My guess would be that it's easier to place your ire squarely on a company and its singular headquarters. The number of people responsible for this decision is small, it's obvious who's responsible and who can influence change.
I'd argue that what I just said applies to hardly any government action. I deplore the war in Iraq, but as a Texan, to whom do I turn? My Republican Senators who agree with the President on this issue? My centrist Representative, who might agree with me? Though he has been in office a long time, he has an even smaller chance of being able to get my point across in the backwater legislature known as the House of Representatives.
I have always felt like an active participant in the political process, but fighting corporate decisionmaking can be done in many ways. Fighting government decisionmaking can only surely be done in one way. Even an effective protest does not necessarily ensure policy change (as has been best demonstrated lately as the Bush administration has decided it more worth their while to make their point using different arguments) -- changing who has power in government is the only way, and that can be an incredibly daunting task, particularly given the amount of time it takes for political momentum to shift in this country, and the unsettlingly small amount of attention the general population pays to political issues.
Facebook, however, is relatively small and eager (as is obvious through these stories) to please its userbase. Even if part of the government is eager to please its base, there are no guarantees that anyone else will follow suit. In this regard, large-scale government -- like big business -- truly comes across as monolithic. It's difficult for average Americans to sort out exactly who is the cause of the issues they care about, and provided they figure that out, it's even more difficult to figure out whom they should be talking to. Most everyone says to write/e-mail/call your Representative and Senators. If you're lucky, your Representative or one of your Senators is on a committee ruling on the particular issue you've taken interest in, and they either agree with your position on the issue, or are swayed by your argument. In any regard, your success means that you have convinced three out of the combined 218 + 51 members of Congress needed to pass legislation.
Of course, Facebook could decide that it doesn't care either, but then someone else could merely create a similar environment without the controversial features and profit from what Facebook has worked so long to create. Repeating the same action against the government is a rather more difficult task.
Really? I mean, I'm a pessimistic liberal and all, but let's think about this for a minute. The SCOTUS overturned the Bush administration's policies on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, where foreign nationals who are "suspected terrorists" were being detained. I'll grant you that bodily imprisonment is far worse than phone tapping (though both of these particular issues lie quite FAR on across the lines of things we shouldn't stand for), there aren't any citizens' rights at issue here.
I'm not overly optimistic given the past four years, but let's face it: America is finally paying attention. Lots of people are dissatisfied with Congress, the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism. The SCOTUS is right-leaning, sure, but this court has set precedent that it will disagree with the administration on key issues. Quite frankly, I believe that the public thinks this issue more important than Guantanamo Bay (regardless of the relative severity). Granted, public opinion ultimately counts for naught in the Supreme Court, but I am cautiously hopeful that the Supreme Court will see this issue as the needless civil rights violation that most of us believe it to be.
Er...where exactly do you get that the FISC ruled the FISA constitutional? The closest thing to that is the FISC review court saying that the court took for granted the President's ability to conduct warrantless searches and given that this is true, FISA could not reduce this power. What you wrote implies that the FISC is somehow above SCOTUS reproach.
(By the way, FISA act is repetitive like ATM machine.)
Not to mention the fact that I feel sure his disobeying a court order (particularly made by the SCOTUS) would be a great way for his party to lose power in Congress and the Presidency for decades to come. Even if Bush is incompetent, someone in his administration would undoubtedly realize the far-reaching effects of doing something so ridiculously unpopular and stop the process, especially now that the nation is finally paying attention.
Furthermore, I feel sure that a President violating a Supreme Court ruling would result in calls for impeachment and removal from office. This President is already rather unpopular in the polls and his party is (to a degree) abandoning him because of it -- I can imagine that some Republicans would be faster to the trigger than Democrats in calling for his impeachment/removal from office if this were to play out.
As much as I love most of Google's products, Google Maps is one of their products I like least. Its map interface is leaps and bounds ahead of MapQuest and the MSN equivalent (MapBlast? I can't recall off-hand), but the inability to avoid highways/take shortest route (rather than "fastest") irks me. Their new autocomplete is great, but for now I'd just like a few more of those low-level features, and directions that don't change every single week (which Google's suggested route to my workplace has done ever since I started).
However, I think this is indicative of most Google products. I loved GMail when I first got it many months ago, but it had quirks (delete via dropdown menu only, for instance). After a while, Google implemented some suggestions (and a delete BUTTON finally appeared) and I consider GMail even better than it was before.
This marks one distinct advantage Google has over its competitors in many areas: Google is willing to change. GMail did it, Google maps did it, Google homepage did it. Although I'm not totally satisfied with Google Maps today, I feel confident that I will eventually be happy with it.
