-viewing' tool out of it).
Then again, never say never, as Bill Gates with his '640K is enough for everyone' can vow.
The theory about another 'space', in contrast, leads us to the possibility that those photons actually come from parallell universes. It seems SF, but it are, in effect, valid scientific hypotheses which deserve further investigation.
After all, apart from these theories, there *is* no explication for the result of that experiment."
While I have had a lot of criticism for the 'faster then light' therory (though I didn't invent it, and it *was* proposed as a hypothesis), the 'parallel universes' hypothesis is a bit more well known, it would seem.
I'm afraid we seem to have a different premise. you seem to equal 'not being obliged to change' with 'a valid response to criticism', while I don't.
You make artificial distinctions between my comparison of choosing countries and that of chosing other GUI. For instance, I have demonstrated that you can find similar restrictions for GUI or OS'es too, to which you respond by claiming it's incomparable because you can 'create' the one and not the other.
First of all, the original post said: "If you don't like it, that's okay with them -- use a different WM/desktop." *USE*, not *create*. Thus, the analogy with use (go to) another country is the most correct one, and not create.
Apart from that, you're counteragruments are: well, if you can't create it your own, you could pay someone (etc). Well, if you can't create your own, pay some mercenaries to overthrow some little Island-state. You see? Throwing imaginary restrictions and solutions can be done both ways, always. It's not even correct to state it's impossible to create one; the folks of Sealand have done it. It just takes a lot of money, which, granted, few of us have, but then we come to the same argument you gave by saying it doesn't matter if someone has the means (to pay someone) to create a GUI or OS.
"Actually, MS is a monopoly which means that you don't have a good enough choice to buy another OS. That is also why there are laws that (can) change the game when a monopoly is involved. At that point, we feel that the capitalism game is no longer functioning."
Once again you seem to miss the point and confuse things. The whole market-analysis-thing doesn't enter the picture. It *doesn't matter* if MS has a monopoly or not. Even if it had only 75% of the market and thus was not a monopoly, would that change anything? Of course not. It would *still* not mean criticism that points out the weak security of windows is unvalid because people can buy another OS. And if they would say 'bugger off' to that criticism, it would still be a very weak response to it.
"It depends. Some criticism is simply a matter of taste."
As we all know, there is no discussion possible about taste, on itself. Therefor, if someone only vents a personal opinion or taste, there is no way of going into the question in any meaningfull way. On this we can agree. But even then one could explain that choices/tastes differ, and why you prefer the one and not the other, instead of saying 'bugger off', which has the least amount of rationale to offer. And the moment he tries to justify or give reasons and arguments for it, however, the ballgame changes even more, because then you can (should) respond on those arguments, and not make a weak 'bugger off' statement.
Now, in this particular instance, the guy gave a lot of opinionated criticism without much substance, but that doesn't mean 'bugger off' isn't a weak response anymore. And in some cases, like with the nautilusthingy, he did try to argument it, which is even less served with making such a statement.
"There is no law that says that you cannot create a niche product which suits only a particular group of people. Or do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to create a GUI that appeals to less than 50% of the users?"
There is no law that says you can't move to another country as well (at least, in the USA). I think they are allowed to do whatever they want, but that wasn't the point. My argument was about the fact that criticism is not made unvalid by the fact that one can go away, use something else or fork, etc. It was not about the validity of the critique in this particular instance, because, as I have said, I'm not really familiar enough with both GUI to make a sensible judgement on it.
"Not at all. In that case, there are many reasons which make it hard or even impossible to move: - No country may exist which suits you (and unlike software, you cannot simply program your own country). - The countries you like may not accept you. - You may not want to leave your family & friends. - You may have trouble finding a good job abroad. - etc, etc."
I'm afraid you cloud the argument with restrictions you imagine, while they do not touch the real issue. I could as well make up restrictions to the 'then create your own fork', for instance:
- he could not be a coder - he could not have the ability or means to do it - he may not want to leave his group of peers that work on the application - etc, etc.
I imagine the same people would simply say 'tough luck'. One could do the same in on the USA matter. So, you see, it's not all that different then you portrayed.
The question boils down to: Is this a strong argument? Does it invalidate the critique?
Take, for instance, that non of your objections are met, and a person could go to another country without any problems...would it then be justified to say to him: 'If you don't like it, go to another country' when that person gives criticism? Me thinks not. So it's not a question of restrictions or not that go to the core of such an argument.
