And crazy laws won't hold up very long. The web is not a US controlled and distributed medium. When you create a website, you're not publishing and distributing it specifically for the US.
In addition, the government hasn't made these kinds of regulations for all other types of media, why do it for the internet? What about newspapers, TV, magazines, instruction manuals for the products you buy, vending machines, price tags in stores, radio, etc etc etc
This kind of thing can't be regulated in a rational manner, therefore these laws will never hold water.
"What do you expect. They feel like their userbase are all criminals so they don't care about abusing them."
They're not stealing from the users! They're stealing from miscellaneous affiliates who have not give ANYONE the right to take their commisions. The P2P software user doesn't have the right to give these companies permission to steal from affiliates!
I really hope this stops a lot of people from using these P2P networks, and causes the government to shut them down. There was a point when Napster could claim that it was the end-user breaking the law by downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material. Now it's the P2P software companies that are commiting fraud and outrightly STEALING!
If the government was able to shut down Napster for simply providing a means to an end, then the government should absolutely have the power to shut down these P2P software vendors for outrightly DEFRAUDING and STEALING from millions of innocent people!
Sales are down for many reasons, including the use of illegal file sharing, but the RIAA are missing the number one reason music sales are down:
The past year has been a horrible year for newly released music!! The current state of mainstream music SUCKS. We all know it. Talk to any of your friends. Ask them when the last time a good band became mainstream was. Record sales are suffering because the record companies are marketing the wrong stuff, NOT because people are stealing music.
You missed the entire concept. What you're talking about is parasitic computing. Leech computing does not install ANY software to the client. It simply sends the data, mixed with other data, which is operated on unknowingly to the user, and sent back, unknowingly to the user, to the intended destination.
Re:violently overthrow the Constitution?
on
Raisethefist.com Raided
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
---- Sure this kid might've been stupid and actually *done* something illegal - but just think of the precendent this sets. This sends the message to anybody who is vocal about disagreeing with US policy: "We will crack down on you HARD". This obviously has a "chilling effect". ----
You missed the point. The kid was "crack[ed] down on.. HARD" because he BROKE THE LAW. It had NOTHING to do with his opinion. He violated federal law, broke into computers he did not own and attempted to use those hacked computers to hack yet more computers. He posted bomb-building material on his website.
The Feds showed up at his door because he is percieved as a dangerous criminal. He is a criminal and will go to jail.
"Firstly, are those tubes still in good condition? They've been unused for decades--they might be full of rainwater, sewage, etc."
Fiber lines can get very dirty without functionality being affected. You just can't bend 'em.
"Secondly, would the tubes have to be converted in any way at all? Remember, the tubes are dead tech now. They weren't designed for cable, as that was still decades away."
I don't see what would need to be converted. A tube is a tube. There may need to be new connectors, quite a few changes in the way they are interconnected, but the premise remains the same. The advantage to using these tubes isn't in the tube design at all. It's in the fact that THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. Thus, we don't have to dig up big cities to lay them down. (trust me, it's turning traffic in Philly to shit) So they go down and find the tubes, take a month or so to map them out, then make some plans as to how to use them/change them, etc. Then they make their modifications, and install the cable.
The fact remains that digging up streets will take more time, cost more money, and make more of a mess.
"Thirdly, are the tubes still readily accessible? Right now, I'm thinking of the old subway tunnels in the District of Columbia and New York City. Some of them are still down there, but the entrances/exits have long been sealed."
That's a good question. But I'm thinking that if they know the tubes are there, they can find the tubes. And They may need to dig up a street or two or re-route subway traffic for a day or so to find them, but it's still better than digging up the whole damn city.
"Open is a good thing. Telephone companies are still able to gain profits, while having open standards for communicating with one another."
That's because every user pays their telephone company! No one pays for AIM or most other IM clients out there. So it's not a valid comparison. Do you want to start paying your IM company?
So why doesn't the open source community create an open IM protocol? If they do so, they run the risk of creating a protocol that other open source efforts would write clients for, and in the end, AOL would at least make AIM compatible with the open protocol?
"As a fourth matter, current law permits a computer user to make backup copies of software, so that the program can be restored in the event of a hard disk crash. But current law does not prevent an archival copy to be made with data that is associated with that program. A change in the law would be required to allow the back up copy of data associated with the program to made. Often times the data is the most valuable component, and a complete back up by a prudent person would encompass the data as well as the software. In fact, it might encompass the data in lieu of the software. That is the more typical example."
