The difference is that there is excellent free support for Linux available which is harder to find for commercial OSes. Many companies get by without paying for any commercial Linux support at all. That is hard to do with NT and not something most companies would even contemplate with a commercial UNIX.
This is something I've never understood as a valid arguement for Linux. Yes, there are newsgroups for Linux, and websites, etc, but there is the same thing for NT. I can go to the MS website and get most of my questions answered. Plus, when it comes down to real support, newsgroups don't really help. I crash (on either platform) and I need to get back up and running ASAP. I don't have time to post to a newsgroup and see if I get an answer. I need an answer NOW, whether it's from MS, Redhat, or some other company I've contracted with. Just because Linux has more newsgroups doesn't mean I can't find free NT help online, and it doesn't help in a bind.
I believe the big deal is attempting to determine what's more important, protecting kids from what a number of crotchety adults deem offensive, or the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution?
I still don't see where the first amendment comes in. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to look at kiddie porn. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theatre. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to do anything you want, anywhere, anytime. No one is saying you can't look at porn, or bombs, or anything else you want, they are saying you can't look at it on a system the government is providing for use (and no, you don't even have a right to use the system, or have the government provide a system for you to use). It is a generally accepted tenet in this country that minors are not allowed access to certain things. That is why you can't put up a poster of a naked woman in the window of your business. There is and must be limits to what people can see. Just because you think your kids are mature enough to see anything they want, and it's good for them doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. In your house, you can do what you want (including showing porn to your kids, or showing them the Onion, or nothing at all if that is what you desire), but that doesn't mean the government has to help you do this in public places. Many people feel they shouldn't have to worry about their child seeing pornography over someone's shoulder in the library. I happen to agree with them. But I also think you should be and are more than welcome to view it in non-public places.
People seem to think that if you can't do anything, anywhere you want, it's censorship. Censorship is trying to stop people from doing something AT ALL. I can take my pants off and walk around my house. I like to do it, it feels good. Does that mean I'm being censored because I can't do that at work or at the mall?
Take a look at the targets, friends. Someone already mentioned that pillars of morality like GNU.org, W3C.org, etc. aren't (yet -- big yet) being taken down. It's your upstarts who've launched a thousand-squared newbies onto the net, a thousand-squared clueless idiots. Yahoo.com. Started as a nice little index running in a dorm room. Now? Collects marketing statistics first and foremost and THEN runs an index on a server farm. ABC. Owned by Disney. (Nuff said.... no offense, Rob.) eBay. Relatively okay company, but they won't allow outsiders to provide searches into their pages. Not a good thing. CNN. I don't have a bone to pick with CNN. I'm guessing this is a notierity issue.
Now, let's take another look at the targets. Yahoo, CNN, ABC, Disney...the connection I see is that they are all high profile sites. You're right, GNU.org and W3C.org didn't get hit, that's because, in general, no one would give half a shit. Do you think these kiddies would have made every major news program for taking down GNU.org? Not a chance. Just because these sites are the "pillars of morality" on the internet doesn't mean people care about them. If GNU.org went down, how many people would notice? Maybe a tenth of the people the noticed Yahoo or Ebay being down (and that's being generous). You say yourself you can't find a reason for CNN being attacked, using your reasoning. That's because there is no reason other than these kiddies can see more of their handy work on the TV.
You're right. I assume (hope) Mr. Katz knows the difference as well. But... The DVD CCA sued claiming that that is what DeCSS was for. They claimed that DeCSS was solely to illegally copy DVDs. Yes, this is wrong, and that is part of the problem with their case. No DeCSS is needed to duplicate DVDs. DeCSS is just needed to view them.
This is kinda off-topic, but since Katz's brings it up, and everyone seems to be talking about it, I'll talk about it too. I'm not taking sides on the whole DeCSS thing, because I think it has legitimate uses, but can also see how it opens things wide up for pirating of DVDs, but I have a feeling the MPA will easily win this case if the OSS doesn't figure out what exactly it's argueing. There are so many confusing points the OSS is trying to make that the may very well lose through disorganization.
One thing that they really need to figure out is the issue of copying. I have read that you can already make bit for bit copies of DVDs. But I have also read that these copies can't play on any standard DVD since the "copy protection" part of the disk is not burned correctly on these copiers. Also, the major point the OSS is making is that the MPA is keeping them from making backup copies of their DVDs, which they are legally entitled to. The problem being they have already argued that copies can be made. They then continue to argue that DeCSS doesn't help pirates make copies of movies, which defeats the whole point of argueing that they are using DeCSS for making legal backup copies. There are only 2 options, either DeCSS helps people make copies (whether they are legal copies or not) or it doesn't have anything to do with making copies, in which case their arguement about making legal backups in null and void. Everyone needs to get their ducks in a row if they plan on having any chance to win this case, because at the rate it's going, it looks like a lost cause...
You are not imagining things. Every time I see the "Bill Gates of Borg" icon, I know I will see a flood of pro-MS FUD and anti-Linux/Open Source diatribes posted in the discussion within. You will also note many of them are bitter, angry posts about how "unfair" poor Microsoft is treated on Slashdot. Utterly ridiculous, considering that for years nearly all of the "mainstream" computer/internet press acted like they were part of the MS PR Dept. I've always been glad that Slashdot was here, to deflate some of that - not just from MS, but from any large company.
