The "Why worry about it if you've got nothing to hide?" line of reasoning has been used to support every repressive, totalitarian government in existence.
I don't want someone installing cameras in my living room. That doesn't mean I do things that are illegal there, it means I value my privacy. I don't want to be watched by cameras every time I use a city street. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and commit muggings, it means I don't like the Big Brother idea.
It is a fundamental principle of freedom that uncalled-for invasions of privacy ARE an ill effect, in and of themselves, especially if the potential for abuse clearly exists. Which here it most certainly does.
If you're concerned so little about your privacy, please just make some simple changes in your profile. First, change the email address setting to display that address with no filtering. Then, please add your real name to the appropriate section in your profile, and make a journal entry also containing your home address and phone number.
Not entirely comfortable with that idea? I wouldn't imagine so. That's why privacy is valuable.
I have no problem saying that some projects are nationally sensitive and that only American citizens can work on them. However, the moment you do anything but an "all-or-none" ban on noncitizens (Canadians can work on this, and Europeans, but not Chinese or Arabs) the discrimination is both racial and against nationalities.
However, the great-grandparent post called for banning one broad-reaching nationality (Chinese including Taiwan) and members of one RELIGION (Islam) from any federally-funded program at a university, sensitive or not. There are Americans who are Muslims, the great-grandparent post would ban them as well. It did not simply say that there are some things which are sensitive and should be restricted to citizens only, that is just common sense.
Not for national ID's, in any way, in any form. It'll be just for federal workers-for right now.
When the Social Security Act was put into place, those who were concerned that the Social Security number would become some type of nationalized tracking system were ridiculed and called paranoid. They even wrote it into the Social Security Act that the number couldn't be used for any tracking purpose other than to determine who gets SS benefits.
Nothing to worry about here, it's easy to see just how well THAT worked. I mean, there were even people who said that you wouldn't even be able to get a job or a driver's license without a social security #. What a bunch of paranoid freaks! That certainly never did happen.
Why yes, racial discrimination is clearly acceptable.
What planet (or southern state?) are you from? I thought that kind of thing was over with years ago, I guess there're still people like you out there. Sad.
Still, the legal water there would be far muddier. The DMCA actually specifically -exempts- those who simply act as a "pipeline" for information from liability. This is mainly intended around ISP's, and IANAL, but it would seem that on such a distributed network, you are acting as a "pipeline" and the **AA's can't -prove- that you're hosting the content. I think that one would get chucked right out of court. To get in trouble, they have to prove that you are "making available" the information, and the DMCA makes it clear that just providing the pipe isn't enough for that standard, you have to know it and be hosting it.
As to the coercion issue, just don't tell the proxy, anywhere along the chain, when a person has decided to recover their vote. Just give the proxy a "Vote this way for all votes assigned to me" button, but no access as to how many they -do- have or whose they are. Under the current system, someone can -try- to force you to vote for candidate X, but they can't go into the voting booth with you. (Even if you say you want them to.)
The core principle, in both cases, is that if someone tries to coerce you, they have no way to verify if you did what they said or not. ("Sure, I voted for candidate X." "Sure, I assigned my vote to you by proxy.") I think this would adequately guard against the problem at least as well as the current system does.
Can and do, most certainly, also get BBC news on our local PBS station. However, another source is generally not a bad thing, even though its open format will mean that especially new stories will have to be taken with a decent dose of salt. (Seems anymore that's even the case with mainstream news.)
Although, the Web does have some of this functionality already (anyone can publish), a central site would be excellent, especially for those of us in the US who realizes that a world exists outside the border and are sick of receiving less than a bare minimum of news from it.
I wonder how a project such as this would handle things such as libel? Would the operators of the site or the original poster be responsible for that type of thing? IANAL and I don't really know.
The software would still be copyrighted/patented, so even if it became legal for me to reverse-engineer my copy of Windows 95, I couldn't make it into "Windows PX" and start selling copies, and Microsoft could still come after me for doing so. I'm talking about doing third-party support (security patches, bug fixes, etc.) once the manufacturer no longer wants to do them.
IANAL, but would this not also invoke CALEA, the federal law requiring that "communications providers" provide accessibility to FBI and other law enforcement for wiretaps? Not only does this raise privacy concerns, but as this is an unfunded mandate, it also likely raises costs. It's a mixed bag (I would be happy to see competition come up, but in most states cable providers are a regulated monopoly and really don't gouge.) I know a lot of people have had trouble with cable providers, but I've used Comcast for quite some time now and been very happy. For the speed, the price is reasonable, and every time there's been a problem it's been fixed by the next day at the longest.