Dammit, I re-typed part of the last sentence in my opening paragraph and forgot to change "use" to "that". Submitting without proofreading strikes agian!
Aparently the "War on Caps Lock" is spearheaded by someones who's entire computer world revolves around chatting with immature pre-teens online.
Or by someone who works at a company with a policy requiring all caps in correspondence. Or by someone with a background in technical writing who knows that capital letters make words, phrases, and sentences more difficult to read. Or by someone who knows a middle-aged adult who just doesn't know any better. Or by someone who knows how to spell "apparently" and use "who's" is a contraction and whose is possessive.
Just because engineers are smart does make them authorities on the English language -- in fact, it usually makes them the opposite.
I work for a very large company and we are required to not type in all caps because it is seen as unprofessional.
It sounds insensitive to tell a child that being bullied is partly their fault, but it's not. What's insensitive is telling them that it's NOT their fault at all, and letting them continue falling into the same bully traps.
Perhaps 'fault' is not quite the right word to use; it is emotionally charged. But I would say that, often, there are steps the victim could have taken to defuse the situation and prevent the bullying from taking place.
I believe most of us are taking issue with the idea that a child's ignorance of what could be done to diffuse a situation is equated with another child's willingness to purposefully hurt someone else. Teaching children how to stand up to or otherwise protect themselves from bullies is perfectly fine with me. The insinuation that the (initial) ignorance of youth should be met with automatic punishment is not.
I should've been more clear about this with regards to the US.
Ballots don't follow a national format. My Texan ballots were just exactly like the bubble-sheet answer papers I'd used all throughout grade school and college, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same straightforward experience, hence my reference to the butterfly ballots of Florida 2000.
It seems fairly evident that the people in power think these voting machines are a good idea for one reason or another; it was my thinking that the simplest way to convince these counties with awful ballot designs to change would be to propose a new voting medium, since apparently it's some egregious violation of states' rights (as I recall) that we have a uniform national ballot.
Hell, if you can convince every county in the US that we should be using a nice, simple design then I'd be happy. I just see that as being less likely than having a secure voting machine.
I wasn't referring to the hanging chads, but a ballot that was designed in a very confusing way, which led to a hardline conservative candidate (Pat Buchanan) getting so many votes in a county that he reportedly said that there was no way that many people intended to vote for him.
We vote in the states in much the same way, and I understand well the squirming about technology. However, I distrust people, especially politically-motivated people. In the states, where every county designs their own ballots, it seems like voting machines make much more sense when it seems like there's little to no chance of us getting a uniform national ballot. Frankly though, if you want similar security, move technologically-minded people from each party to the machine design process to ensure that it gets made properly. I honestly don't think that "very expensive" and "counting machine" are two phrases that belong together in the long term.
Of course, I say all this as a person who inherently distrusts technology -- I'm just so sick and tired of hearing about elections corrupted by officials from one party or the other that I'm starting to believe that it's honestly the only way.
Shouldn't be true, but is. Look at the laws regarding downloading music vs. child p0rn. The penalty for music "piracy" is much higher. Ken Lay died while his appeal was in progress. As a result, his lower court conviction will be thrown out as his death denied him due process (a tradition of the court system). This adversely affects the people would would have benefited by his conviction.
Ah, I see what you mean now. So, law and morality are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but frequently end up being that way.
I'm happy we hashed this out. The conversation was interesting.
So am I. I think it's safe for me to apologize for and retract my comments about you being an ass, and for kicking you out of my bathroom. You can use it any time you like, so long as I'm not using it at the same time.
Paper ballots are user-friendly? Did you miss the whole we-elected-the-wrong-president year 2000 thing when the Supreme Court ruled against Gore? I mean seriously, those butterfly ballots were not user friendly for the average person.
Aside from that, I disagree entirely with the rest of your opinion. How easy is it to cheat against someone who's new at chess? Pretty easy -- you can just tell them different rules. How easy is it to cheat against a properly made chess program or machine? Impossible (without the obvious reverse-engineering and executable modification), because the computer is unwavering. It's completely inane to assume that the people working behind paper ballots have no political motivation. Maybe they really do just want to see democracy continue, but assuming that they will always do their jobs better than a correctly-designed computer is absurd to me.
Design a machine, open its design up to the public so that everyone can see exactly how this thing works, then hold conferences to discuss any potential technical problems with engineers. Make sure whatever software goes onto the machine has been through a technical design and usability firm, or run the gamut of rigorous and diverse user testing (which would include people trying to hack the machine or in some other way defeat its ability to be consistent). Hell, after these Diebold systems, you'd probably need to do that to convince any private citizen that the machine did what it was supposed to do. Oh, and above all: print out a hard copy of the voting record that has been safely sealed.