I alwayd find posts like these funny. Being someone who likes MS (no, I don't agree with everything they've done, but I also don't think they are evil and the spawn of satan) and someone who has tried Linux and thinks it could be good given time to mature and if companies port software to it, I guess I am an MS FUD spreader. People seem to think the point of/. is to bash Ms and support OSS, and I'm not sure where they got that idea./. was created to basically give an outlet for people to express "unpopular" opinions (yes, at the time it was mostly OSS people, but it wasn't created to praise OSS). Now people seem to think that it was built for them to praise OSS and bash MS and anything else deemed "unworthy" of the praise of the open source community, thus thrusting us into the reverse of the original situation. People who don't want to see MS destroyed are now the "unpopular" opinion being held down be the OSS masses. Just because someone doesn't think MS is evil and must be destroyed by any means nessasary doesn't make them part of the "MS PR department" anymore than liking Linux makes you an automatic "Linux zealot"./. is not for OSS discussion, it is for discussion, period.
QUOTE "The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. " UNQUOTE The fact that the Superbowl was highlighted makes me suspicious. The only reason for this, IMHO, is that they want their ratings, which don't get counted on ICraveTV's rebroadcast.
Of course they are worried about the ratings, that's how they make money. The higher your ratings are, the more money you charge for commercials. If the Superbowl suddenly dropped hugely in the ratings this year (not saying iCraveTV could have that huge an effect, just a for instance) next year they wouldn't be able to charge nearly as much for advertising time as this year. Ratings==money.
QUOTE: "...that Canada's laws give it the right to retransmit broadcast television signals, in the same way that cable companies and satellite companies do. As long as the company doesn't cut or insert its own commercials into the programming, and ultimately pays copyright holders for their work, iCraveTV's action is completely legal..." UNQUOTE
I think the problem here isn't that the Canadian law applies, no one will argue that. it's that they are/were also broadcasting American stations as well. I know they were broadcasting some New York stations, which makes the law VERY muddled. ICraveTV is Canadian, but they are getting American content, so which laws apply? If they had only been broadcasting Canadian content, it would have been a lot more cut and dry.
Of course, he already waived his right to a speedy trial. IANAL, but if you can successfully withold evidence (e.g. by not testifying against yourself - obviously the case if Mitnick memorized the key and is in sole posession of it) beyond the statute of limitations you really are scot-free. Besides, the government _is_ in posession of the evidence. No one said it would be easy for them though. When it is made so, deliberately, we call that a police state.
To me this seems more like withholding evidence than incriminating yourself. You're not being forced to testify that you did something wrong. It's the equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Nixon was forced to turn over the tapes, but didn't turn over them all. If he had encrpted the tapes before he turned them over it would have been the same thing. If you withhold evidence it is illegal. If you refuse to answer questions (other than what is covered by the 5th amendment) you are held in comptempt of court. you can and usually will be held until you comply, because that is the only way to make people comply.
What your saying is if you hide the evidence well enough, you should be found not guilty. I don't know about you, but just because someone disposes of a body so no one can find it doesn't make them any less guilty of murder.
Seriously now, Kevin has the right not to incriminate himself. This includes not turning over a key. This is all 5th Amendment.. the government is just trying to set a precident here so they can steam-roller it. g'luck, I have a small amount of faith that the supreme court will shoot it down.
This has nothing to do with not incriminating himself. This is a lot closer to withholding evidence. This is probably one of the reasons his case took so long to come to trial (well, it never really did, but you get the point). They had the evidence, but couldn't proceed until the got it decrypted. It's kinda like saying "You think I killed the guy? Well, I do know where his body is, but I won't tell you." You could bury evidence under a city so deep it would take the government 5 years to get to. Should they let you go until they get down there? Not if they have enough evidence to arrest you in the first place and they know where it is. It's better for you to tell them where it is if you want a speedy trial.
It must just pain these movie/music execs that they cannot force humans to upgrade their eyes and ears so they can view and listen to encrypted content which is not descrambled until the BMI/MPAA/Borg approved implant embedded inside your nervous system decrypts the data and makes it understandable. If I can hear it, I can record it. If I can see it, I can record it. NOTHING CAN CHANGE THIS TRUTH.
You're right, you can record it, but the fight isn't over making recording, it's about making copies (as in the same quality of the original). You can always hold your old boombox up the speakers and record what comes out, and no one is going to complain (I remember holding my boombox up to the radio to make tapes way back when). The difference being that the quality is so bad that you can't distribute it to anyone (well, you can sure try, but I doubt anyone will take you up on it). No one cares if you make a copy, they care if you make a copy suitable for redistribution.
Have your data ever been insecure? Really?!?! Like: "Oh, I don't know if I'm pretty enough to go out with him--I'm kind of insecure about how I look." No no no... that's not what people mean. When discussing computer security issues--or security issues in general, for that matter--the appropriate way to refer to the notion of "not secure" is to use the word "unsecure."
