it means that you can't just get books from other countries. you have to follow the proper discovery process or something terrible might happen. buying books locally helps fund expeditions to the strange foreign places to find books and it helps fund clinical trials to test the safety of foreign books in american markets.
Go ahead and continue to live in your ignorant world where everything is rainbows and ponies. Meanwhile, I will continue to defend our digital boarders from digital attackers. Wake up people, there are other countries that HATE us and want to destroy us. Why? Because of greed and power. Have none of you ever had history 101? Please, read some books.
calm down dude. that's the same stuff that's always happened, it's just happening now with computers, on the internet. spies have always spied, thieves have always stolen, con artists have always conned, and terrorists have always terrorized. a cybercriminal is just a criminal that has added computers and the internet to his or her modus operandi.
now that everyone uses computers and the internet to do everything, spies, terrorists and criminals are targeting computers and the internet. it's a logical progression.
the point is that this isn't some new shadowy thing that has sprung up from the internet itself. it's just the same groups taking their acts online.
using "cyberwar" to create panic is just orwellian doublespeak to create fear and push for new legislation to further damage our civil liberties.
The problem with publishing is that the contracts are really specific when it comes to edition and format rights... Until recently, eBooks weren't even mentioned in contracts, and this has caused a bit of a tussle between agents and publishers over whether the eBook constitutes a new format, or simply a new edition.
that's all very interesting, but as a reader, it's not my problem.
i am going to read what i want in the format i want and there isn't anything that anyone can do about it.
you, the author/publisher/agent/whatever, can either sell me what i want to buy, or miss out on the sale and/or marketing data when i get it by other means.
all the ethics and morality in the world won't change that fact.
Putting aside revenue generated by increased summonses, I can't imagine the police are thrilled with this additional enforcement burden. And I know that the rest of us are near to revolt.
i'm not so sure about that.
in most states, cops can't pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, and whenever measures like that come up, the privacy types pop up fast to say it's a power grab by law enforcement. the concern is that cops will use the seat belt as an excuse to pull people over and get probable cause to search the car.
if cops can pull you over for talking on the phone, which i would imagine happens *WAY* more than not wearing a seat belt, i would imagine that would be considered a bonus for the police.
PC gaming (in the traditional sense) isn't languishing, it's just not growing as fast as console gaming. there's also a sector of PC gaming that no one in the PC world wants to claim.
the wii brought video games into a whole new sector: the casual gamer, but you know who else brought games to casual players? facebook.
i'll bet if you tally the hours spent on farmville and mafia wars, you'll see a staggeringly large number. add those hours to hardcore games like WOW, counterstrike, and the sims and you have PC gaming population that all 3 console manufacturers can't touch.
until consoles can play facebook games and MMO's in a simple and intuitive manner, PCs will continue to grow as a gaming platform.
also, until consoles can let you do your school work in a simple and intuitive manner, the PC will continue to grow as the dominant work platform.
the console vs. PC debate is like the netbook vs. desktop debate or the mobile phone vs. laptop debate. in all cases you have a market built around an expensive and complicated general use device which is invaded by a cheaper specialty device. naturally, the people who are using the general purpose device for only one function will defect to a cheaper device that is better suited to that function.
that's all the console is: a cheaper version of the PC specifically adapted for games that is easier to use for games.
competition would be better than legislation, but too much has been invested in keeping competition out, so we have no choice but to go the legislation route.
competition is a foregone conclusion. there isn't going to be any, so there *has* to be legislation.
part 2 of your sentence is not true, as freedom of the press (i.e. the mechanical printing press, not an institution) was originally intended to protect publishing in the same manner as speech.
so yes, i have the right to use a 3rd party service to say what i want. in 1776 that party owned a printing press in town, in 2010 that party owns servers on the other side of the country.
Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
you don't get it. you keep approaching this like it's something that can be fixed on the consumer side. that is not the case.
the consumer recourse is simple: keep enjoying the stuff you consume, just stop paying for it.
the pirate recourse is simple too: keep doing what you have been doing for years because there is no way that you can be stopped.
what is not simple is the producer's recourse: you could fix your product, costs, and business model so that unauthorized distribution works in your favor, or you just keep pissing off the people who are giving you money.
the conflict breaks down like this:
pirates get and distribute content without authorization and there is nothing that producers can do to stop it.
content producers want to stop piracy by lashing out at their paying customers.
piracy is completely unaffected by the measures that content producers take.
the measures that content producers encourage producers to become pirates.
that's like trying to win a fist fight by punching yourself in the face. there is a war going on between pirates and producers and the producers are trying to win via self mutilation.
Free speech gives you the right to say what you want, not the right to use 3rd-party services to say what you want... Considering these points, I don't see the courts striking down the DMCA in the scenario you described.
that is the legal question for the courts and scholars: is my website a publication, like a newspaper, with constitutional protection? is my website an extension of my own free speech? is my website bound by the agreements i make with a service provider in order to host it? if so, do those agreements violate my constitutional right to free speech?
the DMCA says it is #3, and that makes sense as long as you do not value free speech. others, myself included, value free speech and therefore disagree.
in the end, it doesn't matter. you can't censor the internet for very long. it will just evolve and make it pointless.
Although not everyone can do it themselves, it's relatively simple to set up an http-server for hosting your content. And finding someone to set up the hardware and software for you is just a phone call away.
in time this will be a moot point. services and technologies like freenet, i2p, and tor hidden services will improve to the point that they easy enough to use that anyone will be able to make use of them and at that point there will be no way to stop free speech, or piracy, or anything else.
that's the problem with laws made by lawmakers that don't understand technology: changing a law is *WAY* harder than changing a technology.
Turbine has committed to introducing new content to the game on a regular schedule - they plan to release 6 new "modules" in 2010 alone!
turbine does this with a lot of it's MMO's. I played Asheron's Call years ago and new content, items, story arcs, and the like came out every month. the same holds for LOTRO.
The scarcity comes at the end of all that coursework... it's called a degree.
amen to that.
colleges are in the degree business, not the course content business. from a career management standpoint, the course content becomes a kind of portfolio for educators and researchers to market their capabilities.
even in the US there are places on military bases, or whole bases, that aren't on maps, even thought he building is visible and there are signs in front of them. these places usually forbid photograpy and the like as well.
Perhaps the best way would be to deepen the lists a little: show not just the offenders but a summary timeline of circumstances, and waypoints of "rehabilitation" like lengths of time since offenses and achievements that mean a departure or exoneration from their previous behavior or ruling.
how about a scoring system? how about something like cross between the credit reporting system and the drivers license system where you get points added for moving violations.
you could put everyone on "the list" with a score of 0 and add points for indictments, convictions, and other infractions, and have certain points expire over time, like those for misdemeanors and non-violent or non-sex based crimes.
each person's score (but not the details of the how the score was calculated) could be a matter of public record so it would be cheap and easy to do quick background checks on everyone, including elected officials, employers, and religious leaders.
Not sure how many people agree with me here, but excluding the extreme stretch that seems to have been killed by the 9th, I think I agree with this.
this is a dangerous stance to take because of the nature of information security. peer review and feedback are monumentally important to securing information systems and the improper application of laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act will discourage review and feedback, especially in legal gray areas like independent research.
people find problems with systems and bring them to people's attention; this is how holes get found and patched. not everyone who finds a bug is going to do so with prior authorization, and not every system administrator is going to appreciate the notification.
not all hacking is dangerous or criminal, in fact, only a small subset of hacking is really criminal. the ethics of hacking basically boil down to intent and disclosure. if you do not intend to do harm, and you disclose your findings appropriately, there should be nothing wrong with hacking a system, even if it's not yours.
if you start using a law against fraud and abuse to punish activities which are neither fraudulent nor abusive, that threatens security research as a whole, especially independent research.