Is what I said likely to happen? No, but neither is an unmolested democratic election. Regardless, I never stop hoping for one.
Probably true, but the law would be (even more) horribly complex and cumbersome. An alternative would be better education with an emphasis on Ethics and critical thinking skills.
I believe the lack of clear-cut law is due to (American) society placing less importance on education (and educating correctly) as compared with social activities. I question that ineffective law is not a function of a lazy, uneducated public.
True again. I would add that in the absence of information, the "right" choice is probably the more benign choice. In the box example, take or leave the money? Leave the money until you have further information to the contrary.
But I could effectively argue that I should take the money (or better yet, the box with the money inside) until I find the owner and clarify the situation, replacing the money in the case that the owner wishes the money left, and taking the money otherwise; thus preventing someone with less scruples from taking the money without corroboration.
This is why leaving personal choices up to individual/societal morality makes me squirm -- your choice could be argued as apathetic by someone more pro-active, whereas my choice could be argued as too liberal by someone more conservative (I mean neither of these politically, just in terms of interpreting things liberally or interpreting things conservatively). We could go back and forth on this for days, surely. Dependence upon morality alone (even under educated circumstances -- a truly evil person could take ethical education and use it to exploit a society's code of ethics and morals) is just not enough for me given the lack of empathy that the average person has for those he or she is not personally connected to.
Yes, but this was in response to my original post about this sort of thing being wrong
Your use of private property in this original post confused that issue. Are you saying that you believe private property and ownership to be part of universal morality? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, to be honest.
You belittled a abstract moral observation seeking a concrete legal reading.
If I belittled a moral observation, it's because I find the morality of the situation to be obvious, whereas the legality of the situation is not. I seek a legal interpretation because of my interests in law as it relates to computers and the internet, and out of my hope that there might be more evidence that judges (as opposed to Congress) can accurately apply old law to new media. I wish to keep my private property mine, and hope that the government doesn't decide that it's okay to take a peek or let big corporations use bits of my private property for their own benefit under an implicit agreement like we've been talking about. My belief in the moral obviousness of this situation plays a rather insignificant role in the decisions of both the government and of big business.
[M]y subsequent posts implying that any "legal reasoning" would simply be a means to ignoring any moral implications.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. How can law and morality be mutually exclusive? How can legal reason block understanding and use of moral implication?
I don't think I've switched any topics nor "cherry picked" anything, just responded to the most poignant points.
You didn't type a single character in response to my scenario regarding the initial exchange of information between a wireless router and a machine capable of connecting wirelessly to that router. You simply said that law didn't matter, even though what constitutes private property is unclear to me (and potentially others) in this situation. The fact that you used private property in previous examples, yet chose to ignore what I said, lead me to believe you simply decided to ignore something that lent credence to my point about private property boundaries being unclear in this situation.
I promise to stay away from your bathroom...unless you leave the window open, then I guess I can use it...
I guess it's a good thing my bathroom has no windows.
One cannot assume that the router owner knows how to configure the device properly to either allow or deny access (not too wild an assumption, else we wouldn't be having this discussion).
Furthermore, one cannot assume that the box owner didn't write a note. Perhaps it was lost or stolen by a previous opener of the box, or the note said, please take this note, but leave the money and reclose the box.
I inferred that the box was a strict physical rule extension of the router. A router's owner can't very well create a rule on the router itself that says "please log in to my router, delete the permissions and this message, but do nothing else and disconnect". Device configuration is another story entirely. Instructional manuals are intended to be read by purchasers -- I'm responsible for being aware of the risks involved in using the items I buy.
Regardless of implicit permissions, explicit permissions, and responsibilities, the law -- I am not going to argue morality here as we have been over this too many times already -- could surely stand to be more clear-cut in these situations. The law should be clear for those whose moral compasses do no govern their actions properly, to act as either a teacher or a deterrant (of course, law as deterrant is yet another questionable point that lies outside this discussion) in these cases. Does that make it perfect? No, but humans aren't perfect, and what's right isn't always evident at the time something happens (a point wholly irrelevant to this discussion).
How we are is all we are.
I buy in to this idea more than you know. Doing the right thing when nobody is looking is the truest test of a person's morals and beliefs. I have always found it more immature for my friends to cheat in games or play unfairly around me simply because it's a lot easier than cheating or playing unfairly when everybody's watching. Two of them understand why I have said this to others in the past, and I've never had to say anything like that to either of those people.