"Furthermore, the idea is that in a democracy, you can try to chance the government through legal means. When using someone elses product, you can't vote or otherwise (legally) force them to do what you want."
Once again, this does not matter in regard to the argument. Would it make any difference if you hadn't the legal means? Take, he lives in a non-democratic country, and has criticism... would one be justified in saying: you have no right to critise, you can't legally vote or otherwise legally force us to do what you want, so if you don't like it, bugger off!" Would you think this reaction would be justified, then?
"The capitalist dogma say that if you really know better, you will drive the other guys out of the market. So if you think that the 'bugger off' reasoning is weak, then you should also have a problem with capitalism."
LOL! Seems a tad demagogic if you ask me. I'm not in favor of unbridled capitalism, but I think it's the best of all the (bad) economies we have, currently. I think the 'bugger off' reasoning is weak as a way to handle criticism. I do not think it's weak to conquer the market per sé. So, it comes down to what your purpose is, but in my post I talked about the response to criticism, not gaining marketshare.
The difference may seem subtle to some, but in fact it's not all that difficult to grasp. Take MS for example: it has a huge marketshare, but it still doesn't mean criticism that points out the weak security of windows is unvalid because people can buy another OS.
"But the guys who spend their time and money to build something have got a right to disagree with you and tell you to build your own (or get someone else to build what you want). They don't have any obligation to change what they like into something you like."
I'm a free-speech addict: anyone can disagree with anyone for my part.:-) The fact they haven't got an obligation to change anything does not make the criticism unvalid, however. You are confounding the two things, it seems. 'Bugger off' can be a statement indicating they are not willing to change, but it is a very weak response to criticism.
I'm sorry, but I just don't like that kind of argumentation. Mainly because it's a flawed one.
I'm not going into the debate of KDE versus Gnome, since I only tried them out sporadically, but the 'if you don't like it, bugger off' reasoning has always been a very weak one, IMHO.
It's the same sort of thing you get from, say, chauvinistic USA zealots that answer to every sort of criticism of the government or state/country of fellow americans with: "well, if you don't like it, why don't you move to another country?"
Why should criticism be unvalid because of the possibility to go away, not use it, fork, etc? If the critique is valid, it remains valid, even if there are a zillion other things one can do.
"People will spend money on value. Can we both agree on that?"
Well, actually they will spend on added value. (whether this is real or perceived). This is not a moot point: even when a product has value, if EXACTLY the same product for/with EXACTLY the same conditions is offered for free, they will not spend money on it.
"Photoshop costs $600, and for some that's too expensive and for other's it isn't. Specifically, for those where a $600 package can get them an easy $30 an hour, it only takes 5 hours of work to make back the cost, and a day's worth of work to make a profit. At the end of the week, if that $600 package enabled them to do in 3 days what would normally take a week, then it's $600 well spent. That's value, right?"
Businesses and corporate users are always going to have it more difficult not to use 'legit' software. (Though many SME's actually do it anyway, because if you have 50 employees and you have to buy 3Dmax, for insatnce, you're going to have a bill in the tenthousands at least.) But for corporate users that can afford it, you are right: it's fairly easy payed back.
I was primarely speaking of the average end-user, however. Especially for music and movies, your example doesn't fly.
"However, here's where we start do disagree I think, those same people will be *equally* served if they warez Photoshop for $0. Spend $0, and still get the work done in three days. Is this what you advocate? If you do, then the people who make Photoshop (Adobe) don't get compensated and eventually can't afford to make a version upgrade that cuts down work by 20%, and both parties lose."
I'm not advocating anything as such, I'm merely pointing to the obvious and the fact that IP-rights on digitalised works are obsolete in this new era of global internetcommunication.
And I don't believe much about the 'if we don't ask ridiculous high prices for it, the creators will starve to death'-argument. The RIAA has been saying that for years. Well, believe me, music will still be made, copyrights or not, and so will software. In fact, the net has provided the means (and shown us examples) of softwareprograms of high quality that are not being developed by any one corporation.
"However you do say, "giant profits," as if profit were somehow wrong?"
Profits are necessary for a company, absurdly high profits are, indeed, wrong. If it wouldn't be, there would not be laws against pricesettings, monopoly-abuse and kartels.
