James Hogg's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the how-has-it-come-to-this? dept
Greetings to all of you Techdirt readers! And thank you to Mike Masnick for
allowing me the chance for a front-page post after I opportunistically jumped at
the opening.
Techdirt is a dependable resource for discovering where the heat of most
technology synthesis takes place. I shall be frank: skepticism, science, language,
dialectical thinking and argument for the sake of argument are all grand virtues
in my background. Whether you are of the thesis or the anti-thesis, it does not
matter nearly as much as your thought process. I shall respect, for example, an
advocate of copyright far more if he has taken the time and effort to investigate
his position and come to his own non-clichéd conclusions. Far more than those
who have believed in copyright solely because everyone else has.
Let us begin with one of five articles this week that caught my eye. Beginning
chronologically, we start with the MacGyver-esque videos posted by Evan
Booth detailing how to improvise the assembly of dangerous weapons with
items collected after TSA screening. The answer he gave to the critical question
about the consequences of revealing the information to the public was spot on: Islamic fascists no doubt already know this stuff and then some if Evan can so casually come across these findings himself (the better question is why fascists
have not attempted this while many were unaware). The true danger, if there is
to be one, lies with the public not knowing about the potential threats,
never mind them being even more hindered from coming to the rather self-
evident conclusion that most airport screening practices punish many and deter
few. If the danger presented by these videos is so nasty, why not a) have an open
discussion instead of shoving the issue under the carpet and pretending that it
will solve itself, and b) give the opportunity for the TSA to ban the items in these
videos as well, only to look equally ridiculous in the future.
There can be good reasons for wanting to not know something, but "ill-intentioned fanatics will find out" is not one of them. Just because you choose not to research into if you can build a nuclear bomb in the name of the survival of our species does not mean the worst totalitarian nightmares of our planet will take as kindly. You are far better off beating them to the discovery so that
you can prepare to resist it accordingly. Just remember this any time you hear
people claim that scientific inquiry is evil in itself, never mind common inquiry.
Next, we note the story about the malicious re-routing of internet traffic and its repercussions. If there is one ideological odor that can almost always show
it to be stinking of wrong -- I am tempted to just say "always" but for the sake
of avoiding absolutism I won't -- it is a utopian odor. We are unfortunately still
in the premature age of the internet despite how far it has progressed, and as
a result we still have a wave of cyber-utopians claiming that the internet can
set you, and keep you, free on its own. But the internet, like all tools and/or
weapons, does not free people. People free people, to improve on a well-
known mantra. And we have to remember that technology accumulates power
as well as separates it. For instance, here is one slogan you are unlikely to see
as you go about your daily lives: "CCTV is in operation in this area to protect you
from the police."
This traffic diversion shows exactly why all technology, even such as this
sophisticated mass-communications channel, is not infallible. To still be
uncertain as to how it is even happening speaks volumes in itself. The last thing
you want is for dictatorships or other dodgy states to take advantage of traffic
flowing through their servers for profiteering purposes or otherwise. And you
certainly do not want them decrypting the NSA-backdoor-encryption for their
own purposes (which they could most likely do, thanks to the NSA). Do not ever
forget: just because the NSA deliberately weakens encryption for the "security"
of the nation does not mean that everybody will use that tainted encryption.
Believe it or not, the large corporate tentacles of Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc
do not extend everywhere on the planet. There is no reason why an Al Qaeda
fascist cannot research the mathematical techniques independently and write his
own encryption program that IS up to standard, and will not be crackable even
if you throw millions of years of supercomputer-workload at it. David Cameron
was simply being frivolous when he invoked Alan Turning for NSA expansion
a few days ago. Alan Turning did not help crack the Enigma code by politely
asking the Nazis to install backdoors. And he would have failed miserably had
the Nazis been using uncompromised SSL. This is why you have to be ready for
the real possibility that technology can turn against you. Al Qaeda, as I have said
before, are not likely to be stupid. Totalitarian, racist, homophobic, misogynistic,
nihilistic and religious, yes. But not stupid.
I do have hopes that this attitude will pass. Ultimately, it is a reactionary phase
to the birth of the mainstream internet, and in a few decades we shall have
seen enough to know that the internet has its limits when "it" fights states and
corporations.