I mean if you have quit, or where fired, then you access is done (that instant). Just because an admin hasn't turned off your account yet doesn't mean you can still use it. Legally, or morally...
the decision to fire someone is a multi-stage process. you may be fired once HR decides you are fired, but if HR hasn't informed you yet, your activities probably shouldn't be considered fraudulent or abusive.
in the case mentioned in the article, if the proper steps were taken to build a case for the termination, all the evidence would have been gathered prior to the decision to terminate, and the file deletion would not have affected the case.
To take it to another extreme, if your account isn't turned off, and years later you log back into your companies servers for ANY reason, "nefarious" or not, well, that's "hacking".
uh, that's not automatically criminal. logging into something that you were given access to isn't fraud or abuse until you use that access to do something fraudulent or abusive.
if your ex-employer messed up, that doesn't automatically make you a criminal. that's the issue here: using the CFAA to punish activites which are neither fraudulent nor abusive.
if you discover that your account is active, do nothing fraudulent or abusive with it, and let someone know about the vulnerability, what is the harm done? have you not helped the system, and your former employer to become more secure?
sure it's a legal gray area, but intent and disclosure should be considered along with the evidence when deciding the legality of these scenarios.
I would also agree with "exceeds authorized access". If you have someone who works a teller station at a bank, and finds that they can abuse the system in such a way as to elevate their privileges, and they DO IT, that is "hacking", and SHOULD be a violation of federal law.
not all hacking is criminal in nature. again, it's not fraud or abuse until you use the exploit to do something fraudulent or abusive. finding bugs and demonstrating them aren't fraudulent. keeping them secret and using them for personal gain at the expense of the system's owner or customers is fraudulent or abusive.
again, it comes down to intent and disclosure. hacking machines in a lab environment and logging bugs with software maintainers isn't a crime, it's a community service. finding a vulnerability on a production system and notifying the system administrator shouldn't be a crime either as long as you don't use that vulnerability to commit fraud or otherwise abuse the system.
On the post: Publisher Warns Fans That Liking A Book Too Much May Be Illegal
Re: What?
On the post: Dear Journalists: There Is No Cyberwar
Re: So quick to dismiss the facts...
calm down dude. that's the same stuff that's always happened, it's just happening now with computers, on the internet. spies have always spied, thieves have always stolen, con artists have always conned, and terrorists have always terrorized. a cybercriminal is just a criminal that has added computers and the internet to his or her modus operandi.
now that everyone uses computers and the internet to do everything, spies, terrorists and criminals are targeting computers and the internet. it's a logical progression.
the point is that this isn't some new shadowy thing that has sprung up from the internet itself. it's just the same groups taking their acts online.
using "cyberwar" to create panic is just orwellian doublespeak to create fear and push for new legislation to further damage our civil liberties.
On the post: Institutions Will Seek To Preserve The Problem For Which They Are The Solution
Re: Re: Preserve The Problem
the problem isn't one of quality, it's one of availability and affordability.
you can't count on an industry that profits from scarcity to solve the problem of scarcity.
On the post: Yes, Authors Have Copyright Issues With Quoting Others As Well
Re: Re: Announcing: Nanopayments
done and done. y'all.
On the post: Misguided Outrage At NY Times' Ethicist Over Ethics Of Downloading A Book
Re: Re: Re:
that's all very interesting, but as a reader, it's not my problem.
i am going to read what i want in the format i want and there isn't anything that anyone can do about it.
you, the author/publisher/agent/whatever, can either sell me what i want to buy, or miss out on the sale and/or marketing data when i get it by other means.
all the ethics and morality in the world won't change that fact.
On the post: Driving While Yakking Laws Looking More And More Like 'Help The Gov't Make Money' Laws
As a Christian...
On the post: Driving While Yakking Laws Looking More And More Like 'Help The Gov't Make Money' Laws
Re: Less about talking, more about goofy laws
i'm not so sure about that.
in most states, cops can't pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, and whenever measures like that come up, the privacy types pop up fast to say it's a power grab by law enforcement. the concern is that cops will use the seat belt as an excuse to pull people over and get probable cause to search the car.
if cops can pull you over for talking on the phone, which i would imagine happens *WAY* more than not wearing a seat belt, i would imagine that would be considered a bonus for the police.
