a) it's conspiracy, not aiding and abetting- he is the hacking equivalent of someone who hires a hitman to commit a crime.
Who cares if it's "conspiracy"? Conspiracy is generally just a charge that gets tacked on every time a crime involves two or more people talking. I could "conspire" with my friend to jaywalk and that wouldn't make it a federal crime.
b) he wanted them to "go fuck some shit up"- sounds more like he wanted them to do more damage and they refused to me.
Maybe. I still don't see what makes it a federal crime, other than "computers!"
c) it's punished severely because when the law was drafted, hacking was generally only done to cause severe damage.
Does the law need to be updated? probably. it doesn't necessarily make it ridiculous.
I don't think we're in disagreement here about anything other than the appropriateness of the term "ridiculous". I consider an old and obsolete law badly in need of an update that is still enforced despite not making much sense in a case like this to be exactly that.
1) "Reuters Editor" is how a huge amount of the coverage of this story has introduced Keys. It's not uncommon to describe a person by their profession, which you'd know if you had one.
2) I agree that it's a questionable conflation, but it's how the law is written -- and it also does make some amount of sense. Many major hacks in the past have been more about social engineering and found passwords than about any sort of technological measure. More specific definitions of unauthorized access would be good, though.
3) "Elitist dodge which results in skating" -- what?
4) "whole argument in last para is "soft on crime"" -- this isn't a political race, blue, you can't distract everyone with buzz terms like "soft on crime". I think he should face trial and penalties for his crimes -- but I question whether it makes any sense for the FBI to come swooping down on him with a federal indictment.
"assertions that malicious mischief and innovation are indistinguishable." -- that's hilarious. I guess you didn't read the line in the post where I specifically noted that this was a case of malicious mischief and not innovation. Jeeze, now that I realize you didn't read the post, I wish I hadn't wasted time reading your comment...
Ah, excellent point. The page in question is focused more on fair use than fair dealing, so I suppose that's why that point is there -- since licensed alternatives are a factor in a fair use analysis
Cracked has a great list of studies showing how the words available in your language can fundamentally change your thought processes and what kinds of mental tasks you are good at:
Well, there have long been (fairly certain) rumours that google has made cash offers for blanket licenses on all the content from the labels... that makes sense, but buying the labels wouldn't.
Think about it: buying the labels would mean taking over all their contracts with artists—a sprawling byzantine labyrinth of varying legal clauses dating back to the 60s and earlier, all obliquely written and regulating different forms of distribution and overseas royalties and all sorts of other obsolete details. Then it would be up to Google to figure out how distribute all that content while living up to all those agreements. They don't want to deal with that, nor does anyone else. They'd much rather wait for the labels to get either desperate or sensible enough that they will start sorting out their own mess in exchange for a chunk of cash.
The thing is, they totally could, but I think they would sincerely prefer to not do that. As far as I can tell, Google doesn't want to be in the entertainment business at all, it just wants to be in the search & delivery business. In the long run, everyone including Google stands to benefit a lot more if the entertainment industry remains separate but can be convinced to cooperate and start being realistic about technology.
The problem is that this particular AC seems blind to divergent opinions -- he cannot admit that he disagrees with someone, instead choosing to insist that they haven't answered him.
If you look through, for example, Mike's comment history, you will see that Mike has regularly engaged this AC (he's easy to recognize don't worry) at great length -- obviously without reaching any agreement, which is fine. But this AC has never "agreed to disagree" as you propose, or even acknowledged that he wants a "healthy and informative debate" -- instead he has repeatedly insisted that we are running away from questions or refusing to answer, even in the face of lengthy, detailed answers.
You can even see him use the tactic in this thread. Earlier, he said he "doesn't recall" anyone ever explaining how DNS would break the internet. Now, the next day, he admits that he "read all that a year ago" -- so, quite clearly, he DOES recall the explanations. He disagrees with them, which is fine, but he was incapable of saying that -- instead he had to pretend they don't exist. Then when provided links he repeatedly said "please explain it to me" -- flatly refusing to acknowledge that an explanation had been offered simply because it was one that didn't satisfy him.
Someone seeking a healthy and informative debate would have commented "I recall the arguments for why SOPA would break the internet, and here are the reasons I find them unsatisfactory..."