" Shouldn't profit be commensurate with value? Adobe could charge $100 and it could charge $1,000 for Photoshop, and this will net them different levels of profit, but in any case no one has the *right* to share Adobe's work without Adobe's permission, unless you are also advocating for the cessation of copyright (which is amusing because your own site has the OPLA, which relies on copyright)."
The only advocat I use is yellow.:-) About *right*: within the current framework of IP-law, one does not have the right, indeed. In regard to digitalised works, that is absurd AND not enforcable, you if I 'advocate' anything, it's that it's time to a change in mentality and adapt our current IP-rights.
As for the OPLA; the license deals with exactly the problems I have mentionned. It alows free online distribution, but requires the authors' permission when you want to sell it in paperform. It is an example of an adaptation to reality, and tries to combine the best things of both worlds, something the RIAA is not willing to make, and which will lead to its complete demise in the long run.
Your first two paragraphs are quite true, but have no bearing at all on what I was saying. I was saying that the claim those companies make that 'It is just the same as stealing from a shop' (actual quote) is false.
It does not matter what kind of contract they have with the musicians, nor if they are owners, nor if I or anyone else agreed to the licence. The *statement* is false. If I go to a shop, see some vase, let's say, and I copy that vase at home, can the shop or the owner accuse me of stealing his vase? No. (at least not icn the jurisdiction I live). I *could* be breaking copyright or some patents, yes, but I would not be charged with stealing it from the shop.
The RIAA claims one could, if one does exactly the same, but instead of a vase, with one of their CDs. THAT is what is absurd, and what I was arguing.
The problem with your line of reasoning, is that it starts from the established point of copyrights that we have developped into today, and do not try to see outside the framework that is now almost considered a natural right. but it isn't, and, in fact, it never was. It's very clear (whatever the Supreme Court says about it) that the founding fathers meant it to be a right of limited scope and duration, to *stimulate* new and innovative works, and then bring it to the public good.
This, clearly, has been perverted and corrupted in a system that has virtual no limitations anymore, and which main goal is the squeeze as much money and profit out of it by and for the middle-man; corporations that have huge profits but hardly create anything innovative themselves, and, in fact, try their best to stiffle innovation when they feel threatened.
You think 'asking to reform' will do actually amount to anything, since it would mean they practically vanish from the scene? Me thinks not. I think the chance of that happening is as big as it was if the serfs would have 'asked' the aristocracy if they would please give up their powerbase.
This line of reasoning shows an apparent lack of sense for reality.
Unjust laws are often overruled by breaking them en masse, and what's more, I do not think that that is an immoral act on itself, on the contrary. Far from me to entice anyone in doing something illegal, but I still can say what I think (unless Free speech has been abolished too?), and I think that the law, as it was original conceived and intended was justified, but what it is and has become today is unjust and immoral, and should not be used to make ppl guilty, let alone criminalised, when they are disregarding those perverted laws.
Slashdot Mirror
"Taking these facts together, a higher crime rate among African Americans appears to be nearly inevitable. I think the main culprit here is an economic environment that affords people little opportunity to improve their income status, rather than a habit of racism within the justice system."
I fully agree with your analysis. The argument, therefor, that black people are punished more then white people because they are more criminal, bypasses the real reason. It still is the system that maintains these inequalities that is the root cause, therefor any conservatives saying "It's there own fault! They just are born criminals" is talking pure crap.
Apart from that, one can not exclude some racist prejudice by the courts (maybe partly uncounsiously) as well. For instance, with your above reasoning, it still can't be explained why the courts on average give much longer sentences *for the same sort of crimes* if they are commited by blacks then by whites.
It's virii, you unsensitive clod!
It says so in my 1337 dictionnary!
as a Freenet-crybaby I can only say one thing:
"Whéééééééééééééééééé 3;"
You just say it was *meant* as an anonymous proxy or hotspot.
There is no law forbidding you to create a hotspot and/or to let your puter use as a proxy. there is also no law that requires you to keep a log.
And if you effectively act as a carrier, you *do* have carrier-status protection; there is no law (at least not where I leave) that provides that protection to companies, but not to individuals.
That said, you could be violating your TOS, you would still be liable (depending on the laws) if you were pointed out the illegal files and you didn't remove them, and genreally, it's not very safe to just open your puter in that way, without safeguards.
If one would go for such a defence, one would be FAR better of with Freenet. It's much safer, and with the added benefit it's probably not violating your TOS.