Let's say you see a box with a note that says, "Please open this box". Inside there's a pile of money. Ok to take the money? You only had permission "open" the box.
But routers have permissions set up for more than just connection. My router (for instance) allows me to block services for a specific IP, range of IPs, or MAC Address -- this is a pretty standard thing. In your analogy, the note would have to say "Please open this box and follow all further rules defined within the contents of this box" to be equivalent. If I then open the box and find no other rules, where does that leave us?
I well and truly would not steal someone's un-used bandwidth. Arguing the point of legality as an intellectual question (because I find the legal reasoning behind these situations interesting) doesn't mean that I'm just aching to get something for nothing.
I'm talking about intrinsic or absolute morality. Some things are, in and of themselves, right or wrong and not subject to the whims of personal belief -- even if you don't actually believe this, it's true.
I fully believe this is something invented by man to suit man's purpose. I have a deep sense of what is right and wrong, I tend to respect others (except in cases where I feel that others show a lack of respect in return as I feel you have done), their rights, and their beliefs. Regardless of that, without man, morality would not exist. Without man, private property laws would also not exist. Both are inventions that do not naturally exist since animals do not have reason. Pounding your fist and declaring that such things are universal does not make you right.
I asked for a legal (read: LEGAL) analysis of the situation. I didn't in any way solicit your "expert" "moral" opinions. I asked about law, not what is morally right or wrong. You responded stating that you were an expert, and then said you clarified your position on private property (a legal concept), to which I responded about the grey area of the network protocol in use on wireless routers and mentioned that I felt this needed clarification, to which you responded that this had never been a question of legality.
My very first post was in response to the following statement: If your wireless network is unsecured, permission to use it is implied... I replied that using something that wasn't yours is wrong. How is that not true? You asked about legality and I replied that regardless, it would still be wrong. How is that not true?
Again, I have never once argued the point on morality. I have repeatedly stated that I am interested in hearing someone who is a legal expert talk about the legal reasoning (if it exists) on this issue.
After three posts, I believe that a little humor was warranted. I wasn't making fun of you, but something you wrote (and I included an apology). I'm certain my arguments and illustrations have been entirely rational and consistent. Upon review, I'm sure you'll see that the "ass" may be viewed in your bathroom mirror.
To me, you have come across as nothing short of arrogant from the very beginning. Making a wry joke in what has been, at best, a testy discussion only cements my opinion of you as a dick. Stating that you believe your arguments infallible doesn't help your cause, especially since you've switched topics several times and cherry picked what you wanted to respond to. Finally, get the fuck out of my bathroom.
Doesn't matter if it's illegal, it's still wrong -- and you sound like you apparently know that. "Expert" analysis is not required. As I've said before, the world would be a better place if people did what is right, rather than what they can get away with. Requiring a lawyer and/or judge in this matter would be an indication of the latter.
Right and wrong are independent of legal and illegal. Using something (abstract or concrete) that is not yours, without permission, even if it doesn't harm or deprive the owner of anything, is wrong. To argue this point further implies that you don't really get that.
I see. Now that I've proved my point, when I was never talking about morality (which is a relative thing anyway, regardless of my own personal beliefs) in the first place, you've decided to change the subject. I said legality, the original question was legality, and legality is fact, not some relative personal decision or code of beliefs. Regardless of what you may think is moral, someone else may think something entirely different and be completely moral within their own set of beliefs. I know exactly what I believe and what I would do, and that has never once been the point in these discussions. Changing the subject and acting like I'd be some awful person if I disagreed with you (which I'm starting to think wouldn't be true, given how passive-agressive and narrow-minded you've been) doesn't mean the point of this discussion wasn't legality.
Perhaps when you turn 11, we can discuss this further, and get you a pony. (I'm sooo sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
Ah yes, I see you decided to bear out my point for me. Having problems with your moral compass and doing the right thing, or is this a situation where it's right to make fun of someone after you've spent three posts making an ass out of yourself?
To be snarky... I have done some research, have taken Ethics classes, and have just clarified the point about private property -- which should already be clear to people and should have been taught to them by their parents, but are and were obviously not.
You've posted no research thus far, and backed up none of your claims. Taking an ethics class (or classes, or having a degree) doesn't mean you're an expert in the legality of this issue.
