Maybe we should agree on a dress code. Roman Colosseum, or French Revolution? If half the crowd is in togas and the other half are knitting, we'll just look silly.
The same line caught my eye. If tracking and reporting the infringement costs an amount comparable to (alleged) cost of the infringement itself, and isn't reducing the rate of such (alleged) infringement, then why track it and report it at all?
To put it another way:
"Why are you tracking and reporting this?" "Because it's costing us money!"
"How is it costing you money?" "Look at how much we have to spend, tracking and reporting it!"
When am I going to learn not to discuss health care on the internet?
No, I wasn't suggesting we do away with regulations like the one that requires medical licenses. And yes, as I said, the high cost of education is part of the problem. (And note that when you start a question with "don't you think...", it suggests to me that you're not really interested in the answer.)
2) No, I wasn't suggesting that we do away with liability litigation. Any maybe market forces can do a better job, we should certainly consider it.
Also, it would be great if juries were more aware of the consequences of huge awards. And before you ask, no, I'm not suggesting that we do away with juries.
I disagree with your first point. After all, it could apply just as well -- or better -- to food. And if the doctor wants everything I own to set my broken leg, I'll ask a friend to splint it. If I had heart disease and would surely die without a procedure that would cost me my entire fortune, I'd seriously consider just leaving it all to my heirs instead.
I agree with your second point, and I'll add a third: regulation. There is a law against practicing medicine without a license, you can't get a license without a degree, and a degree costs six figures (and your youth, and the risk of failure).
Oh, and a fourth: litigation. Medical malpractice has more to do with lawyers' oratory and juries' emotion than any logic, so it's hugely expensive. Therefore so is malpractice insurance, therefore so is any inherently risky practice such as thoracic surgery or obstetrics.
"Surely if we can send a man to the moon, we must be able to tackle porn on the internet."
Spoken like a man who has never built anything in his life. If one group of people performed an amazing technical feat, surely we can prevent all of our citizens from performing a very simple one.
And I have to wonder what Jonasson is actually imagining when he talks about "tackling" porn. A small (albeit attractive) opponent who can be easily wrestled to the ground and made to submit to him? Or a large and powerful foe with big muscles and oiled skin... On second thought, I really don't want to know.
A mere statement to the effect that breaking terms of service doesn't justify felony prosecution would be worthless. It would not have force of law; it would not form a legal defense for the next person so prosecuted.
If the DOJ meant it, they'd fire Ortiz, and maybe move to have her disbarred. She and every other prosecutor are keenly aware that this has not happened, and that pursuing such prosecutions is still -- on average -- a good career move.
I prefer technical solutions to legal ones, but I don't know internet protocols well enough to know if any of the following would be feasible:
Google signs the pages it constructs (and maybe the advertisers do too), a browser plug-in checks the signatures, and if a signature doesn't match the browser pops up a warning: "Cette page a été modifiée en transit". French users can decide whether they want to use an ISP that meddles.
Google encrypts its pages (what's French for "TLS"?).
Google maintains a list of non-neutral ISPs, and throttles them, with notice to the users. (I have mixed feelings about this one, but it has a pleasing symmetry).
I see a new business opportunity. The Cafe doesn't dare offer open WiFi for fear of losing internet access. But the Cafe can make a deal with a third party to offer it. The third party is a company that exists only to do so, and if it gets banished from the internet, its CEO (and only employee) dissolves the company with a few keystrokes, transfers ownership of the hardware to one of the other companies waiting on the shelf, opens a new ISP account and is right back in business. (With redundant hardware, the operator might be able to avoid downtime entirely.) Such companies might be burdensome for the ISPs; the dumb ISPs will refuse to deal with them, the smart ISPs will accept them as customers (and maybe try to charge them extra).
Next step: the gatekeepers go after the smart ISPs and/or the third parties. Then begins an utterly pointless dance, when the ISPs must make gestures of looking for things they don't want to find (Nelson's telescope, anyone?) and a new ecology of not-illegal-but-not-safe business springs up.
Net effect: extra work is done at a net loss to society, the law is degraded, freedom is associated with criminality, open WiFi is harder to find and the coffee costs more.
Why have such a database at all? Why should the government gather it in the first place?
The same new technology that makes the existence of these records so awkward also makes them unnecessary. Decades ago it made sense for permits to exist as a sheaf of papers in a file cabinet at police headquarters (when gun permits existed at all-- they are a recent invention and I'm not convinced that they've proved worthwhile). But now a little asymmetric encryption could give us unforgeable permits that citizens could hold. The authorities would have no need to keep a database (although they will always have a desire to gather all the information they possibly can about citizens, because, well, security, or whatever).
The same goes for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, medical records, all kinds of things.
And let's not forget: it's not just the government that wants to know your secrets, some of your neighbors want to know them too. Just as it's our duty to uphold freedom of speech we don't like, it's our duty to respect the privacy of people who are into things we're not.
Mr. Dolan stopped short of saying "I'd be willing to go to prison for 6 months for nothing." I'd very much like to ask him --in a public forum-- whether he would object to such an arrangement for one of his children.
