http://www.gchq.gov.uk/about/technology.html hidden by coloring, easily seen by view-source 01001100 01011001 01000110 01001111 01010010 LYFOR
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/apply/index.html or http://www.gchq.gov.uk/apply/gchq_top_bar.htm mouse over logo, which is http://www.gchq.gov.uk/images/ajob.gif "AJOB!"
There's this little law called the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" for starters:-(... You might consider what's happening to the DVD-CCA decrypting people right now, for example. (although that's a trade-secret, not DMCA, case). The risks are high, the rewards are few. And DON'T mention the EFF...
So long as we can accurately verify whether our kids have done those things, however, that in itself will be enough to keep most of our kids from doing them in the first place -- if only for fear of what would follow when we found out.
Your example of pre-marital sex proves how utterly wrong is the above. Religious-Right types are not content with the knowledge that if their daughter becomes pregant out of wedlock, they will know about it (and this will be sufficient disincentive so that they will ask for nothing more). The occurrence is in fact considered so damaging that after the fact knowledge is just a start.
I understand that YOU think it's a great idea. I keep trying impress on you that the fact that you think so, that it is what you consider someone should be satisfied by, is no proof at all what a mentality quite different from yours considers adequate. Repeatedly denouncing "extremists" makes for appealing rhetoric, but it is not an answer.
If you read Jim's comments closely, he's very clear: The children of parents who can't afford to home school are to be allowed to freely explore _whatever_ the internet has to offer, with no possibility of parental supervision permitted.
I don't see where he's said anything like this at all. It's something you've put in his mouth as a strawman to knock-down.
Jim and his colleagues had better learn to compromise...
Please tell me how the system you propose is not horrendously extreme. Every item, every page, read anywhere, is to be government-monitored in some sort of permanent record and reported. There is to be no escape, no way to do something untracked and unmonitored. This sounds like the most dystopian setup imaginable. And you call it a compromise? I say it's an extremism in these matters that is ill-advised.
My question: Is this triple-checking, or three different ways to screw up? (ack! I think I just set off the 'bot there! What a cock-up. It doesn't blow me away).
Sites with commercial content almost always require a credit card to use, so there's hardly an issue there. No, it's the matter of having a site be stigmatized which is the key issue.
What happens when the American Family Association tells all its members to go and rate all gay-rights sites as hard-core porn? Or all feminist sites as hate-speech? Who determines what is "abuse" and takes away the rating power?
I have a feeling that this conversation is going to end up re-inventing PICS and extensions, and so we come full-circle.
Do you have any basis for your assertion that most would settle for that? (and presumably never, ever attempt to extend it). I understand you think it's a good idea. But that does not mean that the people pushing for mandatory censorware will think it's a good idea. Or perhaps they will say it's a start, and we need to extend the system to make sure no-one can subvert it by using another person's card.
I'd really like to hear a reason for why it's such a great idea that addresses the stated Religious-Right objection, that exposure for even a moment is dangerous.
By the way a system where EVERY item a person reads is tracked sounds horribly extreme to me, and I do think it makes for bad policy. Perhaps the fact that you apparently consider it a compromise sheds some light as to how variable these definitions can be.
Then visitors to the site will have displayed a rating mechanism similar to the moderation we currently have on slashdot, where they will be able to select wether the site is filed properly, and what categorys it belongs to.
Herein lies one flaw. Slashdot moderation is a delicate thing. Much effort is put into trying to make sure people don't abuse it, and new users cannot overwhelm it. That's for one site. Scaling this up to the WHOLE WORLD, the ENTIRE PLANET, is, ahem, easier said than done.
Many writers seem to be making a fundamental error in analysis. They take a rights-based view, under which certain control actions are permitted because of property-ownership or personal relationship. I am not attempting to debate this here. What I am saying is that it may the way you think about this issue, but it isn't the perspective many censors have.
Because to the censor-minded, the material itself they are trying to ban is viewed as toxic. It's completely and utterly absurd in their minds to tell them that they can get a blacklist for their home machine but the public library or school will provide uncensored access. In fact, this is extremely clear if one actually reads their material. They can't ever let the subject of their control escape the blinder-box. View it as trying to ban as much toxic material as possible, everywhere, and it makes a lot more sense. Listen to the "Dr. Laura" radio show at least once. Read some of the Religious Right's material
Think about that - even for a moment. This is a viewpoint which requires an extreme amount of control to enforce. That is what is on the censor side. Do not confuse it with what you think people should be willing to respect.
the fact that two extremist camps are against a proposal is often a sign that it's a good proposal.
Or it's a sign that it's a bad one from several angles.
I think you missed the basic point why it's a bad one from the pro-censorship side. Namely, it's closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. If someone believes sexual material causes all sorts of harm, then offering them a record as to how much mindrot has been done is hardly a solution.
Remember, free-speech is by definition a position that is anti-majority. If the majority agreed with it, there wouldn't be a problem. A proposal that says the majority must be satisified is by definition saying a minority position must always be abandoned. Thus, by this reasoning, civil-liberties are unachievable.
The answer to this is precisely why courts must render unpopular (anti-majority) decisions.