I understand private property just fine. You've glanced over an overwhelming wealth of technological concerns with your replies, which is what makes this issue of open wireless networks unclear. Cars, bikes, gardens, and other discrete objects don't really relate to the processes that two electronic devices go through to establish a connection to each other. Claiming that an open car door and a running car is equivalent in any way to a microwave transmission communicates a lack of topical understanding to me (particularly since I don't need to have line-of-sight with a wireless access point to be receiving its transmissions, and a running car with its door open may have a slew of mobsters standing in its doorway, physically stopping me from getting in).
Furthermore, if the process connecting a machine to an open wireless access point requires transmission to that wireless access point, then does merely connecting violate private property, since I am using services (load on your wireless router and electricity) that you may have not wanted me to use, but unwittingly allowed me to. Does this implicit allowal of wireless router load time and electrical use then allow me to use the Internet if you have not configured your wireless router to deny all IPs -- aside from a few specified ones that you have set aside for your own use -- access to the internet?
Is what I said a stretch? You sure as hell better believe it. But could a lawyer potentially argue this point well enough for a judge or jury to agree that it's not a violation of private property? That's where I'm looking for expert analysis.
Trying to justify it by saying "their box gave me permission" is both disingenuous and deceitful: first, because permission to use the Internet services wasn't what was given, only that a connection to a private network was established, and second, "permission" can't be granted or implied by devices interacting with each otehr in the absense of some other agreement.
Is it, though? I can configure permissions on my router based on local IPs. If I left my wireless LAN open, expected people to connect and not use the internet, but I didn't specify this in my permissions, is the lack of a denial configuration an implicit acknowledgement that anyone connecting can use my internet connection?
I frankly don't care if I get modded troll for this. Your assumptions have gone from defensive to ridiculous. I made a post noting that I thought this topic had more to do with whether or not wireless signal and the use of said wireless signal could be considered violating private property laws, particularly since said wireless signal isn't a discrete object that can be used by only one person at one time. How is making note of this fact moral relativism?
A lawnmower doesn't constantly cross property boundaries. A backyard pool sure as hell better not.
Not to be snarky, but I didn't need an ethics class to know that getting in someone's open, running car is stealing. I made the comment because I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old with chronic sticky fingers by someone who can't understand others wanting clarification on where the definition of private property lies in this subject.
Back off the defensive. I never contended anything but the question of whether or not a wireless network would be considered private property. I also never said anything about the overall legality, merely that I don't believe you can consider something that does not obey property lines to be as black and white of an issue as a discrete object that can be used by one person at a time.
Your statement about people doing what is right has no bearing on this argument. Of course the world would be a better place. But then if people did what was right, everyone would have open access points and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Your comment about listening to the wireless transmission seems spurious to me, as I consider (perhaps incorrectly) network transmission to have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as a wireless phone conversation. I would love to hear the opinion of someone with true legal knowledge of this situation -- that was the intent of my original comment.
Those are private property. I believe the question really centers more around whether or not a broadcasting wireless signal can be considered private property -- especially since my use of it does not necessarily preclude your use of it.
In the end, the US hasn't given up a thing but a bloated and malformed beaureaucracy anyway.
*re-reads*
...What? We gave up something bloated and malformed? I'm taking the day off to watch for plagues, horsemen, and the apocalypse. Note to other readers: this might be a good time to withdraw what life savings you have and see if you can't lose your virginity in the few hours or days we have remaining on this planet.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess would be that it's easier to place your ire squarely on a company and its singular headquarters. The number of people responsible for this decision is small, it's obvious who's responsible and who can influence change.
I'd argue that what I just said applies to hardly any government action. I deplore the war in Iraq, but as a Texan, to whom do I turn? My Republican Senators who agree with the President on this issue? My centrist Representative, who might agree with me? Though he has been in office a long time, he has an even smaller chance of being able to get my point across in the backwater legislature known as the House of Representatives.
I have always felt like an active participant in the political process, but fighting corporate decisionmaking can be done in many ways. Fighting government decisionmaking can only surely be done in one way. Even an effective protest does not necessarily ensure policy change (as has been best demonstrated lately as the Bush administration has decided it more worth their while to make their point using different arguments) -- changing who has power in government is the only way, and that can be an incredibly daunting task, particularly given the amount of time it takes for political momentum to shift in this country, and the unsettlingly small amount of attention the general population pays to political issues.
Facebook, however, is relatively small and eager (as is obvious through these stories) to please its userbase. Even if part of the government is eager to please its base, there are no guarantees that anyone else will follow suit. In this regard, large-scale government -- like big business -- truly comes across as monolithic. It's difficult for average Americans to sort out exactly who is the cause of the issues they care about, and provided they figure that out, it's even more difficult to figure out whom they should be talking to. Most everyone says to write/e-mail/call your Representative and Senators. If you're lucky, your Representative or one of your Senators is on a committee ruling on the particular issue you've taken interest in, and they either agree with your position on the issue, or are swayed by your argument. In any regard, your success means that you have convinced three out of the combined 218 + 51 members of Congress needed to pass legislation.