Fact: You don't need to decode the DVD's in order to copy them.
Fact: You do need to decode them in order to watch them or to make an archival copy of them.
Ok, whether you think the case is right or not, this line of reasoning isn't going to go anywhere. In fact 1 you state you can make a copy of the DVD disc without decoding it (which is either true or not true depending on who you listen to). In fact 2 you state that you need to decode the DVD to make an achival copy of the DVD. Which one is it? Can you make a copy of the DVD without decoding it (as stated in 1) or do you need to decode it to make a copy (as in 2). This is the thing that I think is going to win the case for the DVD companies. Everyone seems to be arguing that they have a right to make an archival copy, so they need to be able to decode the DVD, and than they say the encryption doesn't stop people from making copies of the DVD, thus negating the first part of their arguement. If you plan on winning the case, you need to decide which merit your going to fight on, because using both almost guaruntees a loss.
CSS won't stop that. Just use an authorized window$ player, and grab the frame buffer out of the video card with a driver hooked into the vertical blanking interrupt. From there, it's just a matter of softwere re-encoding into MPEG and re-sampling the framerate (trivial) to exactly reproduce the unencoded contents of the disk.
This is true, but how many people have the technological know-how ot do that? A lot of people at/. do, but other than that, very very few. but if there was a player made that allowed you to save a movie to an MPEG file as you played it (which is entirely possible) then every 3l|t3 haxor around could rip movies to MPEGs.
If the movie industry had implemented a security system that prevented unauthorized copying that would be one story. But they don't even attempt this. Anyone can copy encrypted DVD media to a blank DVD and play it anywhere. This encryption does nothing to stop bootleggers. What it does do is stop authorized viewers from accessing the media in a legitimate manner
This is very true, but there is a lot more to piracy than just making copies of DVDs. There is a growing market on the internet for downloading movies. These are usually in MPEG format. Currently, most of the movies come from people sneaking a camcorder into a theater and recording the movie as they see it, which returns a fairly poor quality video. Now imagine if you could rip the movie directly from the DVD into MPEG format. It would be almost flawless quality, which would make the "market" for pirated movies on the net huge. Sure a movie is a large download, but with cable modem and DSL becoming more and more prominent, a 500 Meg download isn't all that big of a deal. This is the real piracy concern currently, not a bit for bit copy of a DVD.
The problem is, this still leaves one company with a monopoly on OSs, one with a monopoly on office software, and so on. What's the point of replacing one monopoly with three? (or two - the OS one and the Office one) What's really needed is a breakup into three or four essentially identical companies that can actually sell and develop their stuff in competition - we need competition _within_ the windows market itself, both the OS and the major applications. If they go the breakup route (which might not be ideal - opening the APIs and standardising them, and maybe the windows source so that other companies can produce competing but compatible version, would probably be better in the long run) then they have to target the breakup at competition, not at some nice convenient points of demarkation(sp?) within the company.
To recap, the basic problem is one of replacing a broad software monopoly with several narrower ones - the monopoly isn't destroyed, it's just reconstituted.
The trial wasn't about MS being having a monopoly because they are the market leader. It was about MS using their market dominance to lock out competitors. It was about making people who offer Windows offer Office to. This is what the trial was about, and this is what the ruling is meant to fix.
Being a monopoly isn't about being on the most systems, or being the de facto standard, it's about keeping your competitors from even having a chance in the market, and that is what this is meant to fix.
There's a huge difference between reading about making bombs and actually making them. By reading violent material, am I harming anyone? Some might argue that I am harming myself, and might extend that to say that I am indirectly harming others, but getting a high grade on a scaled test indirectly harms others as well.
So your argument falls flat. I personally see no problems with people seeing whatever they want to see, and I think that the misdirection 'problem' is not a real problem, given the location of most of said misdirecting links (most of them are on pages that are read only by those who don't care about the content of the misdirection, only about the misdirection itself).
So looking at child pornography is ok? So looking at pictures of rape is ok? I'm not arguing that there isn't a difference between reading about something and doing it, I'm arguing that there are some things children shouldn't be exposed to at all.
Maybe you can filter it out at the library. Maybe you take if off TV. Resourceful kids who want to see pictures of naked human bodies are going to find pictures of naked human bodies. I was shoplifting "dirty magazines" when I was a young teenager. I *could* have gotten in a lot of trouble.
Why did I do this? Because my parents were of this "american family values" slant that says the naked human body is a nasty sinful thing. Well, I don't think so. The *real* problem is that parents don't know how to share with their kids any healthy attitudes about sex and nature. This "unnatural" attitude about the human body and sex is what makes kids curious in the first place. If nudity and discussion of sex were more a part of normal everyday life, porn would loose much of it's appeal.
If the only thing on the internet was naked bodies, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But there is also kiddie porn, and beastiality, and rape pictures, and pictures of people eating crap, etc. I agree people are way to uptight about nudity, but there is a LOT more than nudity available on the net, and that's what I worry about my kids getting a hold of.