This should be expanded, in my opinion, to include MANY generations of backups of that data, NOT a SINGLE COPY. I, for one, backup all critical and personal data that is on my hard drive on a weekly basis, and those weekly backups are archived. I keep four generations of these weekly backups (one for each week in the month), and a PERMANENT monthly backup for each month. Am I breaking the law?
I'd have to say that the Oregon Trail is a non-zero sum game. You don't necessarily "win" or "lose", you just "survive". You survive by managing your resources, and trading intelligently to get those resources. You're not trying to beat anyone, and your only goal is to get to your destination alive.
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
That's because people don't understand the difference between a kernel and a distribution. He's probably running RedHat 7.1 or some other distro of that version number. So your MCSE friend may be right in what he said, he's just confusing terms.
Look, whether we like to believe it or not, there is SOME democratic process left in the US! We are still represented in our government. We have state and local representatives, senators, councilmen, etc; all of whom can listen to our voices and make action due upon them.
Letters like this should not be forwarded to industry insiders, they'll be ignored. Instead, letters like this should be forwarded to representatives and senators, who MAY actually take the time to read them. If the reps start seeing enough of these types of complaints from the public, they may start doing something about it.
I have forwarded many letters onto my state representative, John M. Perzel of Philadelphia County, PA. I am on a first name basis with Mr. Perzel, and I know that many of the issues I have pettitioned him with have made it to the state capitol. Once in the capitol, these issues have audience with more important power figures, who may take them on to congress, or at least the senate.
So my point is,/. is an amazing forum in that we are able to expose the hidden ugliness of the world around us. If we could start shoving this content down the throats of our elected officials, it might actually make some difference.
I hereby resolve to start forwarding more of these types of letters and articles onto my elected representatives. If anyone can make a difference, it is most certainly them.
the term "reverse discrimination" implys that discrimination only means whites discriminating towards blacks. This is not true. Whites discriminating towards blacks is discrimination. Blacks discriminating towards whites is discrimination. There is no "reverse". You discriminate or you don't. It doesn't matter who's doing it, or who it's toward, it's discrimination.
With all this talk of the industry creating components to censor what you watch, what you download, what you hear, what you record, etc; all I can think is:
Why don't I start a company that will produce these products without the censorship devices? It would instantaneously put all other censorship-friendly companies out of business. Think about it: you walk into the store. You see your Sony, Magnavox, and RCA TVs on the shelf, and right next to it: MyBrand. You have a choice: buy one of the TVs that will not allow you to record many things, or buy the unrestricted TV.
There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". You either discriminate or you don't. It does not matter who you're discriminating against, if you're doing it, it's discriminating.
For you to even say the phrase "reverse discrimination", you're discriminating yourself. You're implying that discrimination only works for whites towards blacks, which is in itself, a racial bias.
Whites discriminating against blacks is equal to blacks discriminating against whites. Terms like "reverse discrimination" imply that one is worse than the other, which is biased.
"Because Napster has done nothing wrong, has broken no law, and should not be bullied into these agreements."
Napster has not broken any law, this is true. However, they have harbored criminals who ARE stealing copyrighted material. This means that they must work with law enforcement firms to stop the criminal activities taking place on their network.
I do agree that what has happened to Napster is a damn shame. But it was inevitable. We all have to realize that justice IS being served. However, the RIAA should be attacking this issue from a different standpoint. They should never have tried to shut napster down, they should not have tried to block the exchange of music over the internet. Instead, they should have embraced the new technology and used it to their advantage!
The record industry could use the new technologies created by Napster to further their distribution techniques. Statistics have
proven that the free exchange of music has led to an increase in CD sales. The record industry could use this information to gather marketing information about the consumers who are actually BUYING the music, (instead of the ones PUSHING it (MTV)).
By ignoring what the consumers habits are, the RIAA is missing out on a golden opportunity to INCREASE their sales.
"Mozilla development is paid for by Netscape+AOL+Time/Warner"
No, it's not. Mozilla is developed by the open source community. None of these people are paid.
Netscape is RELEASED by AOL/Time-Warner, so that functionality may be taken out of the Netscape browser, but AOL/Time-Warner has no control over Mozilla development.