Of course, Facebook could decide that it doesn't care either, but then someone else could merely create a similar environment without the controversial features and profit from what Facebook has worked so long to create. Repeating the same action against the government is a rather more difficult task.
Really? I mean, I'm a pessimistic liberal and all, but let's think about this for a minute. The SCOTUS overturned the Bush administration's policies on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, where foreign nationals who are "suspected terrorists" were being detained. I'll grant you that bodily imprisonment is far worse than phone tapping (though both of these particular issues lie quite FAR on across the lines of things we shouldn't stand for), there aren't any citizens' rights at issue here.
I'm not overly optimistic given the past four years, but let's face it: America is finally paying attention. Lots of people are dissatisfied with Congress, the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism. The SCOTUS is right-leaning, sure, but this court has set precedent that it will disagree with the administration on key issues. Quite frankly, I believe that the public thinks this issue more important than Guantanamo Bay (regardless of the relative severity). Granted, public opinion ultimately counts for naught in the Supreme Court, but I am cautiously hopeful that the Supreme Court will see this issue as the needless civil rights violation that most of us believe it to be.
Er...where exactly do you get that the FISC ruled the FISA constitutional? The closest thing to that is the FISC review court saying that the court took for granted the President's ability to conduct warrantless searches and given that this is true, FISA could not reduce this power. What you wrote implies that the FISC is somehow above SCOTUS reproach.
(By the way, FISA act is repetitive like ATM machine.)
Not to mention the fact that I feel sure his disobeying a court order (particularly made by the SCOTUS) would be a great way for his party to lose power in Congress and the Presidency for decades to come. Even if Bush is incompetent, someone in his administration would undoubtedly realize the far-reaching effects of doing something so ridiculously unpopular and stop the process, especially now that the nation is finally paying attention.
Furthermore, I feel sure that a President violating a Supreme Court ruling would result in calls for impeachment and removal from office. This President is already rather unpopular in the polls and his party is (to a degree) abandoning him because of it -- I can imagine that some Republicans would be faster to the trigger than Democrats in calling for his impeachment/removal from office if this were to play out.
As much as I love most of Google's products, Google Maps is one of their products I like least. Its map interface is leaps and bounds ahead of MapQuest and the MSN equivalent (MapBlast? I can't recall off-hand), but the inability to avoid highways/take shortest route (rather than "fastest") irks me. Their new autocomplete is great, but for now I'd just like a few more of those low-level features, and directions that don't change every single week (which Google's suggested route to my workplace has done ever since I started).
However, I think this is indicative of most Google products. I loved GMail when I first got it many months ago, but it had quirks (delete via dropdown menu only, for instance). After a while, Google implemented some suggestions (and a delete BUTTON finally appeared) and I consider GMail even better than it was before.
This marks one distinct advantage Google has over its competitors in many areas: Google is willing to change. GMail did it, Google maps did it, Google homepage did it. Although I'm not totally satisfied with Google Maps today, I feel confident that I will eventually be happy with it.
Niether could I.
Dammit, I re-typed part of the last sentence in my opening paragraph and forgot to change "use" to "that". Submitting without proofreading strikes agian!
Just because engineers are smart does make them authorities on the English language -- in fact, it usually makes them the opposite.
I work for a very large company and we are required to not type in all caps because it is seen as unprofessional.
I should've been more clear about this with regards to the US.
Ballots don't follow a national format. My Texan ballots were just exactly like the bubble-sheet answer papers I'd used all throughout grade school and college, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same straightforward experience, hence my reference to the butterfly ballots of Florida 2000.
It seems fairly evident that the people in power think these voting machines are a good idea for one reason or another; it was my thinking that the simplest way to convince these counties with awful ballot designs to change would be to propose a new voting medium, since apparently it's some egregious violation of states' rights (as I recall) that we have a uniform national ballot.
Hell, if you can convince every county in the US that we should be using a nice, simple design then I'd be happy. I just see that as being less likely than having a secure voting machine.
I wasn't referring to the hanging chads, but a ballot that was designed in a very confusing way, which led to a hardline conservative candidate (Pat Buchanan) getting so many votes in a county that he reportedly said that there was no way that many people intended to vote for him.