To start off, I'm a fairly anti-censorship person. But that said, I also don't advocate putting everything out in front of everyone. I think a lot of the time this country babies it's people, but this isn't one of those times. I completely agree that we have a right to know what sights are being kept from us if software of this type is put on public (library) computers. But this conversation has quickly gone from being about seeing what sights are being filtered, to why we need to filter at all.
First of all, I think we do need some kind of filtering software on public computers. As much as I lobby for a free internet, without censorship, I also don't think showing Jimmy the 5 year old the beastiality site is a good idea. There is a reason Hustler and other "adult" magazines aren't available to everyone in the public library. Hustler may have great articles, but there is enough in it that is objectionable that it is not offered. If they could offer only the Hustler articles, without the pictures, off-color jokes, etc, I would be all for it being available. This is what the filtering software is attempting to do, offer the quality content suitable to everyone without offering the objectionable material. This isn't about just keeping kids off the sights, because anyone walking behind the person sitting at the computer can also check it out and see what's happeneing. If you move the computer to a room by itself, then yes, adults could view porn, but this isn't a very pratical answer, since many library are only one room to begin with.
Second, there has been a lot of talk about giving children the oppurtunity to act as adults, something else I agree with. But there has to be limits placed on that as well. A lot of people when given the oppurtunity to act as responisible adults do so, but unfortunately, just as many choose not to. Look at the number of people who drink and drive. They have the opportunity to act responsibly, and choose not to. Look at the kids from Columbine. They had a lot of freedom (as witnessed by the fact their parents didn't know what was going on). They chose everything but to act responsibly. We should treat kids above their age, but within reason. Giving them free reign to explore everything on the seedier side of the Internet is NOT within reason.
Lastly, I agree that the software is not perfect, but until it is, there aren't too many other options. Going to the library and looking at whatever you want on the internet is not a right, it's a privilge. We can't let everyone have everything, but I also don't think we can take it away completely, because it's so useful. The logical option is to give as much as we can until the software catches up with everything else. If there are eight million sights filtered, maybe 100,000 will be filtered by accident. But given the choice between filter those sights accidentally and giving anyone the right to view anything, I'll take the accidental filtering for a while.
Re:It's a WebTV problem, not an MS problem
on
WebTV Security Hole
·
· Score: 2
AS always analogies suck. It's not MTV's fault because MTV doesn't own VH1. Viacom owns VH1 and MTV. But whomever owns VH1 IS respnsible for its suckiness. Just like MS is respnsible for WebTV security holes. If I win a law suit againt WebTV, Microsoft will pay, no? Therefore they are responsible, yes?
My bad on the Viacom thing, I screwed that up, but at least the basic premise still stands.
If you win a lawsuit against WebTV, WebTV pays, not MS. Although MS owns WebTV, WebTV is still a seperate company. WebTV could go bankrupt, and that wouldn't mean MS is bankrupt.
People seem to confuse being owned by a company with merging with a company. If two companies merge, they become on company. There is no more them and us, only us. If a company "buys" another company, all that means is company A owns a controlling interest (usually 51% of the stock) in company B. They are still two seperate companies.
I don't see why everyone seems to think MS is to blame here. MS bought WebTV, they didn't design it. In general when a company purchases another company, they don't redesign the product from ground up. MS may own WebTV, but in general WebTV operates as a seperate company. That would be like blaming MTV because VH1 doesn't play good videos (MTV owns VH1 in case you didn't know). Just because MS has controlling interest in WebTV doesn't make everything that happens an MS screw-up. Sometimes a screw-up is just a screw-up...
I can see why some people would object to this device in use on every street corner, or at the entrance of every building. It bothers me to see people object to the current use because sometime down the line it may become more common. When metal detectors started becoming more prevalent in airports people screamed because soon they would be used on the street, in every home, etc. Yet they are not all that common. They are in airports, in some government buildings (high risk ones usually) and in private businesses that choose to install them. The same thing (except most probably on a much smaller scale) will happen with this. It will NOT be everywhere, it will be used in high risk areas like airports.
I value personally freedom as much as most people, but just like everything else in the world, this is a compromise. You need to give up a small amount of freedom so everyone can be safe. Not every device can be objected to because sometime down the line it could misused. In that case we should object to computers, because they could be used to gather information about us, used in devices such as these, and used to hack into OUR computers. There are battles that need to be fought. If something like this ever starts to becomes commonplace in society, then yes we should fight because it is being misused. If you can't walk down the street without a device like this being used one you, yes we should fight, because it's being misused. As long as the device is being used properly (as in to keep everyone safe, and to catch people breaking the law {whether you like the laws or not, it is the job of the police to catch people breaking them, until the law is changed}) then there is no reason to protest this.
Our protective measures need to advance as the rest of technology advances. There are guns being designed that are completely ceramic (yes, I realize the plastic Glock is a myth, and these aren't new guns available yet). If we don't advance out security as fast as the technology, it will become useless. One of the things we give up to live in a civilized society is some personal freedom.
People like you and I probably don't give a crap how it looks, as long as it works and the information is there, but computer illiterate managers only have the surface looks to judge by. Heck, when I was developing the code in the background I was accused of moving too slowly, but once I was working on the cute interface I was suddenly moving at a blistering pace - fact is I was working at the same quick speed the whole time.