As I said, though, IANAL and I don't know about the CALEA issue. Does anyone know if a finding of common carrier would invoke this?
Some manufactured goods last quite some time, and even after they've outlived their "useful" lives, sometimes hobbyists keep them going for novelty value. The difference is, that even if the car manufacturer stops "supporting" a car, I can go pop the hood, find a compatible part somewhere, and get it running again. Same with an old TV or transistor radio. I don't think a manufacturer or designer should be required to support a product forever, but I don't think they should be able to prohibit you from getting at the guts of it and doing it yourself.
With the support issue, though, what about the software companies who sell "lifetime" support contracts? If they cease to support an old version, and there are people out there holding these contracts, are they not owed their money back? I think some type of up-front disclosure (X Software Corp. plans to support this version for 5 years) is in order.
This is precisely why laws are needed specifically allowing reverse-engineering as soon as any given company decides to stop adequately supporting a piece of software. I agree that a company has the right (even if it's not always the best strategy) to keep their code proprietary for the purposes of making money off of it and keeping unique features unique while they are selling, marketing, and supporting it. They do not, however, have the right to do so in order to force a version less than 10 years old into obsolescence and force users to upgrade.
The Founding Fathers, by the definition of the laws at the time, were criminals. Breaking the law does not necessarily mean that what you are doing is ethically wrong, especially if the law is oppressive. What most governments who decide that they can ignore the people find is that the people, once sufficiently pissed off, can quite well apply force right back, whether it's legal or not.
And in this case, the perpetrator can be prosecuted for trespass (and probably arson). That's when their actions have crossed the line from protected, political speech into an invasion of privacy and a dangerous act.
For one thing, I don't know about the legality of most EULA's as a whole. They certainly -might- be workable, but certainly some have been struck down as invalid, and rightfully so.
"By installing and using X software package, you agree that every time you type in a credit card number to your system, X software package's keylogger will transmit this data to X developer. You further agree to let X developer use this information to make all the purchases he damn well likes."
While this may seem an extreme example (and one I'd love to include in a few things...hehe), you would still be going to prison for credit card fraud. There are limits to what these "contracts" can do, regardless of whether you knowingly or unknowingly agree to them.
Also, most companies, and most judges, are well aware that people do not read (and would not for the most part understand if they did) the license agreements. They're a very shaky argument, which is why I think companies have been VERY hesitant to attempt enforcement except in flagrant, obvious cases.
It is generally not considered a dealing "in good faith" to put something in a contract that you know will only fly if the other party does not read or understand it. IANAL but I know contracts have been invalidated on these grounds before.
It might even work as well as the lawsuits against filesharers.
In all seriousness, if the passage of the law changed nothing, likely the lawsuits will only stop those targeted, and ten will spring up to replace the one that got nailed. They also can do next to nothing about spammers outside the US. So, while I have to give a (rare) salute to Microsoft on this one, I don't think it'll do much to stem the flood.
Please note that that post was mine, and I was clarifying it.:) I am not advocating, for example, that such things as sensitive security information or trade secrets be released just because someone introduces them as evidence in a court somewhere. However, that should not keep the entire case, including all its non-sensitive bits, under seal. Rather, the case should be released with such bits redacted.
In effect, I'm agreeing with you, there are things that are introduced to evidence that for one reason or another are not suitable for release to the public. However, the amount of information not released should be kept to a minimum, and in NO case should something be withheld from the public simply because it reveals someone's misconduct.
I generally use Slackware/Debian on it in any case, it was just something where I wanted to try it out and didn't have an unused box lying around. Thanks much for the offer though.
I already use VMWare, and while I love the concept, I have had several problems, especially in using it to test newer versions of OS's. (Fedora Core 3, for example, could not load the kernel properly, while it wouldn't even recognize the disc for Fedora Core 2. Yes, I checked the checksum, yes, it matched.)
It would be great if someone could come up with a better (and free) alternative to it, hopefully some of these bugs can be worked out. I would certainly like to see all the "good" features kept, such as auto-switching between guest and host OS just by moving in and out of the window, automatic piggybacking of the host's net connection via NAT, and the overall smoothness of the interface once you do get it running. The ability to mount an ISO image as a CD is also an excellent one.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Why worry about it if you've got nothing to hide?" line of reasoning has been used to support every repressive, totalitarian government in existence.
I don't want someone installing cameras in my living room. That doesn't mean I do things that are illegal there, it means I value my privacy. I don't want to be watched by cameras every time I use a city street. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and commit muggings, it means I don't like the Big Brother idea.
It is a fundamental principle of freedom that uncalled-for invasions of privacy ARE an ill effect, in and of themselves, especially if the potential for abuse clearly exists. Which here it most certainly does.
If you're concerned so little about your privacy, please just make some simple changes in your profile. First, change the email address setting to display that address with no filtering. Then, please add your real name to the appropriate section in your profile, and make a journal entry also containing your home address and phone number.
Not entirely comfortable with that idea? I wouldn't imagine so. That's why privacy is valuable.
I have no problem saying that some projects are nationally sensitive and that only American citizens can work on them. However, the moment you do anything but an "all-or-none" ban on noncitizens (Canadians can work on this, and Europeans, but not Chinese or Arabs) the discrimination is both racial and against nationalities.
However, the great-grandparent post called for banning one broad-reaching nationality (Chinese including Taiwan) and members of one RELIGION (Islam) from any federally-funded program at a university, sensitive or not. There are Americans who are Muslims, the great-grandparent post would ban them as well. It did not simply say that there are some things which are sensitive and should be restricted to citizens only, that is just common sense.
Not for national ID's, in any way, in any form. It'll be just for federal workers-for right now.
When the Social Security Act was put into place, those who were concerned that the Social Security number would become some type of nationalized tracking system were ridiculed and called paranoid. They even wrote it into the Social Security Act that the number couldn't be used for any tracking purpose other than to determine who gets SS benefits.
Nothing to worry about here, it's easy to see just how well THAT worked. I mean, there were even people who said that you wouldn't even be able to get a job or a driver's license without a social security #. What a bunch of paranoid freaks! That certainly never did happen.
Why yes, racial discrimination is clearly acceptable.
What planet (or southern state?) are you from? I thought that kind of thing was over with years ago, I guess there're still people like you out there. Sad.
Still, the legal water there would be far muddier. The DMCA actually specifically -exempts- those who simply act as a "pipeline" for information from liability. This is mainly intended around ISP's, and IANAL, but it would seem that on such a distributed network, you are acting as a "pipeline" and the **AA's can't -prove- that you're hosting the content. I think that one would get chucked right out of court. To get in trouble, they have to prove that you are "making available" the information, and the DMCA makes it clear that just providing the pipe isn't enough for that standard, you have to know it and be hosting it.
And Quetzalcoatl, too. You will now burn in hell.
If he really wanted to off himself, why not repeat the stunt and jump?
...There are "strategic reserves" of helium?
As to the coercion issue, just don't tell the proxy, anywhere along the chain, when a person has decided to recover their vote. Just give the proxy a "Vote this way for all votes assigned to me" button, but no access as to how many they -do- have or whose they are. Under the current system, someone can -try- to force you to vote for candidate X, but they can't go into the voting booth with you. (Even if you say you want them to.)
The core principle, in both cases, is that if someone tries to coerce you, they have no way to verify if you did what they said or not. ("Sure, I voted for candidate X." "Sure, I assigned my vote to you by proxy.") I think this would adequately guard against the problem at least as well as the current system does.
Can and do, most certainly, also get BBC news on our local PBS station. However, another source is generally not a bad thing, even though its open format will mean that especially new stories will have to be taken with a decent dose of salt. (Seems anymore that's even the case with mainstream news.)
Although, the Web does have some of this functionality already (anyone can publish), a central site would be excellent, especially for those of us in the US who realizes that a world exists outside the border and are sick of receiving less than a bare minimum of news from it.
I wonder how a project such as this would handle things such as libel? Would the operators of the site or the original poster be responsible for that type of thing? IANAL and I don't really know.
So far as I knew, CALEA does -not- currently apply to broadband providers, this link from the EFF would seem to indicate the same.
It would seem rather pointless to be "objecting" to something which has already happened...
The software would still be copyrighted/patented, so even if it became legal for me to reverse-engineer my copy of Windows 95, I couldn't make it into "Windows PX" and start selling copies, and Microsoft could still come after me for doing so. I'm talking about doing third-party support (security patches, bug fixes, etc.) once the manufacturer no longer wants to do them.
IANAL, but would this not also invoke CALEA, the federal law requiring that "communications providers" provide accessibility to FBI and other law enforcement for wiretaps? Not only does this raise privacy concerns, but as this is an unfunded mandate, it also likely raises costs. It's a mixed bag (I would be happy to see competition come up, but in most states cable providers are a regulated monopoly and really don't gouge.) I know a lot of people have had trouble with cable providers, but I've used Comcast for quite some time now and been very happy. For the speed, the price is reasonable, and every time there's been a problem it's been fixed by the next day at the longest.