We vote in the states in much the same way, and I understand well the squirming about technology. However, I distrust people, especially politically-motivated people. In the states, where every county designs their own ballots, it seems like voting machines make much more sense when it seems like there's little to no chance of us getting a uniform national ballot. Frankly though, if you want similar security, move technologically-minded people from each party to the machine design process to ensure that it gets made properly. I honestly don't think that "very expensive" and "counting machine" are two phrases that belong together in the long term.
Of course, I say all this as a person who inherently distrusts technology -- I'm just so sick and tired of hearing about elections corrupted by officials from one party or the other that I'm starting to believe that it's honestly the only way.
So am I. I think it's safe for me to apologize for and retract my comments about you being an ass, and for kicking you out of my bathroom. You can use it any time you like, so long as I'm not using it at the same time.
Paper ballots are user-friendly? Did you miss the whole we-elected-the-wrong-president year 2000 thing when the Supreme Court ruled against Gore? I mean seriously, those butterfly ballots were not user friendly for the average person.
Aside from that, I disagree entirely with the rest of your opinion. How easy is it to cheat against someone who's new at chess? Pretty easy -- you can just tell them different rules. How easy is it to cheat against a properly made chess program or machine? Impossible (without the obvious reverse-engineering and executable modification), because the computer is unwavering. It's completely inane to assume that the people working behind paper ballots have no political motivation. Maybe they really do just want to see democracy continue, but assuming that they will always do their jobs better than a correctly-designed computer is absurd to me.
Design a machine, open its design up to the public so that everyone can see exactly how this thing works, then hold conferences to discuss any potential technical problems with engineers. Make sure whatever software goes onto the machine has been through a technical design and usability firm, or run the gamut of rigorous and diverse user testing (which would include people trying to hack the machine or in some other way defeat its ability to be consistent). Hell, after these Diebold systems, you'd probably need to do that to convince any private citizen that the machine did what it was supposed to do. Oh, and above all: print out a hard copy of the voting record that has been safely sealed.
Is what I said likely to happen? No, but neither is an unmolested democratic election. Regardless, I never stop hoping for one.
But I could effectively argue that I should take the money (or better yet, the box with the money inside) until I find the owner and clarify the situation, replacing the money in the case that the owner wishes the money left, and taking the money otherwise; thus preventing someone with less scruples from taking the money without corroboration.
This is why leaving personal choices up to individual/societal morality makes me squirm -- your choice could be argued as apathetic by someone more pro-active, whereas my choice could be argued as too liberal by someone more conservative (I mean neither of these politically, just in terms of interpreting things liberally or interpreting things conservatively). We could go back and forth on this for days, surely. Dependence upon morality alone (even under educated circumstances -- a truly evil person could take ethical education and use it to exploit a society's code of ethics and morals) is just not enough for me given the lack of empathy that the average person has for those he or she is not personally connected to.
If I belittled a moral observation, it's because I find the morality of the situation to be obvious, whereas the legality of the situation is not. I seek a legal interpretation because of my interests in law as it relates to computers and the internet, and out of my hope that there might be more evidence that judges (as opposed to Congress) can accurately apply old law to new media. I wish to keep my private property mine, and hope that the government doesn't decide that it's okay to take a peek or let big corporations use bits of my private property for their own benefit under an implicit agreement like we've been talking about. My belief in the moral obviousness of this situation plays a rather insignificant role in the decisions of both the government and of big business.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. How can law and morality be mutually exclusive? How can legal reason block understanding and use of moral implication?
You didn't type a single character in response to my scenario regarding the initial exchange of information between a wireless router and a machine capable of connecting wirelessly to that router. You simply said that law didn't matter, even though what constitutes private property is unclear to me (and potentially others) in this situation. The fact that you used private property in previous examples, yet chose to ignore what I said, lead me to believe you simply decided to ignore something that lent credence to my point about private property boundaries being unclear in this situation.
I guess it's a good thing my bathroom has no windows.
Regardless of implicit permissions, explicit permissions, and responsibilities, the law -- I am not going to argue morality here as we have been over this too many times already -- could surely stand to be more clear-cut in these situations. The law should be clear for those whose moral compasses do no govern their actions properly, to act as either a teacher or a deterrant (of course, law as deterrant is yet another questionable point that lies outside this discussion) in these cases. Does that make it perfect? No, but humans aren't perfect, and what's right isn't always evident at the time something happens (a point wholly irrelevant to this discussion).
I buy in to this idea more than you know. Doing the right thing when nobody is looking is the truest test of a person's morals and beliefs. I have always found it more immature for my friends to cheat in games or play unfairly around me simply because it's a lot easier than cheating or playing unfairly when everybody's watching. Two of them understand why I have said this to others in the past, and I've never had to say anything like that to either of those people.