Indeed! We, the FBI are not EVIL. We are GOOD. We are the FRIEND you always wished for but never had! We are your best PAL, ever.
Trust us!
You, sir, make a very, very good point!
Since you are, without doubt, a legitmate user of the internet, please provide us with your login and passwords of all your emailaccounts or any other internetservice or tool you might use. Also, can we count on you to promote the use of encryption where we, as part of your trusted government, have the key/pasword of? It didn't work out the last time we and our pals on the NSA tried it, but with enough help of you and your ilk, we just might succeed, this time.
Thanks for your cooperation, and be sure to distribute our leafflets "Trust your Good Friend the FBI to Do what's Right". Please don't forget to place your name and address on that leaflet, however, because we try to change the law so we can make that obligatory.
To combat CRIMINALS ofcourse, not law-abiding citizens like you!
your friend,
the FBI
Actually, the defence brought by the author is exactly the same as is done with Freenet (see a recent /. article about Freenet&paypal). Only, Freenet does it much, much safer.
Strange, I don't see many replies here crying faul and shouting that it is 'supporting childporn'. What? Keeping no log will provide a safehaven for all those myriads of baby-rapists out there, no?
Ah well...maybe one should forbid that too, then. And wile we're at it, all 'hot spots' should be forbidden too.
Shows how absurd those arguments were.
And furthermore, those people that claim that ISPs, as a carrier, have protections while we have not, don't know what they are talking about. If you use your puter/server as a carrier, then, by definition, you fall under the same protections (at least where I live). There is nothing in the law that says end-users can't have carrier-protection when they act as a carrier, but companies can.
You could still be violating your TOS, however, that is true. Though, it should be noted that some ISPs allow it, and in any case, a TOS-violation isn't that big a deal within a free market-economy where ISPs battle for marketshare.
"Support can be passive as well as active."
:-)
E.g. 'passive', when meaning that the service could be abused, is valid for all other technologies I mentionned above too. The USA government at one time failed to see why encryption couldn't be used where they had the key of. It didn't work out that way.
First of all, all information is stored encrypted; there is no obvious way of 'filtering' particular content out. You can't just filter it like MIME-types, after all. Pure 'visual' recognitionsystems are known to give a lot of false negatives and erronious positives; it is extremely difficult to create one, and I don't believe there is a good one in existence, not even on the www. I also don't think it's the job of Freenet to divert it's limited time and resources to such a project, certainly not in this stage, even if the developers were willing to do it. Furthermore, it would have to be client-sided - in which case you could ask the same of the MS-OS/webbrowser; why don't they implement a visual recognitionsystem so that people don't get to see whatever it is they don't want to see?
Primitive filter-progs like that exist (netnanny, I believe), but they aren't mass-used, and they are developped by third parties. Similary, since Freenet is Open Source and can be forked, everyone that feels that strongly about it can fork it and make a recognition-filter-system. I suspect they will have a hard time, however, because a popular way to distribute images in Freenet is by use of a container (which is basically a zipped file).
Also, the main reason why Napster lost in court is because the court found that they could recognise and censor illegal material, and thus had an obligation to do so. If Freenet were to apply one censor-mechanism of the content, how long would it take for companies and governments to demand they censor other things as well?
"The position you outline above basically seems to say you don't approve of CP, but you do believe paedophiles have a right distribute CP."
The position I take is, that it is impossible to censor one thing, without creating the possibility of censoring other things. I also believe that technologies can be abused, but that that is true for all technologies; yet it does not mean they are 'supportive' of the abuse.
I would agree, however, that it would be most usefull if Freenet could use a google-like searchengine, instead of indexsites. Apart from the gain in user-ease, it would also mean 'save the children' people or the RIAA would not get offended as much or as fast by the visual appearance of what might be a working activelink to a Freesite that might contain illegal material.
The most easy way would be to create a js-based searchengine, but as yet, Ian vehemently oposes that. Feel free to urge him to change his mind.
Indeed, and the word of importance is 'supporting'. No one on Freenet is supporting it.
Certainly, things like digital photography, email, encryption, proxies, yes, the internet itself makes it more easy for pedo's to make or distribute CP.
One would be hardpressed to say they 'support' it in the strict sense, however, and when using the broad sense, it would basically mean (when following the same reasoning) that you should abolish all of the above technologies.
