If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want.
The government has already shown its willingness to abuse the power to shut off repeaters. Such abuses are inevitable and cannot be tolerated by a free society.
Telecom services are vital and people rely upon them. Can I sue the government when I take a financial loss as a result of deliberately disrupted service?
Governments must never be allowed to prevent people from speaking, nor must they be allowed to stifle protests. Even if the government owns the communication system in question, they must not be allowed to shut it down except for legitimate maintenance.
OK, so, who do you think should be allowed to do so? You do not think that I should -- and I personally agree -- and you seem to think that the government cannot be trusted to do so either, so I am somewhat curious here. Do you envision legitimate reasons to shut down the cell network?
It is a rhetorical question. I do not see any good reason for anyone, and individual or the government, to shut down the cell network. Aside from the issue of emergency calls being missed, who do you think should be trusted with the power to decide when people are allowed to communicate? Cell phones are one of the most important communication tools in America these days; I cannot see any way that the power to shut down the cell phone network would not be abused, and it is difficult to envision legitimate reasons for such a shut down.
How about, the terrorists are using a cell phone as a trigger for a bomb i.e. a bomb will explode when a call is received? That really happens in some countries, though those countries do not respond by shutting down the cell system.
Of course, a bomb can also be triggered by a call ending, so either we stop having cell phones or else we acknowledge that there is no legitimate reason for the government to cut off service.
There is no reason to give the government the power to shut down vital communication systems. Such power can only be abused and serves no legitimate purpose.
we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service
The only one I can think of is a situation where a bomb will be triggered by a cell phone receiving a call. Except that a bomb could just as easily be triggered by a cell phone call ending, so shutting the network down would only really work once or twice.
Of course, that is not the situation that we saw in the BART case. The point of shutting down the phone network there was to stifle protest. Since the government will always claim that protesters are terrorists, the short answer is that the government should never have the right to shut down out communication systems, and that if the government will start doing so we will need to deploy networks with a less centralized topology.
Here is a simpler question: when can I, an individual citizen, shut down wireless communication? If I cannot just shut down vital communication systems, why should the government be allowed to?
What is the cost of piracy? I suspect it is near zero.
Here is the typical choice you are faced with:
Pay $20 to see the movie in a theater. The floors will be sticky, the food will be terrible (and you will be forbidden to bring your own, better food), and you need to watch the movie on the theater's schedule. You might be subject to a security screening of sorts to check for cameras, but at least it is not (yet) as bad as the TSA. On the other hand, the screen is huge, the sound system is high quality and you can go with a big group of friends.
Pay some amount of money (the spread here is big) to watch the movie on a DVD. You will be forced to sit through ads that you cannot skip, but otherwise get to watch the movie on your terms. Unfortunately, unless you have a big house and a nice entertainment system, watching with friends will be difficult (but not impossible). For an extra fee, you can get an HD copy! This option will usually not be available until long after the movie plays in theaters.
Stream from Netflix or a similar legal service. You are forced to have the right version of every plugin, but other face an experience that is slightly better than Bluray. As with DVDs/Bluray, you will probably be forced to wait until after the movie has shown in theaters.
Download the movie illegally. You get maximum control over your entertainment here, assuming you did not download a trojan, you pay nothing for it, and you will not have to pay extra for HD. Quality, however, is not guaranteed; you may need to wait several months to get an HD copy.
Movie theaters are definitely going to have to compete with piracy, but the competition is not very difficult. It is rare that a decent quality download will be available before a movie comes out on DVD or Bluray, and most people have pretty terrible entertainment systems in their homes. This means that for people to pirate movies instead of going to the theaters, the movies must be so bad that they are not worth the price of a ticket and that the experience of going to a movie theater is not enough to justify the extra expense.
The solution is pretty clear: make better movies or make movie theaters a better experience (preferably both).
This is the sort of thing that happens when universities become the tools of the corporate system. The fact that the government has also become a tool of corporations is tangentially related, but the truth is that universities are doing plenty for corporations without any government prodding:
Financial aid? Outsource to corporations.
Food? Outsource to corporations.
Student housing? Outsource to corporations.
Homework assignments? Corporations.
Bookstores? Corporations.
Curricula? Whatever the corporations are demanding.
Once a school opens the door for corporations, there is basically no turning back -- corporations begin to influence every aspect of the university.
I disagree -- it reflects the technological realities of the 21st century. Your statement is on the level of, "Printing presses may not be 100% right..."
What we really need is a system that uses file sharing in a positive way. Songs could include information about when and where concerts will be held, various merchandise for the band, and so forth. Technology has rendered the recording industry and the copyright system as a whole entirely obsolete.
The music industry isn't that bad in terms of freedom
In the late 90s, the RIAA asked researchers in the security community to evaluate SDMI, essentially a DRM system for CDs that was supposed to be built into every music player:
Researchers who attempted to publish their work on SDMI, even those who did not agree to the confidentiality requirement, were threatened by the RIAA. Thankfully, SDMI ultimately died and the researchers were able to publish -- after the government assured them that the DMCA protected their ability to publish their work.
So where is the RIAA today? Pushing for every more restrictive copyrights and paracopyright laws. Attacking other countries for not having restrictive copyrights. They have toned down their attacks on file sharers because the attacks were a waste of their money and were losing them whatever public sympathy they had left. The RIAA is as bad when it comes to respecting freedom as the MPAA.
The study says that the "negative" effects are completely balanced by the "positive" effects. In other words, every dollar you did not spend was still spent by others elsewhere.
Except, of course, the tactical gain for the copyright lobbyists, who can use such seizures as examples of why we need even stronger restrictions on the Internet. They can point to these seizures and say, "See, when we try to enforce our copyrights, the awful common folk just step around the ban! Therefore, we must be allowed to turn the Internet into a fancy cable TV system!"
Let us be clear about the distinction between telephone wiretaps and the provisions of CALEA. Traditionally, to wiretap a telephone line you literally connected equipment to the line, which involves sending an officer into the field and can potentially tip off the target of the tap. CALEA requires phone companies to make automated tapping of some fraction of their lines possible, so that a line can be tapped invisibly and without anyone having to leave their desk.
No, I have no problem with traditional wiretapping; you can bet that I have a problem with CALEA. What the FBI is complaining about is that traditional wiretapping techniques are difficult to apply to the Internet, and thus they want CALEA-style tapping to be available. No thank you -- we do not need to expand the already vast surveillance infrastructure in this country, nor do we need to turn the Internet into a clone of Cable TV (i.e. a network where only large organizations can run servers legally).
The FBI operates on the "stupid crook theory," which basically states that there are no criminal masterminds out there, just idiots who will use systems with widely publicized law enforcement back doors.
Oh, that is why we bailed out the airlines a few years back? You know, to ensure that people have the "privilege?"
The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car
You do realize that the reason they cannot just demand that you open your car for an inspection is the same fourth amendment that should make nude scans and pat-downs unconstitutional, right? Your rights are not supposed to disappear just because you are in an airport.
Unfortunately, the political mainstream in America does not give two hoots about civil rights, except when it comes to protecting the rights of corporations and wealthy Americans. We have gotten the point where the bill of rights is "extremist."
GPL software is for everyone. The reason people are surprised when Microsoft uses GNU/Linux is that they spent years badmouthing the OS -- they said it was only suitable for hobbyists and students, they said it was cancer, they told people that it violated untold numbers of patents, etc.
It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best.
Well that is not really asking much out of them:
For Microsoft to use Linux, they merely have to agree to the GPL -- if the use is purely internal, this basically imposes no restrictions on them.