Remember how you spent all day yesterday going on and on about how something doesn't have to completely delete content in order for you to call it censorship?
Well, something doesn't have to completely stop functioning in every way for us to call it broken. We consider massively reduced performance and huge security problems to be a form of "broken".
Now, as fun as it's been playing dictionary with you this whole time, do you have any actual points to make, or do you just want to keep having massive debates about the appropriateness of single word choices?
Then, dig in to the reasons why all the proposed methods for blocking at the DNS level would open massive security holes, place huge burdens on infrastructure, and create considerable performance problems for the end user:
I'll be happy to read your point-by-point response to all the arguments that Paul Vixie, someone who has more intimate knowledge of DNS than you or me or pretty much anyone else on the planet, makes in the above posts. I will also be happy to read another short and snide dismissal of his posts without providing any reasoning, because I will take that as a concession that you're in over your head on this one.
Better go brush up on your reading skills then give it another go. The links include detailed technical explanations of why the DNS system is not designed to support such a method of blocking, and compromising it would open up all sorts of security holes and potential for abuse by altering the fundamental tree of authority system that makes DNS reliable and secure.
Your summary of what it "basically said" is childishly simplistic and betrays your ignorance on the subject. It's not something that can be explained in "simple terms" because it has to do with a complex technological system which you need to obtain a basic understanding of in order to have this conversation.
Clearly, you're not up for the task. Or you're just scared to acquire any new knowledge about this, lest it actually force you to reconsider your opinions.
Well, at least then you agree that, currently, the DMCA is used as a censorship tool by some. After all, you're not so ignorant as to deny that there have been multiple instances -- not necessarily the majority, but multiple instances -- in which someone's reason for sending a DMCA takedown was not a legitimate copyright concern but rather a desire to suppress expression they didn't like. And surely, thus, you're not so naive as to deny that SOPA-like provisions would allow similar abuse, and will in some cases be abused in that way. Good, now we're getting somewhere.
So, having admitted now that SOPA will be used for censorship in at least some cases, and that a discussion about SOPA as a potential censorship tool is totally reasonable (thank you, it's about time) are you prepared to make your argument for why you think that danger is marginal and/or acceptable?
If you think that constitutes a response to the thorough arguments presented by the architects of the DNS system, then you obviously didn't read them or failed to understand them.
On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers
Re:
Who cares if it's "conspiracy"? Conspiracy is generally just a charge that gets tacked on every time a crime involves two or more people talking. I could "conspire" with my friend to jaywalk and that wouldn't make it a federal crime.
b) he wanted them to "go fuck some shit up"- sounds more like he wanted them to do more damage and they refused to me.
Maybe. I still don't see what makes it a federal crime, other than "computers!"
c) it's punished severely because when the law was drafted, hacking was generally only done to cause severe damage.
Does the law need to be updated? probably. it doesn't necessarily make it ridiculous.
I don't think we're in disagreement here about anything other than the appropriateness of the term "ridiculous". I consider an old and obsolete law badly in need of an update that is still enforced despite not making much sense in a case like this to be exactly that.
On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers
Re: Mis-directed several ways at once.
2) I agree that it's a questionable conflation, but it's how the law is written -- and it also does make some amount of sense. Many major hacks in the past have been more about social engineering and found passwords than about any sort of technological measure. More specific definitions of unauthorized access would be good, though.
3) "Elitist dodge which results in skating" -- what?
4) "whole argument in last para is "soft on crime"" -- this isn't a political race, blue, you can't distract everyone with buzz terms like "soft on crime". I think he should face trial and penalties for his crimes -- but I question whether it makes any sense for the FBI to come swooping down on him with a federal indictment.
"assertions that malicious mischief and innovation are indistinguishable." -- that's hilarious. I guess you didn't read the line in the post where I specifically noted that this was a case of malicious mischief and not innovation. Jeeze, now that I realize you didn't read the post, I wish I hadn't wasted time reading your comment...