And now for the actual content/FUD: when you start the node, you get the Fproxy page. There, you have 5 activelinks, which exist of indexsites. Indexsites represent the total amount of what can be found on the network, much as google/yahoo/altavista with the www (though they use also a searchengine, which isn't possible on Freenet yet).
Those indexsites give a big list of all links, which, I repeat, is in a vast majority NOT about CP. Furthermore, they are shown in a random fashion (depending on the section) between all the other links. Therefor, it can not be called 'prominently displayed'.
Furthermore, there already has been done some research of the content of Freenet by external parties, and they came to the conclusion that CP made out 4% of the total amount of content. Hardly a 'major use', thus, even by a far stretch.
This is what I mean with the typical FUD. Yes, CP can be found on Freenet. It probably can be found on the regular net too. And yes, it can be seen as a drawback, as I have said myself on my Flog. But I dislike the disproportionate reaction of some hysterical 'save the children' people. Fact is, the percentage of CP is minute, and the more people would insert other content in it, the lesser that percentage would become in comparison.
To see CP on Freenet, you still have to search for it actively (of course, if one clicks on 'pedo&hitler', one might assume what the content is going to be).
And that you can't decide what is in your store or not is paramount to the anonymising purpose of Freenet.
And if you "didn't find anything else" I'm left wondering where you looked. I've found a lot of stuff that wasn't CP, in fact, the vast majority isn't, contrary to what FUD-people claim. Granted, I'm on the unstable build, but as far as I have noticed, the stable build does not differ much.
Freedom of speech does not hinge on responsability. The one is perfectly possible without the other, as Freenet proves.
If someone can make you accountable for what you say, you unevitably create the possibility of shutting that person up, and thus, censorship.
The ultimate question thus becomes; do you want to risk censorship if it gives you accountability? That's the trade-off. Obviously, you prefer the latter, while I prefer the lack of censorship above being able to make someone accountable for what he says.
That explains it. A -1 post is way below my treshold. ;-)
He was clearly talking crap. At least about this Freenet/paypal issue.
There is little ambiguity about the fact that a paypal-account is meant. There is a lot more ambiguity about what 'use of a proxy' means. Both Ian and toad deny they have used a proxy to access the account, and developping a 'proxy' seems an absurd reason to freeze an account.
What else would it be used for? Any indications?
:-)
Granted, I have urged many times that they would put out a 'finance'-page, which openly discloses the monetary 'ins&outs'. It still isn't there, but I do not have the feeling anyone, not even Ian or Toad objects to it, it's just a primarily technical issue, notably finding someone who has the time and willingness (and capability) to write some shell-scripts so it can be automated.
Anyone feel like giving it a try?
I do not think Ian meant paypal closed anything else then there paypal-account, however.
It still sucks, ethically. And I'm not even sure it would be legal (in my country) for a company to just cut all your contractual obligations one-sided, whether they say so in their contract hundred times or not.
There have been numerous tries of companies to dissolve their responsability and claim they can do so because it says so in their contract, but the courts thusfar do not seem to agree with the that ultra-capitalistic viewpoint that, if it's in the contract, companies have the inherent right to do so.
See also an earlier post of me for examples.
Well, trying to understand why the majority of the world hate the USA wouldn't be a bad move, indeed.
Alas, in rl, paypal claims it isn't a bank, and it DID close down the account.
I'm always surprised to see those kinds of remarks. Seems to me like it's comming from a viewpoint that establishes the business/marketrule of the capitalistic system above all else.
Alas, I neither agree, nor accept this as a premise: one can not absolve all practises like that on the grounds of pure capitalistic reasoning. Businesses that disregard their contracts do not live in a closed bubble, and the social impact is always there, which is why there are laws too.
And it doesn't matter if they say 'we can change it whenever we want'...well, duh, of course they would *like* that, but imagine companies or businessmen could say that whenever thyey want, then, clearly, clients or customers would soon have no rights at all. It's difficult enough as it is, to legaly fight a company that has the power to hire scores of the best lawyers.
Most companies still try it though, and even here you see a lot of them claiming that, if you purchase something online, you can not just change your mind and return it, or have to bear the costs of returning it when it's delivered damaged/not working, etc. Their defence is the same: "But it says so clearly in our contract!" Well, good try, but the courts (at least here) have ruled otherwise: it still remains an infringement of your rights, even if it's put a hundred times in the contract.