For me to use MS Office, I have to agree to the EULA, which demands that I not attempt to reverse engineer the software, modify the software, use the included artwork to produce offensive documents, etc. I have no choice but to use MS Office internally, since the EULA forbids me from redistributing it, except to sell it and delete any copy that remains in my possession (or have they removed that clause?).
You see the difference here? The GPL imposes no restrictions on how software can be used, and few restrictions on how it can be copied and shared; proprietary licenses contain nothing but restrictions on use and copying. It is easy for Microsoft to use GPL software internally; it may not be easy for me to use software under a proprietary license, unless I fit the model of computer users as envisioned by the companies that made that software (which I almost never do).
It might -- a solitary defector might not be willing to be killed by those still loyal to Osama, but could offer intelligence to the US in exchange for protection or leniency. Grabbing some unattended thumbdrives and running down to the docks for a midnight pickup does not sound implausible.
Slashdot Mirror
If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want.
Governments must never be allowed to prevent people from speaking, nor must they be allowed to stifle protests. Even if the government owns the communication system in question, they must not be allowed to shut it down except for legitimate maintenance.
OK, so, who do you think should be allowed to do so? You do not think that I should -- and I personally agree -- and you seem to think that the government cannot be trusted to do so either, so I am somewhat curious here. Do you envision legitimate reasons to shut down the cell network?
It is a rhetorical question. I do not see any good reason for anyone, and individual or the government, to shut down the cell network. Aside from the issue of emergency calls being missed, who do you think should be trusted with the power to decide when people are allowed to communicate? Cell phones are one of the most important communication tools in America these days; I cannot see any way that the power to shut down the cell phone network would not be abused, and it is difficult to envision legitimate reasons for such a shut down.
How about, the terrorists are using a cell phone as a trigger for a bomb i.e. a bomb will explode when a call is received? That really happens in some countries, though those countries do not respond by shutting down the cell system.
Of course, a bomb can also be triggered by a call ending, so either we stop having cell phones or else we acknowledge that there is no legitimate reason for the government to cut off service.
There is no reason to give the government the power to shut down vital communication systems. Such power can only be abused and serves no legitimate purpose.
we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service
The only one I can think of is a situation where a bomb will be triggered by a cell phone receiving a call. Except that a bomb could just as easily be triggered by a cell phone call ending, so shutting the network down would only really work once or twice.
Of course, that is not the situation that we saw in the BART case. The point of shutting down the phone network there was to stifle protest. Since the government will always claim that protesters are terrorists, the short answer is that the government should never have the right to shut down out communication systems, and that if the government will start doing so we will need to deploy networks with a less centralized topology.
Here is a simpler question: when can I, an individual citizen, shut down wireless communication? If I cannot just shut down vital communication systems, why should the government be allowed to?
Here is the typical choice you are faced with:
Movie theaters are definitely going to have to compete with piracy, but the competition is not very difficult. It is rare that a decent quality download will be available before a movie comes out on DVD or Bluray, and most people have pretty terrible entertainment systems in their homes. This means that for people to pirate movies instead of going to the theaters, the movies must be so bad that they are not worth the price of a ticket and that the experience of going to a movie theater is not enough to justify the extra expense.
The solution is pretty clear: make better movies or make movie theaters a better experience (preferably both).
Once a school opens the door for corporations, there is basically no turning back -- corporations begin to influence every aspect of the university.
Piracy may not be 100% right
I disagree -- it reflects the technological realities of the 21st century. Your statement is on the level of, "Printing presses may not be 100% right..."
What we really need is a system that uses file sharing in a positive way. Songs could include information about when and where concerts will be held, various merchandise for the band, and so forth. Technology has rendered the recording industry and the copyright system as a whole entirely obsolete.
The music industry isn't that bad in terms of freedom
In the late 90s, the RIAA asked researchers in the security community to evaluate SDMI, essentially a DRM system for CDs that was supposed to be built into every music player:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDMI
Researchers who attempted to publish their work on SDMI, even those who did not agree to the confidentiality requirement, were threatened by the RIAA. Thankfully, SDMI ultimately died and the researchers were able to publish -- after the government assured them that the DMCA protected their ability to publish their work.