Next, we have LG having to embarrassingly look into claims that its smart TVs were picking up user data without users' consent. If I were older back in the
days of the PC really proliferating, the first reaction I would have had to cameras
being installed on the screens as a norm would have been "Sweet merciful
CRAP... Orwell was right about THAT particular deadly nightmare?", and
flipped my shit. However, we have been reasonably fortunate that what we call
"telescreens" have not been under the sole control of a state. But still, for the
most uncomfortable of reasons, we have been surrendering our resistance to
even potential eavesdropping from "user-friendly" companies so slowly
and passively: PCs, Laptops, Kinect, and now the TV on its own?
I really have to ask: how has it come to this? Why is such a monstrosity even necessary?
If I were an investigative journalist, the first thing I would look into as a result
of this story is how many other companies supposedly have such glitches and
manifest a great headline piece of my own. The first place I would start with
is Digital Rights Management within software -- a theory that works so well to
protect the unauthorized copying of data that we do not need copyright law
whatsoever.
If EA will go as far to split their games in half -- one half on a PC and the other
half on a server of theirs -- in order to protect their content, only to have it
disproved so swiftly and so humiliatingly within days, shows that the control-
freak mentality of corporations cannot be healthy, and we have every right to
be suspicious in the days of mass NSA wiretapping. Do yourselves a favor:
start being hostile towards built-in cameras as a first principled step if you need
to take one. I do not think Cory Doctorow exaggerates when he stresses the
urgency of watching out for a war on "general purpose computing."
And finally, we yet again have assaults on the rights of derivative artists with
Paramount's attacks on the public domain. I would indeed like to know if
there is any other property system out there that claims somebody can have
ownership of property before it even exists, because I certainly do not
know of it. And I also would certainly like to know why retroactive extension
of copyright of ANY kind is considered democratic: either a law is valid at the
time of it being in effect or it is not. We do not hold people's actions of the past
under the laws of the present. That I would have thought was a very important
principle. But no. It does not matter how much labor and work went into a
derivative work that was ready for release for after the original's copyright
expiry. All of it can be spat on and thrown away.
Then again, you can always work around the transparent nonsense of copyright
and start a viral Twilight fan-fic, replace the characters at the very last moment
and make tons of money. Mass scale infringement has, after all, still occurred
quite profoundly in this situation, yet the answer to stopping it does not seem
to come anywhere close to sane. Some others would rather pretend such a
dilemma does not exist at all.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read. Enjoy your weekends!
(untitled comment)
"I have the right to stop all derivatives of my work because these are lost sales I am missing out on. My livelihood is at stake."
*said derivative actually increases sales for the original*
"I hereby give permission for this particular derivative to be put up. You see? Because copyright allows me to give permission where I want, those additional sales are actually because of copyright law working in my favour!"
This whole mentality is set up as what we might call an "unfalsifiable claim", a sign of weak rational thinking and intellectual dishonesty. If the test for lack of copyright enforcement is strung up so much that it can't be tested properly, the mentality isn't valid at all./div>
(untitled comment)
...oh wait, you pretty much do see that every day./div>
(untitled comment)
Yelling fire when there really is a fire can cause the same injuries in said burning crowded theatre, and I think injured people in this situation would be quite ready to blame the design of the building and lack of crowd control first and foremost, and not really be ready to entertain the possibility of shifting the blame had the yelling been false.
Point is, when you've got a powder keg, any random spark that sets it off is nowhere near as important or dangerous as the powder keg itself. Would we also ban fire drills on the basis that they too are falsely shouting fire using their sirens, and people get hurt leaving the building? No, you'd blame something else that deserves it./div>
(untitled comment)
Re:
Dumb fire drills. Always putting lives in danger./div>
Re:
(untitled comment)
"Alice wishes to send a message to Bob without Eve being able to intercept and read the message. Please write an algorithm that allows Bob to read the message whilst preventing Bob from reading the message."/div>
(untitled comment)
I mean, let me really, really get this straight: if the viewers of these movies decided not to get the fan translations and instead decided to learn how to speak English as a second language, then imported the raw movies to enjoy them in that second language, *it is the viewers who are in the moral wrong and the imports should be banned in order to appease the pathetic solipsism of the copyright holder who doesn't want his movie to even be translated within the privacy of the viewers' own minds?*
Because there is no difference there./div>
Re: Re: Med domstolsregleringen, Fläktens undertexter Officiellt upphovsrättsintrång i Sverige
(untitled comment)
"Behold our new policy: the digital-analogue rights management pen hybrid! Now programmed to burn to a crisp its own ink supply upon detecting the writing of infringing poems, even if they're only a toe over the line of fair use! All of our newly government regulated pens connect to a server - yes, only ONE server! - with incredible UDP technology to download all hash signatures of any literature ever written or ever will be written! 100% legal and only $700 each! (A high-speed non-encrypted deep-packet inspection ISP is required, any server costs for the literature hash signatures is passed onto the consumer as agreed upon purchase). Warranties do not cover accidental infringement, deliberate hacking of pens or self-inflicted injury."
