My, aren't you the naive person. The government does not have the capability or the resources to selectively collect information and it actually uses the shot gun approach to collect it and then all of the collected information is sifted through filters that finds stuff they are looking for and some they are not looking for. The data is all saved though, you can bet on that be it on servers or some similar media that leaves it all retrievable. They also have any number of people reviewing this information the useful and not useful. What they do not want to filter for today will likely be what they want to filter for tomorrow.
You seem to think we should trust the same incompetance that could not weed out the terrorists plans in 2001 to safe guard and not abuse the information they have collected since. I have yet to find one shred of evidence that I should trust them with the volume of information that they collect.
Crap, using your line of logic selling a computer keyboard or a mouse or for that matter an operating system is enabling. Where does that stop? Perhaps even the links in this blog could come under fire for providing information that aids and abets ooooops that already happened didn't it something about encryption code or something? Lets see if someone owns and automobile and someone else steals it and kills someone while driving it, is the owner liable because they bought the car, I don't think so.
Was this written by Carlos Linares or Carlos Linares Jr.? It is typed for Carlos Linares, but signed by Carlos Linares Jr.
Mr. Carlos Linares states he has personal knowledge of the facts in his statement. He has pretty extensive personal knowledge, it should be tested to the fullest.
It is not clear how he could have personal knowledge of the following:
Paragraph 6, last sentence "At any given moment millions of people illegally........." What personal knowledge does he have to support the claim of "millions"? Did he count them all?
In paragraph 12 he asserts users of P2P networks can be identified by their IP address. What is his personal knowledge of this? Has he personally identified them? What personal knowledge does he have of this?
Does he have personal knowledge of the methods used by MediaSentry in identifying these particular IP addresses? How did he acquire this personal knowledge? He does not establish the methods actually used and relies on generalizations.
The analogy of a telephone number to describe the system is accurate on the surface, but still if carried to its end, does not identify a person that owns or controls the phone, and ignores things such as pay phones. How about phone numbers that only go to automated voice answering machines or a switchboard and extensions?
In paragraph 15 is his review the "human review" he refers to? If not, then what is the personal knowledge that the reviewers have that he does not have that he would have every one believe that he does have? He says he provides oversight of the review process, which puts his claim of personal knowledge into question, I say!
He states the RIAA listens to the down loaded media files, but does not say they listened to the files listed in Exhibit A. Did they?
In paragraph 18 he says RIAA down loaded and listened to the music? Was this specifically authorized or was this one more illegal download?
I can also assure you this Washington tax payer does not support the University spending one penny to aid RIAA in there activities. I do not condone the actual illegal violation of copy right law, but that should be settled in the courts, not as harassment abatement. I just wonder what the legal liabilities the University assumes by wrongful identification of individuals? They are going to forward those letters to the correct individuals, right? They will be able to identify specific individuals, and not just computer owners or will they even be able to accurately do that?
Let see, you can't take booze to drink, but the airline can sell liquor, you can't use your own cell phone, but the air lines can provide cell phone service for a fee. Does this seem consistant with a profit motive? Seems most if not all airlines claim to loose money every year, but it goes on and on and on, and finally bankruptsy takes over. They never seem to loose the last dime though, magical accounting practices I expect.
Given the vast amount of tax money that goes into conducting "fair and accurate" elections all over the country it is not unreasonable for a voter to expect the voting machines, mechanical or electronic to do what they are supposed to do. If I am not mistaken, voting is supposed to be a private (secret) matter. Whats this bullshit that you have to have some election official calibrate the machine periodically? Seems touch screen technology has been around a sufficiently long time that this kind of crap should be old news, not todays excuse for a faulty piece of equiptment. If periodic realignment were an expected necessity, then why doesn't the equipment stop until that occurs instead of allowing false positive voting to occur? It appears there is misplaced confidence in poor equipment if they fail that easily. I wonder if you would be so cavalier if it were your vote that was being screwed with? I suspect not, and I can only guess that someone that would defend such mediocrity would be someone that makes their living off of it.
I agree, Warner Brothers is the culprit. They are only trying to protect their image by hiding behind RIAA. When the individual companies start getting credit for the heinous behavior of RIAA on their behalf, perhaps there will be some changes. This blog shouldn't be about what villians RIAA is, but what a villian Warner Brothers is or is not. Credit where credit is due, I say.