What you forget is that on the web, the image IS everything. If you are a company on the web, no one knows anything about you except for your web page. You can be the little guy, but if you have the biggest and best page around, people will assume you are the top dog of the industry. Yes, in theory every web page should work in every browser, on every OS, but in reality, it just doesn't work that way. Most company web sites are nothing but a big ad, and in that case, image IS everything. Most people care less about the information than they do about about the "image" it portrays.
I've seen a couple people point out that Linux shouldn't be held responisible, because sine the code is open-source, anyone can look at it and evaluate it for themselves. Leaving aside the "not everyone is a programmer" problem, what happens when a bug is found, but a patch isn't immediately available? If a bug is discovered, and it takes a week for a patch to be made, who is responsible for that weeks worth of vulnerability, since it is open-source, anyone can look at the code and find the bug in that week?
Also, I think the whole point of negligence is a bit overblown to begin with. Microsoft shouldn't be held responsible for a bug that was exploited. Everyone brings up the car analogy, but what this is really equivilent to is if GM knew that their gas tanks were vulnerable to people shooting at them. They are may be safe in ever other way, but if someone attacks the gas tank directly, it will explode. No one would ever think of holding GM responsible because someone shot at the gas tank. If someone finds a bug and attacks it directly, they may make it through, yet we want to hold MS partly responsible? It seems to me if something is exploited, it's the exploiter who is at fault. If MS had point the bug in there on purpose (as a backdoor or something), then they could be held responsible, but if it's a bug someone exploits I don't see how they are responsible.
While I can completely see why he would feel the way he does, this is completely the wrong way to go about it. Going after Amazon for defending their patent won't get you anywhere. They are just doing what anyone with a patent to defend and a potential lot of money to be made would do. If you want to change things, you have to go after the patent system itself, not go after the people who are trapped in the system. Amazon could have not gone after this patent, but then someone else would have, and they would have potentially lost millions of dollars, so they did what they had to do. Don't blame them for playing the game, instead try to change the rules of the game
The difference is that Napster can be misused by individuals (to little or no harm). This can be misused by the Government. We are individuals, They are the government.
And that's not nearly as flippant as it seems on first reading.
The problem with that thinking is that it makes two completely seperate levels of accountability. Either the entity using the software is held responsible or not. Just because this software can be used by the government doesn't make anyone less responsible. It's still out job to hold the entity using it responsible (in this case the government). Responsibility is responsibility, no matter who it is.
As I was reading the comments on this new system, I was stuck by who close in relation this device and the current flap and Napster are, yet how differently people react. Everyone pretty much agrees Napster should be completely legal. It is used to trade illegal MP3s, but that's not Napster's fault, that's the responsibility of the people using it, not the technology itself. Now the situation with this surveillance system is quite similar, except people don't wqant it around because it can be misused. If used correctly, this technology could be a great thing to prevent a HUGE amount of crime, but used incorrectly it could be a tool of harrassment. But it depends on the people using it, not the technology itself. I feel you can't discount technology because of a potential for future abuse, you need to deal with the potential abusers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is something I've never understood as a valid arguement for Linux. Yes, there are newsgroups for Linux, and websites, etc, but there is the same thing for NT. I can go to the MS website and get most of my questions answered. Plus, when it comes down to real support, newsgroups don't really help. I crash (on either platform) and I need to get back up and running ASAP. I don't have time to post to a newsgroup and see if I get an answer. I need an answer NOW, whether it's from MS, Redhat, or some other company I've contracted with. Just because Linux has more newsgroups doesn't mean I can't find free NT help online, and it doesn't help in a bind.
I still don't see where the first amendment comes in. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to look at kiddie porn. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theatre. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to do anything you want, anywhere, anytime. No one is saying you can't look at porn, or bombs, or anything else you want, they are saying you can't look at it on a system the government is providing for use (and no, you don't even have a right to use the system, or have the government provide a system for you to use). It is a generally accepted tenet in this country that minors are not allowed access to certain things. That is why you can't put up a poster of a naked woman in the window of your business. There is and must be limits to what people can see. Just because you think your kids are mature enough to see anything they want, and it's good for them doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. In your house, you can do what you want (including showing porn to your kids, or showing them the Onion, or nothing at all if that is what you desire), but that doesn't mean the government has to help you do this in public places. Many people feel they shouldn't have to worry about their child seeing pornography over someone's shoulder in the library. I happen to agree with them. But I also think you should be and are more than welcome to view it in non-public places.
People seem to think that if you can't do anything, anywhere you want, it's censorship. Censorship is trying to stop people from doing something AT ALL. I can take my pants off and walk around my house. I like to do it, it feels good. Does that mean I'm being censored because I can't do that at work or at the mall?
Yahoo.com. Started as a nice little index running in a dorm room. Now? Collects marketing statistics first and foremost and THEN runs an index on a server farm.
ABC. Owned by Disney. (Nuff said.... no offense, Rob.)
eBay. Relatively okay company, but they won't allow outsiders to provide searches into their pages. Not a good thing.