Alternate view: Censorship proponents are much less likely to waste their time in pointless debate. Moreover, if someone strongly believes in the hurtful effects of speech, logically, why would they want to engage in the metaphorical equivalent of barroom brawling?
By the way, if you are talking about the same mailing list I have in mind, you know that many anti-censorship activists have left or curtailed their participant because they got tired of constant mindflayed dogmatic ranting. I mean, if even such people are disinclined to stick around, why is would someone want to be a verbal punching-bag?
For today, consider that many of the most motivated censors really aren't likely to be writing on nerd discussion groups on Christmas Eve.
There was in fact a LONG discussion about the use of trespass in computer law some months ago, on the "Law & Policy of Computer Communications" mailing list. It has quite a history.
Trespass has been used successfully in at least a couple of cases, most recently America Online, Inc. v. IMS, No. 98-0011 (E.D.Va., October 29, 1998). It seems to me that there's nothing about trespass which would limit its scope to commercial email, but that the First Amendment defense is nonetheless a lot more problematic.
However, those are relatively expensive. People rent and buy videos and movies too, in the same sort of analogy. In fact, that points out the whole problem of the market which micropayments aim to solve - content which could use more financing than advertisers, but doesn't reach the level of porn and investments.
It's HBO or Showtime that's missing on the web, not The Playboy Channel.
Humor - Drunk Driving on the Info Superhighway
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 3
I'm surprised no-one has posted John Dvorak's classic humor column on this topic (PC Computing, April 1994, page 88).
Excerpt:
The moniker--Information Highway--itself seems to be responsible for SB #040194. Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, it's designed to prohibit anyone from using a public computer network (Information Highway) while the computer user is intoxicated. I know how silly this sounds, but Congress apparently thinks that being drunk on a highway is bad no matter what kind of highway it is. The bill is expected to pass this month.
There already are rampant arguments as to how this proposed law can possibly be enforced. The FBI hopes to use it as an excuse to do routine wiretaps on any computer if there is any evidence that the owner "uses or abuses alcohol and has access to a modem." Note how it slips in the word 'uses'. This means if you've been seen drinking one lone beer, you can have your line tapped.
I'm skeptical if there is any magic-bullet proposal. It's not like this topic isn't discussed to death.
Code is hard. Programmers are expensive. The sacrifices for civil-liberties efforts are substantial and the rewards meager, especially compared to the riches of attending to the needs of corporations.
Remember, TRUSTe originally certified ONLY that you did what you said you'd do. So I thought about having the following privacy policy for my consulting company:
We OWN your info, sucker. We reserve all rights, including those that haven't been thought of or invented yet, to anything that might make a buck. Finders keepers losers weepers. It's ours, ours, ours, and we'll do anything we damn please with it. We'll sell it to your worst enemy, post it to alt.sex.voyeurs, or put you on a I-love-spam list if we feel like it. And if you don't like that, tough.
And guess what? By having this policy, you've given your "informed consent" to it, according to TRUSTe! Why? Because we have this policy and we told you we have it, and again if you don't like it, tough! Isn't self-regulation grand? You wouldn't want the evil government bureaucrats interfering with your free-market right to consent, would you?
It's CHOICE! That is, we tell you we choose to do whatever we damn please, and you can choose to take it or leave it. Privacy is not a right but a preference, and we prefer you don't have any. So support TRUSTe!
Needless to say, you can be absolutely, positively, completely, sure that we'll comply with this policy. Just trust us.
It wasn't worth paying few hundred dollars to TRUSTe to try to go through with it, but it was a very tempting idea:-).
World War III is raging - or so the millions of people crammed in their underground tanks believe. For fiteen years, subterranean humanity has been fed on daily broadcasts of a never-ending nuclear destruction, sustained by a belief in the all powerful Protector.
But up on Earth's surface, a different kind of reality reigns. East and West are at peace. Across the planet, an elite corps of expert hoaxers live invast private demesnes - repayment for their services in preserving the great lie.Until, one day, a tanker emerges and discovers the path to the most sinister truth of all...
Re:The stuff that passes for journalism these days
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
It's Washington State. That isn't clear, but it's derivable from the laws cited. I agree with your others points, though. The major sin is that the writer doesn't reveal that he is a full-scale participant in that flamewar.
Sure they can. This is only drawing attention since it involves netnews. But otherwise it's mundane law. The article cites "RCW 10.14.040", which is the Revised Code of Washington (State), "Protection order--Petition." Go down to Title 10, Chapter 14:
There shall exist an action known as a petition for an order for protection in cases of unlawful harassment.
(1) A petition for relief shall allege the existence of harassment and shall be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific facts and circumstances from which relief is sought.
(2) A petition for relief may be made regardless of whether or not there is a pending lawsuit, complaint, petition, or other action between the parties.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
It's obviously written by someone who has "been there".
Solution:
WELLD
ONE-N
OWAPP
LYFOR
AJOB!
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/careers/job5.html
Source comment on top, "23 05 12 12 04"
WELLD
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/careers/index.html
go to linguists
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/careers/jobs10.html
alt tag for "salary" is "OHE - H" (typo?)