On the post: If 'Piracy' Is Killing Filmmaking, Why Do Nigeria, China And India Have Thriving Movie Businesses?
Re:
mentioned in the post already, but if the films are so bad, why are they being pirated?
large captive markets
captive how? if the audience was captive, why bother pirating films?
few home theaters, often few with no way to watch the movie at home.
then what are people watching their bootleg VCD's on?
a poorly thought out slam at hollywood.
poor thought indeed.
On the post: Japanese Video Game Guru Says Console Days Are Numbered
the demise of PC games is greatly exaggerated
the wii brought video games into a whole new sector: the casual gamer, but you know who else brought games to casual players? facebook.
i'll bet if you tally the hours spent on farmville and mafia wars, you'll see a staggeringly large number. add those hours to hardcore games like WOW, counterstrike, and the sims and you have PC gaming population that all 3 console manufacturers can't touch.
until consoles can play facebook games and MMO's in a simple and intuitive manner, PCs will continue to grow as a gaming platform.
also, until consoles can let you do your school work in a simple and intuitive manner, the PC will continue to grow as the dominant work platform.
the console vs. PC debate is like the netbook vs. desktop debate or the mobile phone vs. laptop debate. in all cases you have a market built around an expensive and complicated general use device which is invaded by a cheaper specialty device. naturally, the people who are using the general purpose device for only one function will defect to a cheaper device that is better suited to that function.
that's all the console is: a cheaper version of the PC specifically adapted for games that is easier to use for games.
On the post: Net Neutrality Battle Quickly Turns Into Political Food Fight
legislation is a necessary evil
competition is a foregone conclusion. there isn't going to be any, so there *has* to be legislation.
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Re: Key phrase
so yes, i have the right to use a 3rd party service to say what i want. in 1776 that party owned a printing press in town, in 2010 that party owns servers on the other side of the country.
well said :-)
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
the consumer recourse is simple: keep enjoying the stuff you consume, just stop paying for it.
the pirate recourse is simple too: keep doing what you have been doing for years because there is no way that you can be stopped.
what is not simple is the producer's recourse: you could fix your product, costs, and business model so that unauthorized distribution works in your favor, or you just keep pissing off the people who are giving you money.
the conflict breaks down like this:
pirates get and distribute content without authorization and there is nothing that producers can do to stop it.
content producers want to stop piracy by lashing out at their paying customers.
piracy is completely unaffected by the measures that content producers take.
the measures that content producers encourage producers to become pirates.
that's like trying to win a fist fight by punching yourself in the face. there is a war going on between pirates and producers and the producers are trying to win via self mutilation.
On the post: Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lists
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Key phrase
that is the legal question for the courts and scholars: is my website a publication, like a newspaper, with constitutional protection? is my website an extension of my own free speech? is my website bound by the agreements i make with a service provider in order to host it? if so, do those agreements violate my constitutional right to free speech?
the DMCA says it is #3, and that makes sense as long as you do not value free speech. others, myself included, value free speech and therefore disagree.
in the end, it doesn't matter. you can't censor the internet for very long. it will just evolve and make it pointless.
Although not everyone can do it themselves, it's relatively simple to set up an http-server for hosting your content. And finding someone to set up the hardware and software for you is just a phone call away.
in time this will be a moot point. services and technologies like freenet, i2p, and tor hidden services will improve to the point that they easy enough to use that anyone will be able to make use of them and at that point there will be no way to stop free speech, or piracy, or anything else.
that's the problem with laws made by lawmakers that don't understand technology: changing a law is *WAY* harder than changing a technology.
On the post: Results From Dungeons & Dragons Online Going Free: Revenue Up 500%
Re: No Catch
turbine does this with a lot of it's MMO's. I played Asheron's Call years ago and new content, items, story arcs, and the like came out every month. the same holds for LOTRO.