"The real power in advertising comes in building the brand in viewers' subconscious minds. "
I agree. You don't get to click on TV ads, do you? No, they work by building brand awareness in the viewer's mind. Not by giving the viewer a chance to go directly to the store by accessing the ad.
I understand how the writer feels about advocacy. It does cause tensions between the users/developers of different programming languages. But I have an interesting point to make:
Sometimes people put down a language or consider it to be not good enough for use when they don't know what they're talking about. They will say things such as "JavaBeans can do this, and perl can't..." or something very similar but equally as silly. For example, I had a technician at a top-rated e-commerce applications software company send me an email with the following line just a week ago:
"You might have enough RAM. It's the Perl Module. Perl is used for text modification only. However, -APPLICATION- uses Perl for file transfer in the -WIZARD- and your files might be too large for Perl Module to handle. Thus, you'll have to manually copy those files; increasing RAM is not the solution."
If the author of this message had known anything about which they were speaking, they wouldn't have 1) said that perl was for "text modification only" (although it does it well), and 2) they would have realized that there are many ways to handle large file transfers with perl, without reading the entire file into RAM and then sending it over the network.
So my point is that while advocacy may be a negative issue, sometimes people have to stand up for a certain language because ill-minded, uneducated fools are circulating false information about the language that would prove hurtful to the userbase. And these views become popular especially in light of marketing a proprietary language such as VB and ASP in order to sell more of a product (VB and IIS). These marketing schemes sometimes hurt developers that are already established in a career because the language they program in becomes unpopular in the eyes of management (who are the worst people to chose a language), and they may lose their job if they cannot quickly expand their skill sets.
Bottom line is: advocacy is an evil, but it just may be a necessary evil.
I understand how the writer feels about advocasy. It does cause tensions between the users/developers of different programming languages. But I have an interesting point to make:
Sometimes people put down a language or consider it to be not good enough for use when they don't know what they're talking about. They will say things such as "JavaBeans can do this, and perl can't..." or something very similar but equally as silly. For example, I had a technician at a top-rated e-commerce applications software company send me an email with the following line just a week ago:
"You might have enough RAM. It's the Perl Module. Perl is used for text modification only. However, uses Perl for files transfer in the and your files might be too large for Perl Module to handle. Thus, you'll have to manually copy those files; increasing RAM is not the solution."
If the author of this message had known anything about which they were speaking, they wouldn't have 1) said that perl was for "text modification only" (although it does it well), and 2) they would have realized that there are many ways to handle large file transfers with perl, without reading the entire file into RAM and then sending it over the network.
So my point is that while advocasy may be a negative issue, sometimes people have to stand up for a certain language because ill-minded, uneducated fools are circulating false information about the language that would prove hurtful to the userbase. And these views become popular especially in light of marketing a proprietary language such as VB and ASP in order to sell more of a product (VB and IIS). These marketing schemes sometimes hurt developers that are already established in a career because the language they program in becomes unpopular in the eyes of management (who are the worst people to chose a language), and they may lose their job if they cannot quickly expand their skill sets.
Bottom line is: advocasy is an evil, but it just may be a necessary evil.
This is an outrage! On an issue so new and unique, the fact that this decision can be made by one person when there are MILLIONS of people supportng either side of the issue is just a damn shame! This isn't such a cut-and-dry issue that can be decided so easily. What does this say of our nation? This issue was uncharted territory in the legal world, and one person got to decide based on THEIR WHIM, not based on the outcome of a collective thought process and representation of the people this issue really affects. It goes against everything our legal system was built for. Yeah, maybe napster's days were numbered, as we all know. That's not what bugs me. Who cares if napster is gone? better throughput on the major backbones now. But this represents what is wrong and corrupt with the US legal system. -Mike King
How do you feel that improvements in encryption will affect the way the internet develops? Do you feel that stronger encryption will help the public embrace electronic commerce and online transactions? Do you feel it will help small businesses and large corporations alike form tighter extranets to allow strategic business partners to more efficiently manage their transactions in real-time?
> After all the yammering and paranoia here, I was > unable to pick out any meaningful point. Tell > me: > > Is breaking into my computer bad or not?
bad.
> Is breaking into my computer illegal or not?
yes, illegal.
> Should children be encouraged to respect my > privacy, my property and the law, or not?
The point of the article is that the DOJ is preaching about privacy, when they infact don't let us have any. Why do you think 256 bit encryption is not available? Because the DOJ can't hack it. Therefore they don't want us to have it, because they don't want us to have any privacy. They're teaching children that it's not okay to hack into a computer and "have a look around", when the DOJ themselves, in fact, do just that to us.