Take THAT, big-tech cyber-utopians! You see what YOU brought about, here!?"
Remember, the only thing stopping these scenarios is basic common sense and thankfully massive impracticalities. They would *if they could*./div>
(untitled comment)
It's important to remember that pirates are just another type of consumer and they would boycott sites in a heartbeat if they discovered they'd been paid to infect them with malware. But, as usual, the claims are extremely light in detail. Instead, there's simply a blanket warning to stay away from all unauthorized sites, which isn't particularly helpful."
I can't hear you over the sound of my Virtual Machine snapshots./div>
(untitled comment)
An assurance contract method of making a profit would mean if a brand new idea was thrown out to people, you can be safe in the knowledge that there's no harm done if people don't back it, because you won't be throwing money away. In other words, plenty of new material, but no "risk" in the same way. I'll admit though this is only if people want new material. If people want to stick to comic-book movies, well, it can't be helped if that's the market. But at least there's plenty of room to experiment freely with no pain, to throw out ideas and see if people will pledge towards them./div>
(untitled comment)
I don't find it a very attractive idea to force working-class creators into the role of entrepreneurial risk-takers against their will. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that when you don't have as much money as others and you are really struggling to make money in the creative world, gambling what time and earnings you have on something as creative "risk" doesn't seem to strike me as wise.
Because that's what copyright forces creators to do. If a creator invests tons of his own labour and money into a project, and then waits to know what the copyrighted benefits will be AFTER that investment, he can't exactly guarantee that recuperation unless it's a known brand of art with plenty of corporate backing or at a minimum selling your soul to a middleman for SOME prospect of return, which is unlikely for artists who are not the top 1%, and of course puts that corporation in the natural position of offsetting all the downsides of any risk onto anyone but themselves (by that I mean the hard-working creators). Just look at the way some musicians have been bankrupted because of this.
Whereas... if you revolve creative economies around assurance contracts, not copyright, look what happens: <i>you know what you're going to make from a project BEFORE you invest all that labour and money</i>. When a band does a gig, we know what the profit will be before the gig starts. When a magazine sells monthly, they know what they will make from their monthly subscriptions before they write their columns. When a crowdfunded piece of art is about to start, we already know how much is made before. When you take tons of time, effort and care into setting up an expensive nature shoot, it doesn't matter if a monkey pressed the shutter, you've still made the money you were going to make anyway because of the assurance contract system of gathering your customers' fees beforehand, and you don't end up down a road of despair and depressing lawsuits.
In each of these cases the creator doesn't gamble - he knows what his profit is going to be, and hence doesn't slave away for what could be nothing in the end.
In fact... if you were to take a job, any job, which was meant to support your daily life, your daily expenses, why on Earth would you sign an employment contract that said "we don't know how much we can pay you because we have no idea if your labour will succeed or not" unless you were anything but the most adventurous risk-taker who thinks it'll all be fine when it comes to pay the bills? No! You want to know what you're damn salary is going to be! Like anyone else!
Why is it that copyright folk want creators to be paid "just like anyone else who has a job" and not be made to work for free, but then immediately demand to be treated <i>differently</i> from any other employee with things such as not even having a basic guarantee of salary?
That's one reason why assurance contracts are superior to copyright, never mind the Monopoly Money connotation copyright has.
Assurance contracts are not callous enough to keep demanding that poor creators take risks all the time, with no guarantee of income./div>
(untitled comment)
- Canada claims actions taken in the U.S. break Canadian counterfeit laws.
- Canada then claims that even although the action happened outside Canada's borders, it is still permissible to prosecute Google because Google ARE within Canadian borders. I.e. even although Canada's democratic laws only hold within Canada, it still means anyone in Canada can be subject to them, hence you can still hold folk in Canada accountable to Canadian law without infringing the sovereignty of another country such as the U.S.
- So... the logical next step for Google is for them not to have any of their employees step foot in Canada. And use as many proxies as they need to keep business going there, such as shell companies and literal proxy servers.
- Canada still claims a Canadian law has been broken by Google, and the only method left to get anyone prosecuted is to send an extradition request to the U.S. to request they deport Google employees to Canada for prosecution.