CNN. I don't have a bone to pick with CNN. I'm guessing this is a notierity issue.
Now, let's take another look at the targets. Yahoo, CNN, ABC, Disney...the connection I see is that they are all high profile sites. You're right, GNU.org and W3C.org didn't get hit, that's because, in general, no one would give half a shit. Do you think these kiddies would have made every major news program for taking down GNU.org? Not a chance. Just because these sites are the "pillars of morality" on the internet doesn't mean people care about them. If GNU.org went down, how many people would notice? Maybe a tenth of the people the noticed Yahoo or Ebay being down (and that's being generous). You say yourself you can't find a reason for CNN being attacked, using your reasoning. That's because there is no reason other than these kiddies can see more of their handy work on the TV.
This is kinda off-topic, but since Katz's brings it up, and everyone seems to be talking about it, I'll talk about it too. I'm not taking sides on the whole DeCSS thing, because I think it has legitimate uses, but can also see how it opens things wide up for pirating of DVDs, but I have a feeling the MPA will easily win this case if the OSS doesn't figure out what exactly it's argueing. There are so many confusing points the OSS is trying to make that the may very well lose through disorganization.
One thing that they really need to figure out is the issue of copying. I have read that you can already make bit for bit copies of DVDs. But I have also read that these copies can't play on any standard DVD since the "copy protection" part of the disk is not burned correctly on these copiers. Also, the major point the OSS is making is that the MPA is keeping them from making backup copies of their DVDs, which they are legally entitled to. The problem being they have already argued that copies can be made. They then continue to argue that DeCSS doesn't help pirates make copies of movies, which defeats the whole point of argueing that they are using DeCSS for making legal backup copies. There are only 2 options, either DeCSS helps people make copies (whether they are legal copies or not) or it doesn't have anything to do with making copies, in which case their arguement about making legal backups in null and void. Everyone needs to get their ducks in a row if they plan on having any chance to win this case, because at the rate it's going, it looks like a lost cause...
I alwayd find posts like these funny. Being someone who likes MS (no, I don't agree with everything they've done, but I also don't think they are evil and the spawn of satan) and someone who has tried Linux and thinks it could be good given time to mature and if companies port software to it, I guess I am an MS FUD spreader. People seem to think the point of
"The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. "
UNQUOTE
The fact that the Superbowl was highlighted makes me suspicious. The only reason for this, IMHO, is that they want their ratings, which don't get counted on ICraveTV's rebroadcast.
Of course they are worried about the ratings, that's how they make money. The higher your ratings are, the more money you charge for commercials. If the Superbowl suddenly dropped hugely in the ratings this year (not saying iCraveTV could have that huge an effect, just a for instance) next year they wouldn't be able to charge nearly as much for advertising time as this year. Ratings==money.
QUOTE:
"...that Canada's laws give it the right to retransmit broadcast television signals, in the same way that cable companies and satellite companies do. As long as the company doesn't cut or insert its own commercials into the programming, and ultimately pays copyright holders for their work, iCraveTV's action is completely legal..."
UNQUOTE
I think the problem here isn't that the Canadian law applies, no one will argue that. it's that they are/were also broadcasting American stations as well. I know they were broadcasting some New York stations, which makes the law VERY muddled. ICraveTV is Canadian, but they are getting American content, so which laws apply? If they had only been broadcasting Canadian content, it would have been a lot more cut and dry.
Besides, the government _is_ in posession of the evidence. No one said it would be easy for them though. When it is made so, deliberately, we call that a police state.
To me this seems more like withholding evidence than incriminating yourself. You're not being forced to testify that you did something wrong. It's the equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Nixon was forced to turn over the tapes, but didn't turn over them all. If he had encrpted the tapes before he turned them over it would have been the same thing. If you withhold evidence it is illegal. If you refuse to answer questions (other than what is covered by the 5th amendment) you are held in comptempt of court. you can and usually will be held until you comply, because that is the only way to make people comply.
What your saying is if you hide the evidence well enough, you should be found not guilty. I don't know about you, but just because someone disposes of a body so no one can find it doesn't make them any less guilty of murder.
This has nothing to do with not incriminating himself. This is a lot closer to withholding evidence. This is probably one of the reasons his case took so long to come to trial (well, it never really did, but you get the point). They had the evidence, but couldn't proceed until the got it decrypted. It's kinda like saying "You think I killed the guy? Well, I do know where his body is, but I won't tell you." You could bury evidence under a city so deep it would take the government 5 years to get to. Should they let you go until they get down there? Not if they have enough evidence to arrest you in the first place and they know where it is. It's better for you to tell them where it is if you want a speedy trial.
If I can hear it, I can record it.
If I can see it, I can record it.
NOTHING CAN CHANGE THIS TRUTH.
You're right, you can record it, but the fight isn't over making recording, it's about making copies (as in the same quality of the original). You can always hold your old boombox up the speakers and record what comes out, and no one is going to complain (I remember holding my boombox up to the radio to make tapes way back when). The difference being that the quality is so bad that you can't distribute it to anyone (well, you can sure try, but I doubt anyone will take you up on it). No one cares if you make a copy, they care if you make a copy suitable for redistribution.
No no no... that's not what people mean. When discussing computer security issues--or security issues in general, for that matter--the appropriate way to refer to the notion of "not secure" is to use the word "unsecure."
hmmmm....let's see. According to Dictionary.com, one definition of insecure is:
Inadequately guarded or protected; unsafe.
According to the same source, the only definition of unsecure is:
unsecure \Un`se*cure"\, a. Insecure.
I would also like to correct a common mistake I see here, talking without thinking.
Fact: You do need to decode them in order to watch them or to make an archival copy of them.
Ok, whether you think the case is right or not, this line of reasoning isn't going to go anywhere. In fact 1 you state you can make a copy of the DVD disc without decoding it (which is either true or not true depending on who you listen to). In fact 2 you state that you need to decode the DVD to make an achival copy of the DVD. Which one is it? Can you make a copy of the DVD without decoding it (as stated in 1) or do you need to decode it to make a copy (as in 2). This is the thing that I think is going to win the case for the DVD companies. Everyone seems to be arguing that they have a right to make an archival copy, so they need to be able to decode the DVD, and than they say the encryption doesn't stop people from making copies of the DVD, thus negating the first part of their arguement. If you plan on winning the case, you need to decide which merit your going to fight on, because using both almost guaruntees a loss.
This is true, but how many people have the technological know-how ot do that? A lot of people at
This is very true, but there is a lot more to piracy than just making copies of DVDs. There is a growing market on the internet for downloading movies. These are usually in MPEG format. Currently, most of the movies come from people sneaking a camcorder into a theater and recording the movie as they see it, which returns a fairly poor quality video. Now imagine if you could rip the movie directly from the DVD into MPEG format. It would be almost flawless quality, which would make the "market" for pirated movies on the net huge. Sure a movie is a large download, but with cable modem and DSL becoming more and more prominent, a 500 Meg download isn't all that big of a deal. This is the real piracy concern currently, not a bit for bit copy of a DVD.
What's really needed is a breakup into three or four essentially identical companies that can actually sell and develop their stuff in competition - we need competition _within_ the windows market itself, both the OS and the major applications. If they go the breakup route (which might not be ideal - opening the APIs and standardising them, and maybe the windows source so that other companies can produce competing but compatible version, would probably be better in the long run) then they have to target the breakup at competition, not at some nice convenient points of demarkation(sp?) within the company.
To recap, the basic problem is one of replacing a broad software monopoly with several narrower ones - the monopoly isn't destroyed, it's just reconstituted.
The trial wasn't about MS being having a monopoly because they are the market leader. It was about MS using their market dominance to lock out competitors. It was about making people who offer Windows offer Office to. This is what the trial was about, and this is what the ruling is meant to fix.
Being a monopoly isn't about being on the most systems, or being the de facto standard, it's about keeping your competitors from even having a chance in the market, and that is what this is meant to fix.
So your argument falls flat. I personally see no problems with people seeing whatever they want to see, and I think that the misdirection 'problem' is not a real problem, given the location of most of said misdirecting links (most of them are on pages that are read only by those who don't care about the content of the misdirection, only about the misdirection itself).
So looking at child pornography is ok? So looking at pictures of rape is ok? I'm not arguing that there isn't a difference between reading about something and doing it, I'm arguing that there are some things children shouldn't be exposed to at all.
Why did I do this? Because my parents were of this "american family values" slant that says the naked human body is a nasty sinful thing. Well, I don't think so. The *real* problem is that parents don't know how to share with their kids any healthy attitudes about sex and nature. This "unnatural" attitude about the human body and sex is what makes kids curious in the first place. If nudity and discussion of sex were more a part of normal everyday life, porn would loose much of it's appeal.
If the only thing on the internet was naked bodies, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But there is also kiddie porn, and beastiality, and rape pictures, and pictures of people eating crap, etc. I agree people are way to uptight about nudity, but there is a LOT more than nudity available on the net, and that's what I worry about my kids getting a hold of.
First of all, I think we do need some kind of filtering software on public computers. As much as I lobby for a free internet, without censorship, I also don't think showing Jimmy the 5 year old the beastiality site is a good idea. There is a reason Hustler and other "adult" magazines aren't available to everyone in the public library. Hustler may have great articles, but there is enough in it that is objectionable that it is not offered. If they could offer only the Hustler articles, without the pictures, off-color jokes, etc, I would be all for it being available. This is what the filtering software is attempting to do, offer the quality content suitable to everyone without offering the objectionable material. This isn't about just keeping kids off the sights, because anyone walking behind the person sitting at the computer can also check it out and see what's happeneing. If you move the computer to a room by itself, then yes, adults could view porn, but this isn't a very pratical answer, since many library are only one room to begin with.
Second, there has been a lot of talk about giving children the oppurtunity to act as adults, something else I agree with. But there has to be limits placed on that as well. A lot of people when given the oppurtunity to act as responisible adults do so, but unfortunately, just as many choose not to. Look at the number of people who drink and drive. They have the opportunity to act responsibly, and choose not to. Look at the kids from Columbine. They had a lot of freedom (as witnessed by the fact their parents didn't know what was going on). They chose everything but to act responsibly. We should treat kids above their age, but within reason. Giving them free reign to explore everything on the seedier side of the Internet is NOT within reason.