So, you see, it's not as simple as saying "it was in their contract, so they are in their right".
I think we already went over this with the discussion between me and Sinterklaas. ;-)
"If you are completely free to choose (where all possible options are available), then it is completely fair to say that you shouldn't complain about certain options"
vs.
"That is true and in real life, the question of choice is never absolute. You never have infinite choice and rarely no choice."
That says it all, really.
Since absolute free choice does not exist (dixit yourself), it is not 'completely fair' to say that you shouldn't complain about certain options.
If it's not completely fair, it's partially unfair, which makes it a weak response (because of the unfairness of the response) to criticism, which was what I argumented in my first post.
No one will argue it's unfair when people actually give counter-arguments to the criticism instead of just saying 'bugger off', however.
I would like to point to a former post I made which mentionned this earlier, about the two-slit experiment:
"An interesting theory trying to explain this seemingly inexplicable result, is by taking the hypothetical possibility that the bands are created by photons that exceed the speed of light. Only when they revert to another (visible) quantummechanical state (by hitting the wall, for instance) do they become noticable.
This is not impossible, because, contrary to what most ppl think, lightspeed is in fact an average; within one beam, there can be photons that are moving slightly slower, and photons that move slightly faster then the speed of light.
This, however, leads to the conclusion that those particular photons come from - at least potentially - another time or space. So, the film 'paycheck' might not be complete bullocks after all (though it's doubtfull we are ever going to be able to create a usefull 'time-viewing' tool out of it).
Then again, never say never, as Bill Gates with his '640K is enough for everyone' can vow.
The theory about another 'space', in contrast, leads us to the possibility that those photons actually come from parallell universes. It seems SF, but it are, in effect, valid scientific hypotheses which deserve further investigation.
After all, apart from these theories, there *is* no explication for the result of that experiment."
While I have had a lot of criticism for the 'faster then light' therory (though I didn't invent it, and it *was* proposed as a hypothesis), the 'parallel universes' hypothesis is a bit more well known, it would seem.
I'm afraid we seem to have a different premise. you seem to equal 'not being obliged to change' with 'a valid response to criticism', while I don't.
You make artificial distinctions between my comparison of choosing countries and that of chosing other GUI. For instance, I have demonstrated that you can find similar restrictions for GUI or OS'es too, to which you respond by claiming it's incomparable because you can 'create' the one and not the other.
First of all, the original post said: "If you don't like it, that's okay with them -- use a different WM/desktop." *USE*, not *create*. Thus, the analogy with use (go to) another country is the most correct one, and not create.
Apart from that, you're counteragruments are: well, if you can't create it your own, you could pay someone (etc). Well, if you can't create your own, pay some mercenaries to overthrow some little Island-state. You see? Throwing imaginary restrictions and solutions can be done both ways, always. It's not even correct to state it's impossible to create one; the folks of Sealand have done it. It just takes a lot of money, which, granted, few of us have, but then we come to the same argument you gave by saying it doesn't matter if someone has the means (to pay someone) to create a GUI or OS.
"Actually, MS is a monopoly which means that you don't have a good enough choice to buy another OS. That is also why there are laws that (can) change the game when a monopoly is involved. At that point, we feel that the capitalism game is no longer functioning."
Once again you seem to miss the point and confuse things. The whole market-analysis-thing doesn't enter the picture. It *doesn't matter* if MS has a monopoly or not. Even if it had only 75% of the market and thus was not a monopoly, would that change anything? Of course not. It would *still* not mean criticism that points out the weak security of windows is unvalid because people can buy another OS. And if they would say 'bugger off' to that criticism, it would still be a very weak response to it.
"It depends. Some criticism is simply a matter of taste."
As we all know, there is no discussion possible about taste, on itself. Therefor, if someone only vents a personal opinion or taste, there is no way of going into the question in any meaningfull way. On this we can agree. But even then one could explain that choices/tastes differ, and why you prefer the one and not the other, instead of saying 'bugger off', which has the least amount of rationale to offer. And the moment he tries to justify or give reasons and arguments for it, however, the ballgame changes even more, because then you can (should) respond on those arguments, and not make a weak 'bugger off' statement.
Now, in this particular instance, the guy gave a lot of opinionated criticism without much substance, but that doesn't mean 'bugger off' isn't a weak response anymore. And in some cases, like with the nautilusthingy, he did try to argument it, which is even less served with making such a statement.