- Now the issue falls to how both countries agree on extradition treaties (and treaties in general). If it signs a treaty with respect to counterfeit items, both democracies have consent, hence it is now morally acceptable on a treaty/extradition level. However the democratic consent of both nations is required. This is why we can quite rightly shun and laugh at requests from North Korea to send over all critics of the regime within the U.S.
- Though the U.S. would have to decide if the First Amendment survives its confrontation with what Canada and other countries demand in such treaties in cases of free expression, such as hate speech and prior restraint. As the U.S. is unlikely to compromise on the First Amendment we can assume it will be the standard.
- Some may say the U.S.'s First Amendment is actually infringing the sovereignty of <i>Canada</i> at this point as there's no way to enforce Canada's speech provisions. Not true. The other option left would be to get Canada's ISPs to "stop at the border" any unacceptable internet speech "traffic", hence each country correctly has dominion over their turf. No different to customs checks at the border, in fact. But there's a big problem.
- Anyone who's been at an airport knows how long customs checks can take, so try to visualise every packet, every decryption, every stenographic hiding, every coded message of any kind never mind plain message, <i>for every ISP that connects to anything outside of Canada, as even if you were to block all U.S. connections, you can use a third-country to proxy round it</i>. It would be like putting a huge border wall across all of Canada's internet cables as they leave Canadian territory. And every single solitary bit out of the petabytes that is "traded" every day across Canada would have to be vetted. By HUMANS, as we all know as even the most automated deep packet inspectors can't see encrypted traffic. Such a wall would have to make Trump's Mexican border wall look like a row of rice-grains.
- There is no way this is going to happen without THE most isolationist Canada-first approach that is willing to risk Canada's economy with the rest of the world just for the sake of enforcing its CAN (Canadian Area Network) and in turn becoming fully independent generating all its resources from within. Only then can you enforce your sub-section of your speech laws.
- So to conclude, it's interesting to remember how borderless our world is compared to centuries ago. The isolationists of the world such as Trump and Brexiteers still haven't seen how their world is quite gone yet.
- Copyright believers will of course still insist that a border wall can be enforced around every digital copy of their work across the planet. No sane person can possibly say copyright law deserves credit for any money an artist now makes in this age./div>
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Oh yeah. "Blasphemy."
They did well to stop that from ever happening, didn't they?/div>
(untitled comment)
Take for example the many ways religions have tried to claim ownership of who can express their holy books and in what way, even reproduction of holy books without "permission", yet the Reformation still happened. It's no good saying that people put lots of work into those stain-glass windows, cathedrals and paintings and therefore all appropriation (i.e. blasphemy) and piracy is off limits - in the end they all get copied, and quite rightly.
Can you imagine the ridiculousness of saying the King James Bible should never have come into existance because it was an infringement?
Or that famous works of literature should be banned from other countries' languages based entirely on the whims of the copyright holders? How much more anti-free-expression can it get than that? Denying the rights of people to read a book if they speak the wrong language. And insisting this power to do so should have a place in civilisation.
Freedom of expression isn't just about the right to speak your mind remember: it is also the right of everyone to read and listen./div>
Re: Re: Re: been bitching about voting systems...
Except the hidden script that would record the order in memory. If this were an attempted magic trick shuffling cards, an audience would be quite right to assume something else is going on inside that CPU and it would be a lousy trick, because computers can't be trusted to really shuffle the cards.
With an empty tangible box that can be witnessed to be locked in that empty state beforehand, not even the most sophisticated trick-boxes in the world would be able to tell from hundreds of folded, concealed papers which order they went in.
People can see empty boxes, they can't see empty bits./div>
Re: been bitching about voting systems...
paper ballots
hand counted
locally reported"
Also, arguably the most crucial: shuffled. So that voter anonymity is protected.
When the votes are in that box, nobody knows who voted for who as they are all mixed up, not even the "shuffler". Not even a good magician can pull off any sneaky zarrow techniques in these circumstances. This way you can't tell who voted what by taking a note of the order voters walked into the booths.
Try making computers scramble the votes in the same way and you can't do it. Because since the votes have to be stored in memory at some point, it is possible to record the order in which they were stored. Doesn't matter if you entropy-shuffle it after: the damage of storing the order in the first place had already been done.
Digital voting is a utopia, even from a blockchain perspective. It doesn't work, and the paper ballot is superior for this reason of shuffling alone./div>
Re: Re: Re:
More comments from jameshogg >>
jameshogg’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt