The judicial system does not enforce, it interprets. Perhaps you should study our government a little more before telling others to read the law. And your own interpretation of this amendment is a thousand miles off.
A database listing information about you does not belong to you, therefor no one requires a warrant to access it. You may own land but you do not own your address, the state does. You do not own your telephone number, the telephone company does. You do not own your SS number, the government does. You obviously do not own your medical, criminal or license history, if you did it would be your responsibility to protect and manage it which is obviously not the case.
I am fairly certain any national database would be more protected that you would ever be capable of, what right do you have to demand such things you can not even do yourself.
The fourth amendment was to protect a persons privacy, and most of this information is not private. That which is, is already protected by law such as medical records.
You people are getting much too smug and righteous about personal privacy now. Just because some schmuck who abuses his access to a piece of information about you does not mean you have to declare war over a minor nuisance at best. Our government does more for you in you a day than you will probably do for it and the rest of your country in a lifetime, they have a greater responsibility that you can possibly fathom and all of you need to grow up and try to contribute to our nations security instead of crying about it like spoiled children.
This is so horribly inaccurate. Bill Clinton was trying to gather support for Government funded training schools for IT security that mandated Government service afterwards while he was still in office. I never could find substantiate information on it and I assumed it simply got lost at some point.
I don't really see a big correlation to that tragic event and this program, at all. What, is learning how to properly firewall a system going to suddenly make INS and customs capable of keeping known terrorists out of our country? I don't think so. Not *everything* that happens in this country is related to that, you know.
I hope you aren't suggesting using a SSH tunnel for the entire connection. You would need those massive systems *just* to encrypt/decrypt the traffic, you'd have nothing leftover for applications. And AFAIK, SSH tunnels are severely limited. You would need a fixed port for the tunnel on the client end and you would only be able to connect to a single remote site through it. We are not talking about a encrypted proxy here.
Would you want to have to use a single port for every host you'd want to connect to over the network? www.uni1:8000, www.uni2:8001, www.slashdot:8050, on and on. You wouldn't be able to connect to more than 65k sites without constantly changing your local profile. Talk about a waste of resources..
Seriously, I would hesitate to pay for any site that priclaims itself as a news service mainly because reporting news is about getting important information out to people reguardless of who they are and what they do. This situation is a little unique as refusing to pay doesn't mean losing access to the news source, however you cannot expect someone to pay more just to get what they have right now, a tech-minded rant at best.
And as for this story specifically, the source was available as of early this afternoon when I looked around 8+ hours before this story was even posted. I realize that the eyes of the posters for this site buldge when anyone says the words "gpl" and "violation", but they should be careful not to be blinded. If you do not investigate news, you are nothing more than an anchor, and anchors who REGULARLY report incorrect news would be fired for this kind of thing, especially since it's basicly claiming a company has committed a legal offense. That's *serious* business and you cannot go around making unfounded claims like that, it's totally irresponsible.
I think it's important to note here that this would only apply if the RIAA could prove their actions were related to a copyright inringement. Just because you have a P2P application installed is not indication that you are violating their specfic copyrights, and attacking such a broad group of users would virtuall gauruntee shutting out legitimate users (if such things exist).
I think it would be much too risky to do on their own. Let's say I installed this software but never once used it in my life, and upon connecting to the network had my system modified without consent. I haven't viloated anyones copyright and they are now in serious legal trouble. I don't think it would take a genius among their group of law firms to put up a warning flag for this type of thing.
I don't see the point. This isn't tvguide.com. On the creative side I'm sure it's good entertainment and no doubt a lot of people are sad to see it come to it's end, but it doesn't belong. I know comments get punished here for being off-topic, but why aren't the main authors punished for posting inane stories?
I'm sure it's possible to filter anything marked television, and I'm going to look into that the instant I'm done here. But if you are going to allow digressive news, you shouldn't bill yourself as a nerd site imho. This is just becoming another "post your own favorite interests" site for a bunch of people.
Slashdot: Please stop trying to tell jokes, you're not funny. Please.
Something at least remotely funny would be something like "FBI switches network to Windows 2000, accidently reveals database containing answer to JFK conspiracy, IRS switches to Linux but through misconfiguration accidently DOS's the commerce department.." or something along these lines.
Funny to some, corny to others, at least it's worth a 'heh', instead of a 'ugh'.
wuvu
Slashdot Mirror
The judicial system does not enforce, it interprets. Perhaps you should study our government a little more before telling others to read the law. And your own interpretation of this amendment is a thousand miles off.