You don't think it's okay for the government to be spying on us, do you? Even as a type this, I bet there's a government agency out there with a computer that is reading this article and analyzing it for "hot" words, such as: hacking, terrorism, bomb, gun, kill, illegal, etc...
So the point is, the government is full of hypocrisy. They tell children that srying is bad. They tell children that breaking into computers is bad. But they turn around and do it themselves.
They even took the blindfold off lady justice, insinuating that justice is no longer blind.
Slashdot Mirror
These laws are not only scary, they are crazy.
And crazy laws won't hold up very long. The web is not a US controlled and distributed medium. When you create a website, you're not publishing and distributing it specifically for the US.
In addition, the government hasn't made these kinds of regulations for all other types of media, why do it for the internet? What about newspapers, TV, magazines, instruction manuals for the products you buy, vending machines, price tags in stores, radio, etc etc etc
This kind of thing can't be regulated in a rational manner, therefore these laws will never hold water.
They're not stealing from the users! They're stealing from miscellaneous affiliates who have not give ANYONE the right to take their commisions. The P2P software user doesn't have the right to give these companies permission to steal from affiliates!
I really hope this stops a lot of people from using these P2P networks, and causes the government to shut them down. There was a point when Napster could claim that it was the end-user breaking the law by downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material. Now it's the P2P software companies that are commiting fraud and outrightly STEALING! If the government was able to shut down Napster for simply providing a means to an end, then the government should absolutely have the power to shut down these P2P software vendors for outrightly DEFRAUDING and STEALING from millions of innocent people!
Sales are down for many reasons, including the use of illegal file sharing, but the RIAA are missing the number one reason music sales are down:
The past year has been a horrible year for newly released music!! The current state of mainstream music SUCKS. We all know it. Talk to any of your friends. Ask them when the last time a good band became mainstream was. Record sales are suffering because the record companies are marketing the wrong stuff, NOT because people are stealing music.
You missed the entire concept. What you're talking about is parasitic computing. Leech computing does not install ANY software to the client. It simply sends the data, mixed with other data, which is operated on unknowingly to the user, and sent back, unknowingly to the user, to the intended destination.
---- Sure this kid might've been stupid and actually *done* something illegal - but just think of the precendent this sets. This sends the message to anybody who is vocal about disagreeing with US policy: "We will crack down on you HARD". This obviously has a "chilling effect". ----
.. HARD" because he BROKE THE LAW. It had NOTHING to do with his opinion. He violated federal law, broke into computers he did not own and attempted to use those hacked computers to hack yet more computers. He posted bomb-building material on his website.
You missed the point. The kid was "crack[ed] down on
The Feds showed up at his door because he is percieved as a dangerous criminal. He is a criminal and will go to jail.
Fiber lines can get very dirty without functionality being affected. You just can't bend 'em.
I don't see what would need to be converted. A tube is a tube. There may need to be new connectors, quite a few changes in the way they are interconnected, but the premise remains the same. The advantage to using these tubes isn't in the tube design at all. It's in the fact that THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. Thus, we don't have to dig up big cities to lay them down. (trust me, it's turning traffic in Philly to shit) So they go down and find the tubes, take a month or so to map them out, then make some plans as to how to use them/change them, etc. Then they make their modifications, and install the cable.
The fact remains that digging up streets will take more time, cost more money, and make more of a mess.
That's a good question. But I'm thinking that if they know the tubes are there, they can find the tubes. And They may need to dig up a street or two or re-route subway traffic for a day or so to find them, but it's still better than digging up the whole damn city.
"Open is a good thing. Telephone companies are still able to gain profits, while having open standards for communicating with one another."
That's because every user pays their telephone company! No one pays for AIM or most other IM clients out there. So it's not a valid comparison. Do you want to start paying your IM company?
So why doesn't the open source community create an open IM protocol? If they do so, they run the risk of creating a protocol that other open source efforts would write clients for, and in the end, AOL would at least make AIM compatible with the open protocol?
Why do we want AOL's protocol anyway?