On the post: Judge Wright Orders Second Prenda Hearing, Tells Everyone They Better Actually Show Up This Time
Re: Shame on Judge Wright
On the post: Next Ridiculous Idea To Stifle Online Speech: Irish Senator Says You Should Have To Pay To Post Online
Re: Internet++
Give them some paper, crayons and string and they'll be happy all afternoon.
On the post: Next Ridiculous Idea To Stifle Online Speech: Irish Senator Says You Should Have To Pay To Post Online
rythm, shmythm
losing count of syllables
it looked so easy
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Hire Better Shills
Re:
To put it another way:
"Why are you tracking and reporting this?"
"Because it's costing us money!"
"How is it costing you money?"
"Look at how much we have to spend, tracking and reporting it!"
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Re: Re: Re:
No, I wasn't suggesting we do away with regulations like the one that requires medical licenses. And yes, as I said, the high cost of education is part of the problem. (And note that when you start a question with "don't you think...", it suggests to me that you're not really interested in the answer.)
2) No, I wasn't suggesting that we do away with liability litigation. Any maybe market forces can do a better job, we should certainly consider it.
Also, it would be great if juries were more aware of the consequences of huge awards. And before you ask, no, I'm not suggesting that we do away with juries.
On the post: Prison Sponsor Tries To Delete Wikipedia Information After Sponsoring NCAA Football Stadium
laws of economics
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Re:
I agree with your second point, and I'll add a third: regulation. There is a law against practicing medicine without a license, you can't get a license without a degree, and a degree costs six figures (and your youth, and the risk of failure).
Oh, and a fourth: litigation. Medical malpractice has more to do with lawyers' oratory and juries' emotion than any logic, so it's hugely expensive. Therefore so is malpractice insurance, therefore so is any inherently risky practice such as thoracic surgery or obstetrics.
On the post: DailyDirt: Non-human Intelligence
we do it the hard way
On the post: Iceland: Going From Protecting Free Speech Online... To Setting Up Their Own Great Firewall?
Re:
On the post: Iceland: Going From Protecting Free Speech Online... To Setting Up Their Own Great Firewall?
call me Apollo
Spoken like a man who has never built anything in his life. If one group of people performed an amazing technical feat, surely we can prevent all of our citizens from performing a very simple one.
And I have to wonder what Jonasson is actually imagining when he talks about "tackling" porn. A small (albeit attractive) opponent who can be easily wrestled to the ground and made to submit to him? Or a large and powerful foe with big muscles and oiled skin... On second thought, I really don't want to know.
On the post: Congress Apparently Uninterested In 'Aaron's Law' To Reform CFAA
On the post: Congress Apparently Uninterested In 'Aaron's Law' To Reform CFAA
lawyers know when words are empty
If the DOJ meant it, they'd fire Ortiz, and maybe move to have her disbarred. She and every other prosecutor are keenly aware that this has not happened, and that pursuing such prosecutions is still -- on average -- a good career move.
On the post: US And Europe Move On To TAFTA: Yet Another Chance To Push Through ACTA/SOPA Style IP Maximalism
motivation
A related question: How many of the backers of ACTA/SOPA did we actually vote out of office?
On the post: 10 Years Later: Antigua May Finally (Really) Set Up Official 'Pirate' Site To Get Back What US Owes In Sanctions
Re:
They don't. So the casinos only had to buy a few.
On the post: France, Cradle Of 'Three Strikes' Punishment, Explores Another Bad Idea: Killing Net Neutrality
free market solutions
Google signs the pages it constructs (and maybe the advertisers do too), a browser plug-in checks the signatures, and if a signature doesn't match the browser pops up a warning: "Cette page a été modifiée en transit". French users can decide whether they want to use an ISP that meddles.
Google encrypts its pages (what's French for "TLS"?).
Google maintains a list of non-neutral ISPs, and throttles them, with notice to the users. (I have mixed feelings about this one, but it has a pleasing symmetry).
On the post: Six Strikes Administrator: Loss Of Open WiFi Access At Cafes Is Acceptable Collateral Damage
adaptor plug
Next step: the gatekeepers go after the smart ISPs and/or the third parties. Then begins an utterly pointless dance, when the ISPs must make gestures of looking for things they don't want to find (Nelson's telescope, anyone?) and a new ecology of not-illegal-but-not-safe business springs up.
Net effect: extra work is done at a net loss to society, the law is degraded, freedom is associated with criminality, open WiFi is harder to find and the coffee costs more.
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Re:
What do you (sorry, the public) plan to do with a list of these people?
I mean, other than come for them one day, house by house, street by street.
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Re:
I like this idea.
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
the best way to keep a secret is not to know it
The same new technology that makes the existence of these records so awkward also makes them unnecessary. Decades ago it made sense for permits to exist as a sheaf of papers in a file cabinet at police headquarters (when gun permits existed at all-- they are a recent invention and I'm not convinced that they've proved worthwhile). But now a little asymmetric encryption could give us unforgeable permits that citizens could hold. The authorities would have no need to keep a database (although they will always have a desire to gather all the information they possibly can about citizens, because, well, security, or whatever).
The same goes for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, medical records, all kinds of things.
And let's not forget: it's not just the government that wants to know your secrets, some of your neighbors want to know them too. Just as it's our duty to uphold freedom of speech we don't like, it's our duty to respect the privacy of people who are into things we're not.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
laws for thee
Next >>