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/careers/job6.html
graphic has Morse code:
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/images/job6.gif
Morse: dashdashdash dotdashdash dotdash dotdashdashdot dotdashdashdot
OWAPP
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/about/technology.html
hidden by coloring, easily seen by view-source
01001100 01011001 01000110 01001111 01010010
LYFOR
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/apply/index.html or
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/apply/gchq_top_bar.htm
mouse over logo, which is
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/images/ajob.gif
"AJOB!"
There's this little law called the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" for starters :-( ... ...
You might consider what's happening to the DVD-CCA decrypting people right now, for example. (although that's a trade-secret, not DMCA, case).
The risks are high, the rewards are few.
And DON'T mention the EFF
But seriously, great piece, great job.
Yahoo's privacy policy prominently display's the TRUSTe logo and talks about being TRUSTe-certified. Seems it's in the mix again.
Some people have said that GalaxyQuest is the best Star Trek movie of the series. Ponder the irony if this is true.
Your example of pre-marital sex proves how utterly wrong is the above. Religious-Right types are not content with the knowledge that if their daughter becomes pregant out of wedlock, they will know about it (and this will be sufficient disincentive so that they will ask for nothing more). The occurrence is in fact considered so damaging that after the fact knowledge is just a start.
I understand that YOU think it's a great idea. I keep trying impress on you that the fact that you think so, that it is what you consider someone should be satisfied by, is no proof at all what a mentality quite different from yours considers adequate. Repeatedly denouncing "extremists" makes for appealing rhetoric, but it is not an answer.
I don't see where he's said anything like this at all. It's something you've put in his mouth as a strawman to knock-down.
Please tell me how the system you propose is not horrendously extreme. Every item, every page, read anywhere, is to be government-monitored in some sort of permanent record and reported. There is to be no escape, no way to do something untracked and unmonitored. This sounds like the most dystopian setup imaginable. And you call it a compromise? I say it's an extremism in these matters that is ill-advised.
Sites with commercial content almost always require a credit card to use, so there's hardly an issue there. No, it's the matter of having a site be stigmatized which is the key issue.
I have a feeling that this conversation is going to end up re-inventing PICS and extensions, and so we come full-circle.
I'd really like to hear a reason for why it's such a great idea that addresses the stated Religious-Right objection, that exposure for even a moment is dangerous.
By the way a system where EVERY item a person reads is tracked sounds horribly extreme to me, and I do think it makes for bad policy. Perhaps the fact that you apparently consider it a compromise sheds some light as to how variable these definitions can be.
Because to the censor-minded, the material itself they are trying to ban is viewed as toxic. It's completely and utterly absurd in their minds to tell them that they can get a blacklist for their home machine but the public library or school will provide uncensored access. In fact, this is extremely clear if one actually reads their material. They can't ever let the subject of their control escape the blinder-box. View it as trying to ban as much toxic material as possible, everywhere, and it makes a lot more sense. Listen to the "Dr. Laura" radio show at least once. Read some of the Religious Right's material
"Pornography is dangerous, and viewing it (even for a moment) can set off a terrible chain of events."
Think about that - even for a moment. This is a viewpoint which requires an extreme amount of control to enforce. That is what is on the censor side. Do not confuse it with what you think people should be willing to respect.
Or it's a sign that it's a bad one from several angles.
I think you missed the basic point why it's a bad one from the pro-censorship side. Namely, it's closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. If someone believes sexual material causes all sorts of harm, then offering them a record as to how much mindrot has been done is hardly a solution.
Remember, free-speech is by definition a position that is anti-majority. If the majority agreed with it, there wouldn't be a problem. A proposal that says the majority must be satisified is by definition saying a minority position must always be abandoned. Thus, by this reasoning, civil-liberties are unachievable.
The answer to this is precisely why courts must render unpopular (anti-majority) decisions.
By the way, if you are talking about the same mailing list I have in mind, you know that many anti-censorship activists have left or curtailed their participant because they got tired of constant mindflayed dogmatic ranting. I mean, if even such people are disinclined to stick around, why is would someone want to be a verbal punching-bag?
For today, consider that many of the most motivated censors really aren't likely to be writing on nerd discussion groups on Christmas Eve.
"software" led to ...
vaporware, firmware, wetware, groupware, etc
See the rough start here
It's HBO or Showtime that's missing on the web, not The Playboy Channel.
Excerpt:
Full version at http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/humor/drunk-on- infohighway
If information has become like network sitcoms, isn't there room for providers akin to cable pay-per-view?
Code is hard. Programmers are expensive. The sacrifices for civil-liberties efforts are substantial and the rewards meager, especially compared to the riches of attending to the needs of corporations.
We all know "Crypto Good". Now what?
It wasn't worth paying few hundred dollars to TRUSTe to try to go through with it, but it was a very tempting idea :-).
It's Washington State. That isn't clear, but it's derivable from the laws cited. I agree with your others points, though. The major sin is that the writer doesn't reveal that he is a full-scale participant in that flamewar.
Living under the threat of death
Go down to Title 10, Chapter 14:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion.