There needs to be a political goal for it to be considered terrorism.
The law is based on precedents and consistency in judgements, reinterpreting legal definitions because your afraid is just terribly selfish. Why cant you just use other words ?
If someone sabotages equipment that leads to thousands of deaths, then there are other laws to cover that.
Making legal ownership transparent would make people more accountable to the law, but whos law... is it fair to judge people based on the law in foreign countries ?
The Internet doesn't understand borders, it never will, trying to make the Internet conform to borders is an automatic fail.
The context that surrounds some potentially informative information might not be worthy of leaking by itself, but it provides background information to frame other comments.
e.g. perhaps Lawrence Lessig's alleged 'smugness' says more about the people pointing the finger than it does about Lessig.
"they had argued that the US concession would open the door for authoritarian governments get control of the network of networks"
Someone needs to explain to the US that they already have an authoritarian government.
Entrenched class system with little social mobility, pervasive surveillance of the entire country, secret prisons, gerrymandered political system...
When the US orders other nations SWAT teams to raid the homes of people who have never been to the US and have them extradited because of alleged theft of imaginary property, then yea, thats pretty authoritarian.
The reason the GPL (or any other licence) is enforced, is specifically to try and exclude people. Every community has rules and responsibilities it places on its members, if there are people or groups that actively work against the interests of the community, then they should be excluded. The well defined expectations set out by the FSF (4 freedoms) are what define the community, and what separates it from BSD crowd, whos community has not grown to the same extent. There is an community around the GPL specifically because it is enforced. If the GPL (or any other licence) isnt enforced it becomes in practice a permissive licence, much like the BSD, no values, no community.
Certainly looks like its Clinton backers behind it. They are trying to highlight the "bad" information on wikileaks, they want people to stop looking at wikileaks, and at least "complicate" the value of transparency.
How about we just make sure the benefits of technology spread to all the people, equally. The way i see it at the moment, technology concentrates power through its tendency to create global monopolies, its not the way capitalist societies are supposed to work. Intellectual Property rights need to be reformed, thats the only way i think we can control the speed of technological evolution.
Not all problems have good solutions, but he is no longer part of the project, the board is being replaced, so those allegedly harassed have got their way.
You say they are all regularly harassed by law enforcement, and that route is not really an option, so now Appelbaum faces harassment from law enforcement and vigilante's, what hope would he have of defending himself if he was innocent.
You cant claim the high ground if you take the law into your own hands.
Wikileaks release new material to aid transparency in one of the most polarizing elections the US has faced in a long time. People ignore the material and focus on the motives of Assange, whilst complaining about Assange getting all the attention.
Sorry, but you have no credibility when you make such extreme statements without proof or objective judgement. Without evidence how can it be more than perception ?
So the finger points back at you, what is your agenda, we know its not justice.
Moral within an organisation is always important, and stakeholders should have confidence in the board to manage things, but;
This is an organisation that lots of powerful people and government would like to see destroyed, it maintains a product that is controversial, and is used in some extreme circumstances.
Do they really need to manage the perception of their work so aggressively. People will have very strong views for/against TOR independent of perceived employee behaviour.
Can Tor as an organisation be trusted if public perception is more important to them than proven facts.
Slashdot Mirror
There needs to be a political goal for it to be considered terrorism.
The law is based on precedents and consistency in judgements, reinterpreting legal definitions because your afraid is just terribly selfish. Why cant you just use other words ?
If someone sabotages equipment that leads to thousands of deaths, then there are other laws to cover that.
The law should not be used as propaganda
your, your, your, your :)
When one or two dickheads with a botnet can knock an entire country offline, there should be severe repercussions. That's terrorism by any definition.
Its not terrorism by any definition, terrorism is using violence or threats of violence to achieve a political goal.
crippling emergency services and police response, interfering with hospitals, and hampering commerce in general?
Maybe try a technical solution to a technical problem, like not having publicly accessible Internet for critical infrastructure.
Now the death penalty or 20 years hard time doesn't sound so outrageous, does it?
Yes it does, your a crazy extremist
He didnt say it was better for everyone... perspective.
I still have my Nokia N900, real keyboard, battery lasts days, too old and obscure to be target platform.
Security through obscurity ???
Ideas cant be owned in a real sense, only in law.