Lastly, I agree that the software is not perfect, but until it is, there aren't too many other options. Going to the library and looking at whatever you want on the internet is not a right, it's a privilge. We can't let everyone have everything, but I also don't think we can take it away completely, because it's so useful. The logical option is to give as much as we can until the software catches up with everything else. If there are eight million sights filtered, maybe 100,000 will be filtered by accident. But given the choice between filter those sights accidentally and giving anyone the right to view anything, I'll take the accidental filtering for a while.
My bad on the Viacom thing, I screwed that up, but at least the basic premise still stands.
If you win a lawsuit against WebTV, WebTV pays, not MS. Although MS owns WebTV, WebTV is still a seperate company. WebTV could go bankrupt, and that wouldn't mean MS is bankrupt.
People seem to confuse being owned by a company with merging with a company. If two companies merge, they become on company. There is no more them and us, only us. If a company "buys" another company, all that means is company A owns a controlling interest (usually 51% of the stock) in company B. They are still two seperate companies.
I don't see why everyone seems to think MS is to blame here. MS bought WebTV, they didn't design it. In general when a company purchases another company, they don't redesign the product from ground up. MS may own WebTV, but in general WebTV operates as a seperate company. That would be like blaming MTV because VH1 doesn't play good videos (MTV owns VH1 in case you didn't know). Just because MS has controlling interest in WebTV doesn't make everything that happens an MS screw-up. Sometimes a screw-up is just a screw-up...
I value personally freedom as much as most people, but just like everything else in the world, this is a compromise. You need to give up a small amount of freedom so everyone can be safe. Not every device can be objected to because sometime down the line it could misused. In that case we should object to computers, because they could be used to gather information about us, used in devices such as these, and used to hack into OUR computers. There are battles that need to be fought. If something like this ever starts to becomes commonplace in society, then yes we should fight because it is being misused. If you can't walk down the street without a device like this being used one you, yes we should fight, because it's being misused. As long as the device is being used properly (as in to keep everyone safe, and to catch people breaking the law {whether you like the laws or not, it is the job of the police to catch people breaking them, until the law is changed}) then there is no reason to protest this.
Our protective measures need to advance as the rest of technology advances. There are guns being designed that are completely ceramic (yes, I realize the plastic Glock is a myth, and these aren't new guns available yet). If we don't advance out security as fast as the technology, it will become useless. One of the things we give up to live in a civilized society is some personal freedom.
What you forget is that on the web, the image IS everything. If you are a company on the web, no one knows anything about you except for your web page. You can be the little guy, but if you have the biggest and best page around, people will assume you are the top dog of the industry. Yes, in theory every web page should work in every browser, on every OS, but in reality, it just doesn't work that way. Most company web sites are nothing but a big ad, and in that case, image IS everything. Most people care less about the information than they do about about the "image" it portrays.
Also, I think the whole point of negligence is a bit overblown to begin with. Microsoft shouldn't be held responsible for a bug that was exploited. Everyone brings up the car analogy, but what this is really equivilent to is if GM knew that their gas tanks were vulnerable to people shooting at them. They are may be safe in ever other way, but if someone attacks the gas tank directly, it will explode. No one would ever think of holding GM responsible because someone shot at the gas tank. If someone finds a bug and attacks it directly, they may make it through, yet we want to hold MS partly responsible? It seems to me if something is exploited, it's the exploiter who is at fault. If MS had point the bug in there on purpose (as a backdoor or something), then they could be held responsible, but if it's a bug someone exploits I don't see how they are responsible.
While I can completely see why he would feel the way he does, this is completely the wrong way to go about it. Going after Amazon for defending their patent won't get you anywhere. They are just doing what anyone with a patent to defend and a potential lot of money to be made would do. If you want to change things, you have to go after the patent system itself, not go after the people who are trapped in the system. Amazon could have not gone after this patent, but then someone else would have, and they would have potentially lost millions of dollars, so they did what they had to do. Don't blame them for playing the game, instead try to change the rules of the game
And that's not nearly as flippant as it seems on first reading.
The problem with that thinking is that it makes two completely seperate levels of accountability. Either the entity using the software is held responsible or not. Just because this software can be used by the government doesn't make anyone less responsible. It's still out job to hold the entity using it responsible (in this case the government). Responsibility is responsibility, no matter who it is.
As I was reading the comments on this new system, I was stuck by who close in relation this device and the current flap and Napster are, yet how differently people react. Everyone pretty much agrees Napster should be completely legal. It is used to trade illegal MP3s, but that's not Napster's fault, that's the responsibility of the people using it, not the technology itself. Now the situation with this surveillance system is quite similar, except people don't wqant it around because it can be misused. If used correctly, this technology could be a great thing to prevent a HUGE amount of crime, but used incorrectly it could be a tool of harrassment. But it depends on the people using it, not the technology itself. I feel you can't discount technology because of a potential for future abuse, you need to deal with the potential abusers.