As I said, though, IANAL and I don't know about the CALEA issue. Does anyone know if a finding of common carrier would invoke this?
Some manufactured goods last quite some time, and even after they've outlived their "useful" lives, sometimes hobbyists keep them going for novelty value. The difference is, that even if the car manufacturer stops "supporting" a car, I can go pop the hood, find a compatible part somewhere, and get it running again. Same with an old TV or transistor radio. I don't think a manufacturer or designer should be required to support a product forever, but I don't think they should be able to prohibit you from getting at the guts of it and doing it yourself.
With the support issue, though, what about the software companies who sell "lifetime" support contracts? If they cease to support an old version, and there are people out there holding these contracts, are they not owed their money back? I think some type of up-front disclosure (X Software Corp. plans to support this version for 5 years) is in order.
This is precisely why laws are needed specifically allowing reverse-engineering as soon as any given company decides to stop adequately supporting a piece of software. I agree that a company has the right (even if it's not always the best strategy) to keep their code proprietary for the purposes of making money off of it and keeping unique features unique while they are selling, marketing, and supporting it. They do not, however, have the right to do so in order to force a version less than 10 years old into obsolescence and force users to upgrade.
The Founding Fathers, by the definition of the laws at the time, were criminals. Breaking the law does not necessarily mean that what you are doing is ethically wrong, especially if the law is oppressive. What most governments who decide that they can ignore the people find is that the people, once sufficiently pissed off, can quite well apply force right back, whether it's legal or not.
And in this case, the perpetrator can be prosecuted for trespass (and probably arson). That's when their actions have crossed the line from protected, political speech into an invasion of privacy and a dangerous act.
For one thing, I don't know about the legality of most EULA's as a whole. They certainly -might- be workable, but certainly some have been struck down as invalid, and rightfully so.
"By installing and using X software package, you agree that every time you type in a credit card number to your system, X software package's keylogger will transmit this data to X developer. You further agree to let X developer use this information to make all the purchases he damn well likes."
While this may seem an extreme example (and one I'd love to include in a few things...hehe), you would still be going to prison for credit card fraud. There are limits to what these "contracts" can do, regardless of whether you knowingly or unknowingly agree to them.
Also, most companies, and most judges, are well aware that people do not read (and would not for the most part understand if they did) the license agreements. They're a very shaky argument, which is why I think companies have been VERY hesitant to attempt enforcement except in flagrant, obvious cases.
It is generally not considered a dealing "in good faith" to put something in a contract that you know will only fly if the other party does not read or understand it. IANAL but I know contracts have been invalidated on these grounds before.
It might even work as well as the lawsuits against filesharers.
In all seriousness, if the passage of the law changed nothing, likely the lawsuits will only stop those targeted, and ten will spring up to replace the one that got nailed. They also can do next to nothing about spammers outside the US. So, while I have to give a (rare) salute to Microsoft on this one, I don't think it'll do much to stem the flood.
"No George Bush."
Please note that that post was mine, and I was clarifying it. :) I am not advocating, for example, that such things as sensitive security information or trade secrets be released just because someone introduces them as evidence in a court somewhere. However, that should not keep the entire case, including all its non-sensitive bits, under seal. Rather, the case should be released with such bits redacted.
In effect, I'm agreeing with you, there are things that are introduced to evidence that for one reason or another are not suitable for release to the public. However, the amount of information not released should be kept to a minimum, and in NO case should something be withheld from the public simply because it reveals someone's misconduct.
I generally use Slackware/Debian on it in any case, it was just something where I wanted to try it out and didn't have an unused box lying around. Thanks much for the offer though.
I already use VMWare, and while I love the concept, I have had several problems, especially in using it to test newer versions of OS's. (Fedora Core 3, for example, could not load the kernel properly, while it wouldn't even recognize the disc for Fedora Core 2. Yes, I checked the checksum, yes, it matched.)
It would be great if someone could come up with a better (and free) alternative to it, hopefully some of these bugs can be worked out. I would certainly like to see all the "good" features kept, such as auto-switching between guest and host OS just by moving in and out of the window, automatic piggybacking of the host's net connection via NAT, and the overall smoothness of the interface once you do get it running. The ability to mount an ISO image as a CD is also an excellent one.
My, the trolls are out tonight...