Well, no -- don't read into what I said. I never said that I wanted to restrict "expression" to written words. I think whether or not something is "expression" is related more to how some piece of information functions within its environment.
Let me ask you this: if kiddie porn is "expression" -- then what is it expressing?
What, exactly, is the kiddie pornographer trying to say with the kiddie porn?
I understand the argument that the informational content is the same, whether it is encoded on a t-shirt as text or encoded in a computer as a program.
However, there is a functional difference in those two mediums. When the information is encoded on a t-shirt, it cannot interact with its environment in a way that causes protected DVDs to be copied. The only way that information can cause protected DVDs to be copied, is if that same information is recoded into another medium and format (i.e. electronically in a computer).
To me, what defines "speech" or "expression" isn't informational content, but the function that the information has when it interacts with its environment. On a t-shirt, the only interaction it can have with its environment is that it can be read. That's expression. In a program, it can interact with its environment to copy a DVD... that is NOT expression.
I understand that this is how the law is currently interpreted. Personally, however, I disagree. I don't feel that pornography should be classified as speech or expression.
The main reason I have a problem with the tactic of "Pornography is expression, but it is not protected because it hurts people" is that THAT, I think, is the more slippery-slope. It leads to people feeling like they have the "right" to not be offended by things that people say (which I think is ridiculous). It leads to the murky waters of government privilege: "You are not free to disclose that information because it could HURT national security."
I think all expression should be free; I just don't think all things are expression.
For me, this is the key: the t-shirt itself does not crack any DVD security, you have to type it in. By the act of typing it in, you are changing the nature of the entity from a communication/expression to a functioning tool.
To keep with my analogy: writing a script for a scene in a child porno movie isn't illegal (do child porn movies even have scripts!?!?!?); but creating the movie based on that script is illegal.
Well, my personal view is that the t-shirt isn't piracy, it's speech, and therefore is protected. However, the program itself is not speech, it's a tool, and specifically a tool used for piracy.
I would say it's the same as the distinction between child pornography and a conversation about child pornography. Child pornography is not speech, and is not protected. However, discussing child pornography is speech, and is protected.
I admit to not knowing a lot about deCSS. My understanding is that it is a tool that cracks DVD security and allows you to copy protected DVDs. If that's the case... how can it be "on a t-shirt"?
Total aside: a friend of mine was telling me that, a while back, he wrote a little web tool that allowed you to view websites with the stylesheet formatting removed. He called it "deCSS" and tried publicizing it widely on the web. The interesting point is: The whole reason he even created the tool was simply to add noise to the system, in order to foil people who were trying to "crack down" on deCSS by doing web searches to locate sources of the program. LOL
I see your point, but I feel like it's dangerous to lump together content monitoring on an anonymous network, on the one hand, and the tracking of a massive database of users that links them to the content they produce and/or their online behaviors, on the other.
The issues brought up by the original article are things like NSA call monitoring and ISP data-retention. Both of these are specifically about linking individual, identifiable people to their behaviors.
To me, that's a very different issue from simply monitoring and filtering content on an anonymous network.
Kiddie Porn and Piracy are not "speech." Kiddie Porn and Piracy are not "expression."
And so they are not (and should not be) protected by freedom-of-expression laws.
(***please note: I'm not making a moral judgement; I'm not even saying whether these things should be legal or illegal; I'm only saying that they are not related to your freedom to "express" your views, beliefs, or opinions)
Does anyone else see this as being a metaphor for (or at least, highly parallel to) the huge beaurocracy of the NSA: an organization designed to have the appearance of being "tough on security", but actually being costly and inconvenient while affecting real security very little?
"If you do impose heavy restrictions on companies in the 'developed world,' they'll simply move whatever tiny amount of manufacturing is still left to China or any other country which is business friendly and does not limit CO2 production of companies."
I have a friend who has terrible motivation. Whenever he has a problem, it totally makes him freeze up... and it really hinders him in life. I tell him: "Well, why don't you try [solution X]?" To which he always responds, "Oh, if I do that, then all that will happen is [new speculated obstacle Y]."
Sometimes I want to grab him and yell, "Maybe. Maybe not. But you could at least try!? Why talk yourself out of trying? If you try and fail, you're certainly no worse off than if you just sit around on your ass wishing the problem would disappear!!"