On the post: National Post Wants $150 To Quote Articles (Even The Parts It Quoted From Other Articles)
Re:
On the post: National Post Wants $150 To Quote Articles (Even The Parts It Quoted From Other Articles)
Re:
On the post: National Post Wants $150 To Quote Articles (Even The Parts It Quoted From Other Articles)
Re:
On the post: System Used By New Six Strikes CAS, Falsely Identifies Game Mods As NBC TV Shows
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Online Polish Loses Some Of Its Polish
Re: Re:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18823_5-insane-ways-words-can-control-your-mind.html
On the post: North Carolina Newspaper With No Backbone Apologizes For Its Request For Public Records
Re: Stay the fuck away from this one masnick
Someone's is...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: RIAA: Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think about it: buying the labels would mean taking over all their contracts with artists—a sprawling byzantine labyrinth of varying legal clauses dating back to the 60s and earlier, all obliquely written and regulating different forms of distribution and overseas royalties and all sorts of other obsolete details. Then it would be up to Google to figure out how distribute all that content while living up to all those agreements. They don't want to deal with that, nor does anyone else. They'd much rather wait for the labels to get either desperate or sensible enough that they will start sorting out their own mess in exchange for a chunk of cash.
On the post: RIAA: Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet
Re: Re:
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you look through, for example, Mike's comment history, you will see that Mike has regularly engaged this AC (he's easy to recognize don't worry) at great length -- obviously without reaching any agreement, which is fine. But this AC has never "agreed to disagree" as you propose, or even acknowledged that he wants a "healthy and informative debate" -- instead he has repeatedly insisted that we are running away from questions or refusing to answer, even in the face of lengthy, detailed answers.
You can even see him use the tactic in this thread. Earlier, he said he "doesn't recall" anyone ever explaining how DNS would break the internet. Now, the next day, he admits that he "read all that a year ago" -- so, quite clearly, he DOES recall the explanations. He disagrees with them, which is fine, but he was incapable of saying that -- instead he had to pretend they don't exist. Then when provided links he repeatedly said "please explain it to me" -- flatly refusing to acknowledge that an explanation had been offered simply because it was one that didn't satisfy him.
Someone seeking a healthy and informative debate would have commented "I recall the arguments for why SOPA would break the internet, and here are the reasons I find them unsatisfactory..."
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice to have you finally concede a point for once.
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, something doesn't have to completely stop functioning in every way for us to call it broken. We consider massively reduced performance and huge security problems to be a form of "broken".
Now, as fun as it's been playing dictionary with you this whole time, do you have any actual points to make, or do you just want to keep having massive debates about the appropriateness of single word choices?
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121012_dns_policy_is_hop_by_hop_dns_security_is_end_to_ end/
Then, dig in to the reasons why all the proposed methods for blocking at the DNS level would open massive security holes, place huge burdens on infrastructure, and create considerable performance problems for the end user:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120111_refusing_refused_for_sopa_pipa/
I'll be happy to read your point-by-point response to all the arguments that Paul Vixie, someone who has more intimate knowledge of DNS than you or me or pretty much anyone else on the planet, makes in the above posts. I will also be happy to read another short and snide dismissal of his posts without providing any reasoning, because I will take that as a concession that you're in over your head on this one.
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your summary of what it "basically said" is childishly simplistic and betrays your ignorance on the subject. It's not something that can be explained in "simple terms" because it has to do with a complex technological system which you need to obtain a basic understanding of in order to have this conversation.
Clearly, you're not up for the task. Or you're just scared to acquire any new knowledge about this, lest it actually force you to reconsider your opinions.
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Here are several examples from people with more knowledge and credentials than you..."
"I laugh at those examples! Har-har!"
"Um, okay..."
"Please, explain it to me in words a small child could understand!"
...to which I respond: "No, and goodnight."
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, at least then you agree that, currently, the DMCA is used as a censorship tool by some. After all, you're not so ignorant as to deny that there have been multiple instances -- not necessarily the majority, but multiple instances -- in which someone's reason for sending a DMCA takedown was not a legitimate copyright concern but rather a desire to suppress expression they didn't like. And surely, thus, you're not so naive as to deny that SOPA-like provisions would allow similar abuse, and will in some cases be abused in that way. Good, now we're getting somewhere.
So, having admitted now that SOPA will be used for censorship in at least some cases, and that a discussion about SOPA as a potential censorship tool is totally reasonable (thank you, it's about time) are you prepared to make your argument for why you think that danger is marginal and/or acceptable?
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Derek Khanna's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>