On the post: Paywall/Open Debate Applied To University Education As Well
Re: Want Scarcity?
amen to that.
colleges are in the degree business, not the course content business. from a career management standpoint, the course content becomes a kind of portfolio for educators and researchers to market their capabilities.
On the post: Court Says President Bush Violated Wiretapping Laws With Warrantless Wiretap
Re: Re: Namby Pamby
same here! the nanny state is for sissies. POLICE STATE FOR THE WIN!!!
On the post: Google Street View Criticized For Showing 'Secret' SAS Base... That Has A Sign Viewable From The Street
this is normal for all militaries...
On the post: Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List
Re: Re: Re: Lists
how about a scoring system? how about something like cross between the credit reporting system and the drivers license system where you get points added for moving violations.
you could put everyone on "the list" with a score of 0 and add points for indictments, convictions, and other infractions, and have certain points expire over time, like those for misdemeanors and non-violent or non-sex based crimes.
each person's score (but not the details of the how the score was calculated) could be a matter of public record so it would be cheap and easy to do quick background checks on everyone, including elected officials, employers, and religious leaders.
On the post: Courts Stretching Computer Hacking Law In Dangerous Ways
Re:
this is a dangerous stance to take because of the nature of information security. peer review and feedback are monumentally important to securing information systems and the improper application of laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act will discourage review and feedback, especially in legal gray areas like independent research.
people find problems with systems and bring them to people's attention; this is how holes get found and patched. not everyone who finds a bug is going to do so with prior authorization, and not every system administrator is going to appreciate the notification.
not all hacking is dangerous or criminal, in fact, only a small subset of hacking is really criminal. the ethics of hacking basically boil down to intent and disclosure. if you do not intend to do harm, and you disclose your findings appropriately, there should be nothing wrong with hacking a system, even if it's not yours.
if you start using a law against fraud and abuse to punish activities which are neither fraudulent nor abusive, that threatens security research as a whole, especially independent research.
I mean if you have quit, or where fired, then you access is done (that instant). Just because an admin hasn't turned off your account yet doesn't mean you can still use it. Legally, or morally...
the decision to fire someone is a multi-stage process. you may be fired once HR decides you are fired, but if HR hasn't informed you yet, your activities probably shouldn't be considered fraudulent or abusive.
in the case mentioned in the article, if the proper steps were taken to build a case for the termination, all the evidence would have been gathered prior to the decision to terminate, and the file deletion would not have affected the case.
To take it to another extreme, if your account isn't turned off, and years later you log back into your companies servers for ANY reason, "nefarious" or not, well, that's "hacking".
uh, that's not automatically criminal. logging into something that you were given access to isn't fraud or abuse until you use that access to do something fraudulent or abusive.
if your ex-employer messed up, that doesn't automatically make you a criminal. that's the issue here: using the CFAA to punish activites which are neither fraudulent nor abusive.
if you discover that your account is active, do nothing fraudulent or abusive with it, and let someone know about the vulnerability, what is the harm done? have you not helped the system, and your former employer to become more secure?
sure it's a legal gray area, but intent and disclosure should be considered along with the evidence when deciding the legality of these scenarios.
I would also agree with "exceeds authorized access". If you have someone who works a teller station at a bank, and finds that they can abuse the system in such a way as to elevate their privileges, and they DO IT, that is "hacking", and SHOULD be a violation of federal law.
not all hacking is criminal in nature. again, it's not fraud or abuse until you use the exploit to do something fraudulent or abusive. finding bugs and demonstrating them aren't fraudulent. keeping them secret and using them for personal gain at the expense of the system's owner or customers is fraudulent or abusive.
again, it comes down to intent and disclosure. hacking machines in a lab environment and logging bugs with software maintainers isn't a crime, it's a community service. finding a vulnerability on a production system and notifying the system administrator shouldn't be a crime either as long as you don't use that vulnerability to commit fraud or otherwise abuse the system.
Next >>