.... and this is how I feel about many of the arguments against environmentalism. People poo-poo any specific action that is proposed, saying: "Oh, if you do that, then companies will just do this" or "If you do that, then you'll just see these other problems" or (my favorite) "If you do that, it might not make a difference." But why spend all this energy talking yourself OUT of even trying to solve a problem that needs (ultimately) to be solved, anyway?
Sure, manufacturing companies might move oversees to China. But not all of them can afford to, and for some of them, they might calculate that the cost of moving overseas exceeds the cost of complying to environmental regulation. And in the end, more companies will still be more compliant, than if you just throw your hands up in the air and say "oh noes! nothing can be done-zo!"
Thank you for the link to Kitten Auth -- I hadn't heard of it, and it looks interesting.
However, as others have pointed out, even image classification is something that (presumably) algorithms will eventually be able to simulate.
Therefore, I propose that authentication take advantage of the area where we know (through science fiction, of course) computers will never be able to mimic humans: lust and desire.
Introduce: Hottie Auth: Click on the picture of the hottest person in the following collage of pictures, in order to continue.
(Users may need to select options like gender, orientation, and known fetishes so that an appropriate collage can be generated. But these are, of course, mere implementation details.)
You're right.... I think I am trapped, a little bit, in an "oldschool" attitude about the transparency of domain names.
At the same time, I can't help wondering... would www.google.com have gained as much popularity if it had been www.askmenoquestionsilltellyounolies.me.uk ?
Would www.myspace.com be as popular if it was called www.socialnetworkingprofilesforyouandme.org.tw?
Don't you think, for a system to be judged a "good system", it needs to be a system that is "good" the way people actually use it?
It's like usability and interfaces. If people are constantly messing up, you can blame the users... or you can blame the system for not being designed with "real users" in mind.
Free markets are great when people don't quite behave the way people actually behave.
I understand what you're saying... however, I've always been a little bit of a purist when it comes to top-level domains. I feel like.info really should be an information site,.org really should be an organization, and.uk really should be in the UK...
I know the reality of it. I doubt there is a single.tv site that is based in Tuvalu. But I'm still resistant... I don't want to contribute to "muddying up" the semantics of top-level domains.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no -- don't read into what I said. I never said that I wanted to restrict "expression" to written words. I think whether or not something is "expression" is related more to how some piece of information functions within its environment.
Let me ask you this: if kiddie porn is "expression" -- then what is it expressing?
What, exactly, is the kiddie pornographer trying to say with the kiddie porn?
I understand the argument that the informational content is the same, whether it is encoded on a t-shirt as text or encoded in a computer as a program.
However, there is a functional difference in those two mediums. When the information is encoded on a t-shirt, it cannot interact with its environment in a way that causes protected DVDs to be copied. The only way that information can cause protected DVDs to be copied, is if that same information is recoded into another medium and format (i.e. electronically in a computer).
To me, what defines "speech" or "expression" isn't informational content, but the function that the information has when it interacts with its environment. On a t-shirt, the only interaction it can have with its environment is that it can be read. That's expression. In a program, it can interact with its environment to copy a DVD... that is NOT expression.
I understand that this is how the law is currently interpreted. Personally, however, I disagree. I don't feel that pornography should be classified as speech or expression.
The main reason I have a problem with the tactic of "Pornography is expression, but it is not protected because it hurts people" is that THAT, I think, is the more slippery-slope. It leads to people feeling like they have the "right" to not be offended by things that people say (which I think is ridiculous). It leads to the murky waters of government privilege: "You are not free to disclose that information because it could HURT national security."
I think all expression should be free; I just don't think all things are expression.
For me, this is the key: the t-shirt itself does not crack any DVD security, you have to type it in. By the act of typing it in, you are changing the nature of the entity from a communication/expression to a functioning tool.
To keep with my analogy: writing a script for a scene in a child porno movie isn't illegal (do child porn movies even have scripts!?!?!?); but creating the movie based on that script is illegal.
Based on the other replies, it would seem that you failed to enclose your comment in tags.
That's interesting.
Well, my personal view is that the t-shirt isn't piracy, it's speech, and therefore is protected. However, the program itself is not speech, it's a tool, and specifically a tool used for piracy.
I would say it's the same as the distinction between child pornography and a conversation about child pornography. Child pornography is not speech, and is not protected. However, discussing child pornography is speech, and is protected.
I admit to not knowing a lot about deCSS. My understanding is that it is a tool that cracks DVD security and allows you to copy protected DVDs. If that's the case... how can it be "on a t-shirt"?