I fully believe this is something invented by man to suit man's purpose. I have a deep sense of what is right and wrong, I tend to respect others (except in cases where I feel that others show a lack of respect in return as I feel you have done), their rights, and their beliefs. Regardless of that, without man, morality would not exist. Without man, private property laws would also not exist. Both are inventions that do not naturally exist since animals do not have reason. Pounding your fist and declaring that such things are universal does not make you right.
I asked for a legal (read: LEGAL) analysis of the situation. I didn't in any way solicit your "expert" "moral" opinions. I asked about law, not what is morally right or wrong. You responded stating that you were an expert, and then said you clarified your position on private property (a legal concept), to which I responded about the grey area of the network protocol in use on wireless routers and mentioned that I felt this needed clarification, to which you responded that this had never been a question of legality.
Again, I have never once argued the point on morality. I have repeatedly stated that I am interested in hearing someone who is a legal expert talk about the legal reasoning (if it exists) on this issue.
To me, you have come across as nothing short of arrogant from the very beginning. Making a wry joke in what has been, at best, a testy discussion only cements my opinion of you as a dick. Stating that you believe your arguments infallible doesn't help your cause, especially since you've switched topics several times and cherry picked what you wanted to respond to. Finally, get the fuck out of my bathroom.
Ah yes, I see you decided to bear out my point for me. Having problems with your moral compass and doing the right thing, or is this a situation where it's right to make fun of someone after you've spent three posts making an ass out of yourself?
You've posted no research thus far, and backed up none of your claims. Taking an ethics class (or classes, or having a degree) doesn't mean you're an expert in the legality of this issue.
I understand private property just fine. You've glanced over an overwhelming wealth of technological concerns with your replies, which is what makes this issue of open wireless networks unclear. Cars, bikes, gardens, and other discrete objects don't really relate to the processes that two electronic devices go through to establish a connection to each other. Claiming that an open car door and a running car is equivalent in any way to a microwave transmission communicates a lack of topical understanding to me (particularly since I don't need to have line-of-sight with a wireless access point to be receiving its transmissions, and a running car with its door open may have a slew of mobsters standing in its doorway, physically stopping me from getting in).
Furthermore, if the process connecting a machine to an open wireless access point requires transmission to that wireless access point, then does merely connecting violate private property, since I am using services (load on your wireless router and electricity) that you may have not wanted me to use, but unwittingly allowed me to. Does this implicit allowal of wireless router load time and electrical use then allow me to use the Internet if you have not configured your wireless router to deny all IPs -- aside from a few specified ones that you have set aside for your own use -- access to the internet?
Is what I said a stretch? You sure as hell better believe it. But could a lawyer potentially argue this point well enough for a judge or jury to agree that it's not a violation of private property? That's where I'm looking for expert analysis.
Is it, though? I can configure permissions on my router based on local IPs. If I left my wireless LAN open, expected people to connect and not use the internet, but I didn't specify this in my permissions, is the lack of a denial configuration an implicit acknowledgement that anyone connecting can use my internet connection?
I frankly don't care if I get modded troll for this. Your assumptions have gone from defensive to ridiculous. I made a post noting that I thought this topic had more to do with whether or not wireless signal and the use of said wireless signal could be considered violating private property laws, particularly since said wireless signal isn't a discrete object that can be used by only one person at one time. How is making note of this fact moral relativism?
A lawnmower doesn't constantly cross property boundaries. A backyard pool sure as hell better not.
Not to be snarky, but I didn't need an ethics class to know that getting in someone's open, running car is stealing. I made the comment because I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old with chronic sticky fingers by someone who can't understand others wanting clarification on where the definition of private property lies in this subject.
Back off the defensive. I never contended anything but the question of whether or not a wireless network would be considered private property. I also never said anything about the overall legality, merely that I don't believe you can consider something that does not obey property lines to be as black and white of an issue as a discrete object that can be used by one person at a time.
Your statement about people doing what is right has no bearing on this argument. Of course the world would be a better place. But then if people did what was right, everyone would have open access points and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Your comment about listening to the wireless transmission seems spurious to me, as I consider (perhaps incorrectly) network transmission to have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as a wireless phone conversation. I would love to hear the opinion of someone with true legal knowledge of this situation -- that was the intent of my original comment.
Those are private property. I believe the question really centers more around whether or not a broadcasting wireless signal can be considered private property -- especially since my use of it does not necessarily preclude your use of it.
*re-reads*