Making legal ownership transparent would make people more accountable to the law, but whos law... is it fair to judge people based on the law in foreign countries ?
The Internet doesn't understand borders, it never will, trying to make the Internet conform to borders is an automatic fail.
The context that surrounds some potentially informative information might not be worthy of leaking by itself, but it provides background information to frame other comments.
e.g. perhaps Lawrence Lessig's alleged 'smugness' says more about the people pointing the finger than it does about Lessig.
"they had argued that the US concession would open the door for authoritarian governments get control of the network of networks"
Someone needs to explain to the US that they already have an authoritarian government.
Entrenched class system with little social mobility, pervasive surveillance of the entire country, secret prisons, gerrymandered political system...
When the US orders other nations SWAT teams to raid the homes of people who have never been to the US and have them extradited because of alleged theft of imaginary property, then yea, thats pretty authoritarian.
The GPL isnt about YOU having freedom, its about the SOFTWARE having freedom despite you.
The reason the GPL (or any other licence) is enforced, is specifically to try and exclude people.
Every community has rules and responsibilities it places on its members, if there are people or groups that actively work against the interests of the community, then they should be excluded.
The well defined expectations set out by the FSF (4 freedoms) are what define the community, and what separates it from BSD crowd, whos community has not grown to the same extent.
There is an community around the GPL specifically because it is enforced.
If the GPL (or any other licence) isnt enforced it becomes in practice a permissive licence, much like the BSD, no values, no community.
You know what i meant, and you are deliberately misrepresenting what i said to suit your personal agenda.
Grow up.
Certainly looks like its Clinton backers behind it.
They are trying to highlight the "bad" information on wikileaks, they want people to stop looking at wikileaks, and at least "complicate" the value of transparency.
They're supposedly concerned that government agents have actually infiltrated Tor -- and yet they only have six demands that are related to that.
And yet there's ten demands about the Appelbaum investigation.
Perhaps the number of concerns about each issue dont reflect the severity of their concern for each issue.
We would have to read the actual words to work it out i guess ... i like numbers too.
How about we just make sure the benefits of technology spread to all the people, equally.
The way i see it at the moment, technology concentrates power through its tendency to create global monopolies, its not the way capitalist societies are supposed to work.
Intellectual Property rights need to be reformed, thats the only way i think we can control the speed of technological evolution.
Technology cant make us more human, we need to work that out for ourselves, and thats where we are lagging.
Not all problems have good solutions, but he is no longer part of the project, the board is being replaced, so those allegedly harassed have got their way.
You say they are all regularly harassed by law enforcement, and that route is not really an option, so now Appelbaum faces harassment from law enforcement and vigilante's, what hope would he have of defending himself if he was innocent.
You cant claim the high ground if you take the law into your own hands.
Also they have direct line of sight, which an attacker is very unlikely from the USB dongle, they have to look for reflections.
Wikileaks release new material to aid transparency in one of the most polarizing elections the US has faced in a long time.
People ignore the material and focus on the motives of Assange, whilst complaining about Assange getting all the attention.
Part of the problem...
The GPL encourages copying.
The only people who "pirate" GPL'ed works are people who dont want to share.
Copyright infringement happened before there was websites, and it will continue to happen even if there is no business model.
And how about you grow up, no need for insults.
Sorry, but you have no credibility when you make such extreme statements without proof or objective judgement.
Without evidence how can it be more than perception ?
So the finger points back at you, what is your agenda, we know its not justice.
Moral within an organisation is always important, and stakeholders should have confidence in the board to manage things, but;
This is an organisation that lots of powerful people and government would like to see destroyed, it maintains a product that is controversial, and is used in some extreme circumstances.
Do they really need to manage the perception of their work so aggressively. People will have very strong views for/against TOR independent of perceived employee behaviour.
Can Tor as an organisation be trusted if public perception is more important to them than proven facts.
Is TOR just about money now ?
Thats your problem there, thinking your attacker will use methods you expect.
e.g What if Intel decide to be the attacker ?
These sort of people will say anything to get attention
consume the API into my binary object, but nothing else
Why would you combine a binary API but nothing else, it has no functionality.
In that situation you didnt even need to distribute the GPL'ed parts in the first place because they arent being used.
Yea, i was should have said 'restrictions on distribution begin when linking occurs'