So where is the RIAA today? Pushing for every more restrictive copyrights and paracopyright laws. Attacking other countries for not having restrictive copyrights. They have toned down their attacks on file sharers because the attacks were a waste of their money and were losing them whatever public sympathy they had left. The RIAA is as bad when it comes to respecting freedom as the MPAA.
The study says that the "negative" effects are completely balanced by the "positive" effects. In other words, every dollar you did not spend was still spent by others elsewhere.
Well you see, it is not "censorship," it is just "sanitized content" for the purposes of "protecting the children." Clearly different things, right?
I would not be surprised if the use of Tor, and proxies/VPNs in other countries spiked as a result of this law.
there is no gain from doing so.
Except, of course, the tactical gain for the copyright lobbyists, who can use such seizures as examples of why we need even stronger restrictions on the Internet. They can point to these seizures and say, "See, when we try to enforce our copyrights, the awful common folk just step around the ban! Therefore, we must be allowed to turn the Internet into a fancy cable TV system!"
The sad thing is that a lot of people really do believe that privacy is only for those who have "something to hide."
Let us be clear about the distinction between telephone wiretaps and the provisions of CALEA. Traditionally, to wiretap a telephone line you literally connected equipment to the line, which involves sending an officer into the field and can potentially tip off the target of the tap. CALEA requires phone companies to make automated tapping of some fraction of their lines possible, so that a line can be tapped invisibly and without anyone having to leave their desk.
No, I have no problem with traditional wiretapping; you can bet that I have a problem with CALEA. What the FBI is complaining about is that traditional wiretapping techniques are difficult to apply to the Internet, and thus they want CALEA-style tapping to be available. No thank you -- we do not need to expand the already vast surveillance infrastructure in this country, nor do we need to turn the Internet into a clone of Cable TV (i.e. a network where only large organizations can run servers legally).
The FBI operates on the "stupid crook theory," which basically states that there are no criminal masterminds out there, just idiots who will use systems with widely publicized law enforcement back doors.
that air travel is a privilege, not a right
Oh, that is why we bailed out the airlines a few years back? You know, to ensure that people have the "privilege?"
The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car
You do realize that the reason they cannot just demand that you open your car for an inspection is the same fourth amendment that should make nude scans and pat-downs unconstitutional, right? Your rights are not supposed to disappear just because you are in an airport.
Unfortunately, the political mainstream in America does not give two hoots about civil rights, except when it comes to protecting the rights of corporations and wealthy Americans. We have gotten the point where the bill of rights is "extremist."
Now I've got to pay for every damned little thing in the OS too.
Allow me to introduce you to some operating systems that do not have such a "feature:"
GPL software is for everyone. The reason people are surprised when Microsoft uses GNU/Linux is that they spent years badmouthing the OS -- they said it was only suitable for hobbyists and students, they said it was cancer, they told people that it violated untold numbers of patents, etc.
For example there are times when Apache is better than nginx and times when nginx is better than Apache
This is something that Microsoft understands but seems like basement jerker FOSS fanatics cannot.
My irony meter just went off the chart.
It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best.
Well that is not really asking much out of them:
You see the difference here? The GPL imposes no restrictions on how software can be used, and few restrictions on how it can be copied and shared; proprietary licenses contain nothing but restrictions on use and copying. It is easy for Microsoft to use GPL software internally; it may not be easy for me to use software under a proprietary license, unless I fit the model of computer users as envisioned by the companies that made that software (which I almost never do).
It might -- a solitary defector might not be willing to be killed by those still loyal to Osama, but could offer intelligence to the US in exchange for protection or leniency. Grabbing some unattended thumbdrives and running down to the docks for a midnight pickup does not sound implausible.