With regards to this statement:
"As a fourth matter, current law permits a computer user to make backup copies of software, so that the program can be restored in the event of a hard disk crash. But current law does not prevent an archival copy to be made with data that is associated with that program. A change in the law would be required to allow the back up copy of data associated with the program to made. Often times the data is the most valuable component, and a complete back up by a prudent person would encompass the data as well as the software. In fact, it might encompass the data in lieu of the software. That is the more typical example."
This should be expanded, in my opinion, to include MANY generations of backups of that data, NOT a SINGLE COPY. I, for one, backup all critical and personal data that is on my hard drive on a weekly basis, and those weekly backups are archived. I keep four generations of these weekly backups (one for each week in the month), and a PERMANENT monthly backup for each month. Am I breaking the law?
I'd have to say that the Oregon Trail is a non-zero sum game. You don't necessarily "win" or "lose", you just "survive". You survive by managing your resources, and trading intelligently to get those resources. You're not trying to beat anyone, and your only goal is to get to your destination alive.
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
That's because people don't understand the difference between a kernel and a distribution. He's probably running RedHat 7.1 or some other distro of that version number. So your MCSE friend may be right in what he said, he's just confusing terms.
Letters like this should not be forwarded to industry insiders, they'll be ignored. Instead, letters like this should be forwarded to representatives and senators, who MAY actually take the time to read them. If the reps start seeing enough of these types of complaints from the public, they may start doing something about it.
I have forwarded many letters onto my state representative, John M. Perzel of Philadelphia County, PA. I am on a first name basis with Mr. Perzel, and I know that many of the issues I have pettitioned him with have made it to the state capitol. Once in the capitol, these issues have audience with more important power figures, who may take them on to congress, or at least the senate.
So my point is, /. is an amazing forum in that we are able to expose the hidden ugliness of the world around us. If we could start shoving this content down the throats of our elected officials, it might actually make some difference.
I hereby resolve to start forwarding more of these types of letters and articles onto my elected representatives. If anyone can make a difference, it is most certainly them.
the term "reverse discrimination" implys that discrimination only means whites discriminating towards blacks. This is not true. Whites discriminating towards blacks is discrimination. Blacks discriminating towards whites is discrimination. There is no "reverse". You discriminate or you don't. It doesn't matter who's doing it, or who it's toward, it's discrimination.
Why don't I start a company that will produce these products without the censorship devices? It would instantaneously put all other censorship-friendly companies out of business. Think about it: you walk into the store. You see your Sony, Magnavox, and RCA TVs on the shelf, and right next to it: MyBrand. You have a choice: buy one of the TVs that will not allow you to record many things, or buy the unrestricted TV.
What do you do?
There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". You either discriminate or you don't. It does not matter who you're discriminating against, if you're doing it, it's discriminating.
For you to even say the phrase "reverse discrimination", you're discriminating yourself. You're implying that discrimination only works for whites towards blacks, which is in itself, a racial bias.
Whites discriminating against blacks is equal to blacks discriminating against whites. Terms like "reverse discrimination" imply that one is worse than the other, which is biased.
Napster has not broken any law, this is true. However, they have harbored criminals who ARE stealing copyrighted material. This means that they must work with law enforcement firms to stop the criminal activities taking place on their network.
I do agree that what has happened to Napster is a damn shame. But it was inevitable. We all have to realize that justice IS being served. However, the RIAA should be attacking this issue from a different standpoint. They should never have tried to shut napster down, they should not have tried to block the exchange of music over the internet. Instead, they should have embraced the new technology and used it to their advantage!
The record industry could use the new technologies created by Napster to further their distribution techniques. Statistics have
proven that the free exchange of music has led to an increase in CD sales. The record industry could use this information to gather marketing information about the consumers who are actually BUYING the music, (instead of the ones PUSHING it (MTV)).
By ignoring what the consumers habits are, the RIAA is missing out on a golden opportunity to INCREASE their sales.
No, it's not. Mozilla is developed by the open source community. None of these people are paid.
Netscape is RELEASED by AOL/Time-Warner, so that functionality may be taken out of the Netscape browser, but AOL/Time-Warner has no control over Mozilla development.
I agree. You don't get to click on TV ads, do you? No, they work by building brand awareness in the viewer's mind. Not by giving the viewer a chance to go directly to the store by accessing the ad.