"There is no law that says that you cannot create a niche product which suits only a particular group of people. Or do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to create a GUI that appeals to less than 50% of the users?"
:-) The fact they haven't got an obligation to change anything does not make the criticism unvalid, however. You are confounding the two things, it seems. 'Bugger off' can be a statement indicating they are not willing to change, but it is a very weak response to criticism.
There is no law that says you can't move to another country as well (at least, in the USA). I think they are allowed to do whatever they want, but that wasn't the point. My argument was about the fact that criticism is not made unvalid by the fact that one can go away, use something else or fork, etc. It was not about the validity of the critique in this particular instance, because, as I have said, I'm not really familiar enough with both GUI to make a sensible judgement on it.
"Not at all. In that case, there are many reasons which make it hard or even impossible to move:
- No country may exist which suits you (and unlike software, you cannot simply program your own country).
- The countries you like may not accept you.
- You may not want to leave your family & friends.
- You may have trouble finding a good job abroad.
- etc, etc."
I'm afraid you cloud the argument with restrictions you imagine, while they do not touch the real issue. I could as well make up restrictions to the 'then create your own fork', for instance:
- he could not be a coder
- he could not have the ability or means to do it
- he may not want to leave his group of peers that work on the application
- etc, etc.
I imagine the same people would simply say 'tough luck'. One could do the same in on the USA matter. So, you see, it's not all that different then you portrayed.
The question boils down to: Is this a strong argument? Does it invalidate the critique?
Take, for instance, that non of your objections are met, and a person could go to another country without any problems...would it then be justified to say to him: 'If you don't like it, go to another country' when that person gives criticism? Me thinks not. So it's not a question of restrictions or not that go to the core of such an argument.
"Furthermore, the idea is that in a democracy, you can try to chance the government through legal means. When using someone elses product, you can't vote or otherwise (legally) force them to do what you want."
Once again, this does not matter in regard to the argument. Would it make any difference if you hadn't the legal means? Take, he lives in a non-democratic country, and has criticism... would one be justified in saying: you have no right to critise, you can't legally vote or otherwise legally force us to do what you want, so if you don't like it, bugger off!" Would you think this reaction would be justified, then?
"The capitalist dogma say that if you really know better, you will drive the other guys out of the market. So if you think that the 'bugger off' reasoning is weak, then you should also have a problem with capitalism."
LOL! Seems a tad demagogic if you ask me. I'm not in favor of unbridled capitalism, but I think it's the best of all the (bad) economies we have, currently. I think the 'bugger off' reasoning is weak as a way to handle criticism. I do not think it's weak to conquer the market per sé. So, it comes down to what your purpose is, but in my post I talked about the response to criticism, not gaining marketshare.
The difference may seem subtle to some, but in fact it's not all that difficult to grasp. Take MS for example: it has a huge marketshare, but it still doesn't mean criticism that points out the weak security of windows is unvalid because people can buy another OS.
"But the guys who spend their time and money to build something have got a right to disagree with you and tell you to build your own (or get someone else to build what you want). They don't have any obligation to change what they like into something you like."
I'm a free-speech addict: anyone can disagree with anyone for my part.
I'm sorry, but I just don't like that kind of argumentation. Mainly because it's a flawed one.
I'm not going into the debate of KDE versus Gnome, since I only tried them out sporadically, but the 'if you don't like it, bugger off' reasoning has always been a very weak one, IMHO.
It's the same sort of thing you get from, say, chauvinistic USA zealots that answer to every sort of criticism of the government or state/country of fellow americans with: "well, if you don't like it, why don't you move to another country?"
Why should criticism be unvalid because of the possibility to go away, not use it, fork, etc? If the critique is valid, it remains valid, even if there are a zillion other things one can do.
Your wish is my command! :-) But I even got something better:
fairshare
"People will spend money on value. Can we both agree on that?"
:-) About *right*: within the current framework of IP-law, one does not have the right, indeed. In regard to digitalised works, that is absurd AND not enforcable, you if I 'advocate' anything, it's that it's time to a change in mentality and adapt our current IP-rights.
Well, actually they will spend on added value. (whether this is real or perceived). This is not a moot point: even when a product has value, if EXACTLY the same product for/with EXACTLY the same conditions is offered for free, they will not spend money on it.