A database listing information about you does not belong to you, therefor no one requires a warrant to access it. You may own land but you do not own your address, the state does. You do not own your telephone number, the telephone company does. You do not own your SS number, the government does. You obviously do not own your medical, criminal or license history, if you did it would be your responsibility to protect and manage it which is obviously not the case.
I am fairly certain any national database would be more protected that you would ever be capable of, what right do you have to demand such things you can not even do yourself.
The fourth amendment was to protect a persons privacy, and most of this information is not private. That which is, is already protected by law such as medical records.
You people are getting much too smug and righteous about personal privacy now. Just because some schmuck who abuses his access to a piece of information about you does not mean you have to declare war over a minor nuisance at best. Our government does more for you in you a day than you will probably do for it and the rest of your country in a lifetime, they have a greater responsibility that you can possibly fathom and all of you need to grow up and try to contribute to our nations security instead of crying about it like spoiled children.
Seriously. A joke from slashdot is like a needle in the eyeball. STOP.
This is so horribly inaccurate. Bill Clinton was trying to gather support for Government funded training schools for IT security that mandated Government service afterwards while he was still in office. I never could find substantiate information on it and I assumed it simply got lost at some point.
I don't really see a big correlation to that tragic event and this program, at all. What, is learning how to properly firewall a system going to suddenly make INS and customs capable of keeping known terrorists out of our country? I don't think so. Not *everything* that happens in this country is related to that, you know.
I hope you aren't suggesting using a SSH tunnel for the entire connection. You would need those massive systems *just* to encrypt/decrypt the traffic, you'd have nothing leftover for applications. And AFAIK, SSH tunnels are severely limited. You would need a fixed port for the tunnel on the client end and you would only be able to connect to a single remote site through it. We are not talking about a encrypted proxy here.
Would you want to have to use a single port for every host you'd want to connect to over the network? www.uni1:8000, www.uni2:8001, www.slashdot:8050, on and on. You wouldn't be able to connect to more than 65k sites without constantly changing your local profile. Talk about a waste of resources..
Seriously, I would hesitate to pay for any site that priclaims itself as a news service mainly because reporting news is about getting important information out to people reguardless of who they are and what they do. This situation is a little unique as refusing to pay doesn't mean losing access to the news source, however you cannot expect someone to pay more just to get what they have right now, a tech-minded rant at best.
And as for this story specifically, the source was available as of early this afternoon when I looked around 8+ hours before this story was even posted. I realize that the eyes of the posters for this site buldge when anyone says the words "gpl" and "violation", but they should be careful not to be blinded. If you do not investigate news, you are nothing more than an anchor, and anchors who REGULARLY report incorrect news would be fired for this kind of thing, especially since it's basicly claiming a company has committed a legal offense. That's *serious* business and you cannot go around making unfounded claims like that, it's totally irresponsible.
I think it's important to note here that this would only apply if the RIAA could prove their actions were related to a copyright inringement. Just because you have a P2P application installed is not indication that you are violating their specfic copyrights, and attacking such a broad group of users would virtuall gauruntee shutting out legitimate users (if such things exist).
I think it would be much too risky to do on their own. Let's say I installed this software but never once used it in my life, and upon connecting to the network had my system modified without consent. I haven't viloated anyones copyright and they are now in serious legal trouble. I don't think it would take a genius among their group of law firms to put up a warning flag for this type of thing.
I don't see the point. This isn't tvguide.com. On the creative side I'm sure it's good entertainment and no doubt a lot of people are sad to see it come to it's end, but it doesn't belong. I know comments get punished here for being off-topic, but why aren't the main authors punished for posting inane stories?
I'm sure it's possible to filter anything marked television, and I'm going to look into that the instant I'm done here. But if you are going to allow digressive news, you shouldn't bill yourself as a nerd site imho. This is just becoming another "post your own favorite interests" site for a bunch of people.
Slashdot: Please stop trying to tell jokes, you're not funny. Please. Something at least remotely funny would be something like "FBI switches network to Windows 2000, accidently reveals database containing answer to JFK conspiracy, IRS switches to Linux but through misconfiguration accidently DOS's the commerce department.." or something along these lines. Funny to some, corny to others, at least it's worth a 'heh', instead of a 'ugh'. wuvu