Sometimes people put down a language or consider it to be not good enough for use when they don't know what they're talking about. They will say things such as "JavaBeans can do this, and perl can't..." or something very similar but equally as silly. For example, I had a technician at a top-rated e-commerce applications software company send me an email with the following line just a week ago:
"You might have enough RAM. It's the Perl Module. Perl is used for text modification only. However, -APPLICATION- uses Perl for file transfer in the -WIZARD- and your files might be too large for Perl Module to handle. Thus, you'll have to manually copy those files; increasing RAM is not the solution."
If the author of this message had known anything about which they were speaking, they wouldn't have 1) said that perl was for "text modification only" (although it does it well), and 2) they would have realized that there are many ways to handle large file transfers with perl, without reading the entire file into RAM and then sending it over the network.
So my point is that while advocacy may be a negative issue, sometimes people have to stand up for a certain language because ill-minded, uneducated fools are circulating false information about the language that would prove hurtful to the userbase. And these views become popular especially in light of marketing a proprietary language such as VB and ASP in order to sell more of a product (VB and IIS). These marketing schemes sometimes hurt developers that are already established in a career because the language they program in becomes unpopular in the eyes of management (who are the worst people to chose a language), and they may lose their job if they cannot quickly expand their skill sets.
Bottom line is: advocacy is an evil, but it just may be a necessary evil.
Sometimes people put down a language or consider it to be not good enough for use when they don't know what they're talking about. They will say things such as "JavaBeans can do this, and perl can't..." or something very similar but equally as silly. For example, I had a technician at a top-rated e-commerce applications software company send me an email with the following line just a week ago:
"You might have enough RAM. It's the Perl Module. Perl is used for text modification only. However, uses Perl for files transfer in the and your files might be too large for Perl Module to handle. Thus, you'll have to manually copy those files; increasing RAM is not the solution."
If the author of this message had known anything about which they were speaking, they wouldn't have 1) said that perl was for "text modification only" (although it does it well), and 2) they would have realized that there are many ways to handle large file transfers with perl, without reading the entire file into RAM and then sending it over the network.
So my point is that while advocasy may be a negative issue, sometimes people have to stand up for a certain language because ill-minded, uneducated fools are circulating false information about the language that would prove hurtful to the userbase. And these views become popular especially in light of marketing a proprietary language such as VB and ASP in order to sell more of a product (VB and IIS). These marketing schemes sometimes hurt developers that are already established in a career because the language they program in becomes unpopular in the eyes of management (who are the worst people to chose a language), and they may lose their job if they cannot quickly expand their skill sets. Bottom line is: advocasy is an evil, but it just may be a necessary evil.
This is an outrage! On an issue so new and unique, the fact that this decision can be made by one person when there are MILLIONS of people supportng either side of the issue is just a damn shame! This isn't such a cut-and-dry issue that can be decided so easily. What does this say of our nation? This issue was uncharted territory in the legal world, and one person got to decide based on THEIR WHIM, not based on the outcome of a collective thought process and representation of the people this issue really affects. It goes against everything our legal system was built for. Yeah, maybe napster's days were numbered, as we all know. That's not what bugs me. Who cares if napster is gone? better throughput on the major backbones now. But this represents what is wrong and corrupt with the US legal system. -Mike King
How do you feel that improvements in encryption will affect the way the internet develops? Do you feel that stronger encryption will help the public embrace electronic commerce and online transactions? Do you feel it will help small businesses and large corporations alike form tighter extranets to allow strategic business partners to more efficiently manage their transactions in real-time?
> After all the yammering and paranoia here, I was
> unable to pick out any meaningful point. Tell
> me:
>
> Is breaking into my computer bad or not?
bad.
> Is breaking into my computer illegal or not?
yes, illegal.
> Should children be encouraged to respect my
> privacy, my property and the law, or not?
The point of the article is that the DOJ is preaching about privacy, when they infact don't let us have any. Why do you think 256 bit encryption is not available? Because the DOJ can't hack it. Therefore they don't want us to have it, because they don't want us to have any privacy. They're teaching children that it's not okay to hack into a computer and "have a look around", when the DOJ themselves, in fact, do just that to us.
You don't think it's okay for the government to be spying on us, do you? Even as a type this, I bet there's a government agency out there with a computer that is reading this article and analyzing it for "hot" words, such as: hacking, terrorism, bomb, gun, kill, illegal, etc...
So the point is, the government is full of hypocrisy. They tell children that srying is bad. They tell children that breaking into computers is bad. But they turn around and do it themselves.
They even took the blindfold off lady justice, insinuating that justice is no longer blind.
-Mike King