"Photoshop costs $600, and for some that's too expensive and for other's it isn't. Specifically, for those where a $600 package can get them an easy $30 an hour, it only takes 5 hours of work to make back the cost, and a day's worth of work to make a profit. At the end of the week, if that $600 package enabled them to do in 3 days what would normally take a week, then it's $600 well spent. That's value, right?"
Businesses and corporate users are always going to have it more difficult not to use 'legit' software. (Though many SME's actually do it anyway, because if you have 50 employees and you have to buy 3Dmax, for insatnce, you're going to have a bill in the tenthousands at least.) But for corporate users that can afford it, you are right: it's fairly easy payed back.
I was primarely speaking of the average end-user, however. Especially for music and movies, your example doesn't fly.
"However, here's where we start do disagree I think, those same people will be *equally* served if they warez Photoshop for $0. Spend $0, and still get the work done in three days. Is this what you advocate? If you do, then the people who make Photoshop (Adobe) don't get compensated and eventually can't afford to make a version upgrade that cuts down work by 20%, and both parties lose."
I'm not advocating anything as such, I'm merely pointing to the obvious and the fact that IP-rights on digitalised works are obsolete in this new era of global internetcommunication.
And I don't believe much about the 'if we don't ask ridiculous high prices for it, the creators will starve to death'-argument. The RIAA has been saying that for years. Well, believe me, music will still be made, copyrights or not, and so will software. In fact, the net has provided the means (and shown us examples) of softwareprograms of high quality that are not being developed by any one corporation.
"However you do say, "giant profits," as if profit were somehow wrong?"
Profits are necessary for a company, absurdly high profits are, indeed, wrong. If it wouldn't be, there would not be laws against pricesettings, monopoly-abuse and kartels.
" Shouldn't profit be commensurate with value? Adobe could charge $100 and it could charge $1,000 for Photoshop, and this will net them different levels of profit, but in any case no one has the *right* to share Adobe's work without Adobe's permission, unless you are also advocating for the cessation of copyright (which is amusing because your own site has the OPLA, which relies on copyright)."
The only advocat I use is yellow.
As for the OPLA; the license deals with exactly the problems I have mentionned. It alows free online distribution, but requires the authors' permission when you want to sell it in paperform. It is an example of an adaptation to reality, and tries to combine the best things of both worlds, something the RIAA is not willing to make, and which will lead to its complete demise in the long run.
Your first two paragraphs are quite true, but have no bearing at all on what I was saying. I was saying that the claim those companies make that 'It is just the same as stealing from a shop' (actual quote) is false.
It does not matter what kind of contract they have with the musicians, nor if they are owners, nor if I or anyone else agreed to the licence. The *statement* is false. If I go to a shop, see some vase, let's say, and I copy that vase at home, can the shop or the owner accuse me of stealing his vase? No. (at least not icn the jurisdiction I live). I *could* be breaking copyright or some patents, yes, but I would not be charged with stealing it from the shop.
The RIAA claims one could, if one does exactly the same, but instead of a vase, with one of their CDs. THAT is what is absurd, and what I was arguing.
The problem with your line of reasoning, is that it starts from the established point of copyrights that we have developped into today, and do not try to see outside the framework that is now almost considered a natural right. but it isn't, and, in fact, it never was. It's very clear (whatever the Supreme Court says about it) that the founding fathers meant it to be a right of limited scope and duration, to *stimulate* new and innovative works, and then bring it to the public good.
This, clearly, has been perverted and corrupted in a system that has virtual no limitations anymore, and which main goal is the squeeze as much money and profit out of it by and for the middle-man; corporations that have huge profits but hardly create anything innovative themselves, and, in fact, try their best to stiffle innovation when they feel threatened.
You think 'asking to reform' will do actually amount to anything, since it would mean they practically vanish from the scene? Me thinks not. I think the chance of that happening is as big as it was if the serfs would have 'asked' the aristocracy if they would please give up their powerbase.
This line of reasoning shows an apparent lack of sense for reality.
Unjust laws are often overruled by breaking them en masse, and what's more, I do not think that that is an immoral act on itself, on the contrary. Far from me to entice anyone in doing something illegal, but I still can say what I think (unless Free speech has been abolished too?), and I think that the law, as it was original conceived and intended was justified, but what it is and has become today is unjust and immoral, and should not be used to make ppl guilty, let alone criminalised, when they are disregarding those perverted laws.