Total aside: a friend of mine was telling me that, a while back, he wrote a little web tool that allowed you to view websites with the stylesheet formatting removed. He called it "deCSS" and tried publicizing it widely on the web. The interesting point is: The whole reason he even created the tool was simply to add noise to the system, in order to foil people who were trying to "crack down" on deCSS by doing web searches to locate sources of the program. LOL
I see your point, but I feel like it's dangerous to lump together content monitoring on an anonymous network, on the one hand, and the tracking of a massive database of users that links them to the content they produce and/or their online behaviors, on the other.
The issues brought up by the original article are things like NSA call monitoring and ISP data-retention. Both of these are specifically about linking individual, identifiable people to their behaviors.
To me, that's a very different issue from simply monitoring and filtering content on an anonymous network.
Kiddie Porn and Piracy are not "speech."
Kiddie Porn and Piracy are not "expression."
And so they are not (and should not be) protected by freedom-of-expression laws.
(***please note: I'm not making a moral judgement; I'm not even saying whether these things should be legal or illegal; I'm only saying that they are not related to your freedom to "express" your views, beliefs, or opinions)
I hear this is how Jupiter's Red Spot got started.....
Does anyone else see this as being a metaphor for (or at least, highly parallel to) the huge beaurocracy of the NSA: an organization designed to have the appearance of being "tough on security", but actually being costly and inconvenient while affecting real security very little?
The supreme irony of this would be funny if it weren't so bothersome.
They are discussing invading/removing people's privacy... but only on the condition that they, themselves, remain anonymous.
Wha...?
I have a friend who has terrible motivation. Whenever he has a problem, it totally makes him freeze up... and it really hinders him in life. I tell him: "Well, why don't you try [solution X]?" To which he always responds, "Oh, if I do that, then all that will happen is [new speculated obstacle Y]."
Sometimes I want to grab him and yell, "Maybe. Maybe not. But you could at least try!? Why talk yourself out of trying? If you try and fail, you're certainly no worse off than if you just sit around on your ass wishing the problem would disappear!!"
.... and this is how I feel about many of the arguments against environmentalism. People poo-poo any specific action that is proposed, saying: "Oh, if you do that, then companies will just do this" or "If you do that, then you'll just see these other problems" or (my favorite) "If you do that, it might not make a difference." But why spend all this energy talking yourself OUT of even trying to solve a problem that needs (ultimately) to be solved, anyway?
Sure, manufacturing companies might move oversees to China. But not all of them can afford to, and for some of them, they might calculate that the cost of moving overseas exceeds the cost of complying to environmental regulation. And in the end, more companies will still be more compliant, than if you just throw your hands up in the air and say "oh noes! nothing can be done-zo!"
Thank you for the link to Kitten Auth -- I hadn't heard of it, and it looks interesting.
However, as others have pointed out, even image classification is something that (presumably) algorithms will eventually be able to simulate.
Therefore, I propose that authentication take advantage of the area where we know (through science fiction, of course) computers will never be able to mimic humans: lust and desire.
Introduce: Hottie Auth: Click on the picture of the hottest person in the following collage of pictures, in order to continue.
(Users may need to select options like gender, orientation, and known fetishes so that an appropriate collage can be generated. But these are, of course, mere implementation details.)
You can define your own URL protocols (like wp:) for use in Internet Explorer, too, if you're willing to fiddle in the registry a little.
(yes I know this is off topic, sorry)
You're right.... I think I am trapped, a little bit, in an "oldschool" attitude about the transparency of domain names.
At the same time, I can't help wondering... would www.google.com have gained as much popularity if it had been www.askmenoquestionsilltellyounolies.me.uk ?
Would www.myspace.com be as popular if it was called www.socialnetworkingprofilesforyouandme.org.tw?
Don't you think, for a system to be judged a "good system", it needs to be a system that is "good" the way people actually use it?
It's like usability and interfaces. If people are constantly messing up, you can blame the users... or you can blame the system for not being designed with "real users" in mind.
Free markets are great when people don't quite behave the way people actually behave.
I understand what you're saying... however, I've always been a little bit of a purist when it comes to top-level domains. I feel like .info really should be an information site, .org really should be an organization, and .uk really should be in the UK...
I know the reality of it. I doubt there is a single .tv site that is based in Tuvalu. But I'm still resistant... I don't want to contribute to "muddying up" the semantics of top-level domains.
Am I being naive about this?
- I asked Slashdot.
;-)(in all seriousness, though: your point is well taken)