Slashdot Mirror
My, aren't you the naive person. The government does not have the capability or the resources to selectively collect information and it actually uses the shot gun approach to collect it and then all of the collected information is sifted through filters that finds stuff they are looking for and some they are not looking for. The data is all saved though, you can bet on that be it on servers or some similar media that leaves it all retrievable. They also have any number of people reviewing this information the useful and not useful. What they do not want to filter for today will likely be what they want to filter for tomorrow. You seem to think we should trust the same incompetance that could not weed out the terrorists plans in 2001 to safe guard and not abuse the information they have collected since. I have yet to find one shred of evidence that I should trust them with the volume of information that they collect.
Crap, using your line of logic selling a computer keyboard or a mouse or for that matter an operating system is enabling. Where does that stop? Perhaps even the links in this blog could come under fire for providing information that aids and abets ooooops that already happened didn't it something about encryption code or something? Lets see if someone owns and automobile and someone else steals it and kills someone while driving it, is the owner liable because they bought the car, I don't think so.
Was this written by Carlos Linares or Carlos Linares Jr.? It is typed for Carlos Linares, but signed by Carlos Linares Jr. Mr. Carlos Linares states he has personal knowledge of the facts in his statement. He has pretty extensive personal knowledge, it should be tested to the fullest. It is not clear how he could have personal knowledge of the following: Paragraph 6, last sentence "At any given moment millions of people illegally........." What personal knowledge does he have to support the claim of "millions"? Did he count them all? In paragraph 12 he asserts users of P2P networks can be identified by their IP address. What is his personal knowledge of this? Has he personally identified them? What personal knowledge does he have of this? Does he have personal knowledge of the methods used by MediaSentry in identifying these particular IP addresses? How did he acquire this personal knowledge? He does not establish the methods actually used and relies on generalizations. The analogy of a telephone number to describe the system is accurate on the surface, but still if carried to its end, does not identify a person that owns or controls the phone, and ignores things such as pay phones. How about phone numbers that only go to automated voice answering machines or a switchboard and extensions? In paragraph 15 is his review the "human review" he refers to? If not, then what is the personal knowledge that the reviewers have that he does not have that he would have every one believe that he does have? He says he provides oversight of the review process, which puts his claim of personal knowledge into question, I say! He states the RIAA listens to the down loaded media files, but does not say they listened to the files listed in Exhibit A. Did they? In paragraph 18 he says RIAA down loaded and listened to the music? Was this specifically authorized or was this one more illegal download?
I can also assure you this Washington tax payer does not support the University spending one penny to aid RIAA in there activities. I do not condone the actual illegal violation of copy right law, but that should be settled in the courts, not as harassment abatement. I just wonder what the legal liabilities the University assumes by wrongful identification of individuals? They are going to forward those letters to the correct individuals, right? They will be able to identify specific individuals, and not just computer owners or will they even be able to accurately do that?
Score: Technology - 1 Human Race - 0 Why would anyone want anything this complex to start with?
Excellent point, and just what do you do with 12,000,000 illegal aliens, assuming you can find them in the first place?
Let see, you can't take booze to drink, but the airline can sell liquor, you can't use your own cell phone, but the air lines can provide cell phone service for a fee. Does this seem consistant with a profit motive? Seems most if not all airlines claim to loose money every year, but it goes on and on and on, and finally bankruptsy takes over. They never seem to loose the last dime though, magical accounting practices I expect.
Given the vast amount of tax money that goes into conducting "fair and accurate" elections all over the country it is not unreasonable for a voter to expect the voting machines, mechanical or electronic to do what they are supposed to do. If I am not mistaken, voting is supposed to be a private (secret) matter. Whats this bullshit that you have to have some election official calibrate the machine periodically? Seems touch screen technology has been around a sufficiently long time that this kind of crap should be old news, not todays excuse for a faulty piece of equiptment. If periodic realignment were an expected necessity, then why doesn't the equipment stop until that occurs instead of allowing false positive voting to occur? It appears there is misplaced confidence in poor equipment if they fail that easily. I wonder if you would be so cavalier if it were your vote that was being screwed with? I suspect not, and I can only guess that someone that would defend such mediocrity would be someone that makes their living off of it.
I agree, Warner Brothers is the culprit. They are only trying to protect their image by hiding behind RIAA. When the individual companies start getting credit for the heinous behavior of RIAA on their behalf, perhaps there will be some changes. This blog shouldn't be about what villians RIAA is, but what a villian Warner Brothers is or is not. Credit where credit is due, I say.