This got me thinking
-
fly904 wrote:
That's a good point
and
fly904 wrote:
They are experts in bullsh*t, that's about it.
No. Neither is correct as I refute below.
fly904 wrote:
They are experts in bullsh*t, that's about it.
Meant to be a joke, oh well. "They don't "make" laws - there are experts that do that for them. They just vote." That's what I thought was a good point. I personally believe that the entire parliament should be reformed. Actual "experts" should elected to head each major section such as health, education etc. and the politicians work for them. But that is waayyyyyyy off topic.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So if you don't want your future compromised, then don't compromise (or support this compromise) somebody else's.
I agree. There is a plus side for it though, one of my lecturers was telling me earlier that one company leaked previous releases over these systems to actually get there product out there and promote it. I can't remember the name of the company but for a single license key it is a couple of grand. But then again, he did say it was a rumor which he read off a blog.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
fly904 wrote:
one of my lecturers
Lecturers have a knack of telling a pretty good story. They have had plenty of practice, you are not the first he has told of this, plenty students have preceded you. But a story is just that - a story, and is not necessarily a representation of actual fact. And rumors and conjecture is worse irrespective of the origin.
-
fly904 wrote:
They are experts in bullsh*t, that's about it.
Meant to be a joke, oh well. "They don't "make" laws - there are experts that do that for them. They just vote." That's what I thought was a good point. I personally believe that the entire parliament should be reformed. Actual "experts" should elected to head each major section such as health, education etc. and the politicians work for them. But that is waayyyyyyy off topic.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
fly904 wrote:
I personally believe that the entire parliament should be reformed.
I have no objections for wishes of a reformed parliament, but that is not for this discussion in this particular forum. Take it next door and I am happy to argue the many and varied points.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
All laws that "apply" to the internet are inherently unenforceable.
All laws that apply to anything are inherently unenforceable. It's against the law to murder someone, but it still happens. It's against the law to drive too fast, but it happens all the time.
The StartPage Randomizer - The Windows Cheerleader - Twitter
-
harold aptroot wrote:
All laws that "apply" to the internet are inherently unenforceable.
All laws that apply to anything are inherently unenforceable. It's against the law to murder someone, but it still happens. It's against the law to drive too fast, but it happens all the time.
The StartPage Randomizer - The Windows Cheerleader - Twitter
-
When was the last time someone who wrote and distributed viruses prosecuted?
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
fly904 wrote:
When was the last time someone who wrote and distributed viruses prosecuted?
May, 2008[^] looks to be the most recent. just a quick Google search seemed to indicate a successful prosecution nearly each year for the past decade or so. Microsoft and SCO both have standing $250K rewards for information leading to conviction of virus authors (Microsoft's was funded with $5M, so it will be around a while); given these facts, your suggestion that this is not prosecuted seems pretty flawed. It seems to be just as aggressively pursued as copyright infringement, but gets less notice in the press since the "evil recording companies" aren't the pursuers, and the victims aren't "innocent music lovers".
-
Computafreak wrote:
Never
That's interesting. Or are you just referring to Torrents? What about Hackers? People who write/distribute viruses? Should they be allowed to get away with what they do? I think they should be caught and punished. The question is how do we enforce it to catch them. The person who works out a way how will be a very rich man/woman. Are you also taking into account businesses who trade legitimately and are losing out due to illegal distribution of their product? With regards to Torrents, I don't believe that film companies in particular can complain too much about losing money due to piracy. Just cut back on the actors wages, they're not that good. Smaller music companies shouldn't lose out, people should support them, if they're any good :p
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
fly904 wrote:
What about Crackers? People who write/distribute viruses? Should they be allowed to get away with what they do?
FTFY. Yes, they should indeed be punished. But the laws that prohibit them can already be enforced. The company being hacked only has to know the hacker's IP address. Poof - enforcement available.
fly904 wrote:
Are you also taking into account businesses who trade legitimately and are losing out due to illegal distribution of their product?
Those businesses should already be protected by some of the copyright acts. There's no need to make a rule specifically for the Internet.
fly904 wrote:
With regards to Torrents, I don't believe that film companies in particular can complain too much about losing money due to piracy.
I do. But going after a file which contains only signposts is unlikely to work, and IMHO is equivalent to censorship. If they want to make headway, then they should go after the source, not the pointer to it.
OSDev :)
-
Should people who know absolutely nothing about technology be allowed to make laws on it? I'm talking about laws regarding the Internet in particular. The people in question are the politicians in the Houses' of Commons and Lords, Lords in particular, or any other governing body, who don't know what the technology even does or is. There are even some politicians who have never even used a computer and have secretaries to email and read emails for them on their behalf etc. Personally, I don't believe they should even be allowed an opinion on the matter unless they are informed and familiar enough with the technology in question, which they certainly aren't. This also relates to another question which is: Should there be laws regulating the Internet if they cannot be enforced?
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
Most politicians are not financial wizards either, so are you saying they shouldn't.... yeah, I see what you mean. ;)
Cheers, Vikram. (Cracked not one CCC, but two!)
-
Should people who know absolutely nothing about technology be allowed to make laws on it? I'm talking about laws regarding the Internet in particular. The people in question are the politicians in the Houses' of Commons and Lords, Lords in particular, or any other governing body, who don't know what the technology even does or is. There are even some politicians who have never even used a computer and have secretaries to email and read emails for them on their behalf etc. Personally, I don't believe they should even be allowed an opinion on the matter unless they are informed and familiar enough with the technology in question, which they certainly aren't. This also relates to another question which is: Should there be laws regulating the Internet if they cannot be enforced?
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
Should people who don't know how to fire or maintain a gun make laws that psychopaths should not be allowed to keep guns? Should people who know nothing about the banking system be allowed to make laws about how banking experts can behave? Should people who do not manufacture nuclear warheads be allowed to make laws about their use? The answer to all questions, including yours, is "Yes". The "experts" are always the worst people to make the laws. Laymen can easily see what's right and wrong; experts only see what they want to do. Just because someone knows how to program a computer does not make him the custodian of what is right and wrong in computer use.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
fly904 wrote:
When was the last time someone who wrote and distributed viruses prosecuted?
May, 2008[^] looks to be the most recent. just a quick Google search seemed to indicate a successful prosecution nearly each year for the past decade or so. Microsoft and SCO both have standing $250K rewards for information leading to conviction of virus authors (Microsoft's was funded with $5M, so it will be around a while); given these facts, your suggestion that this is not prosecuted seems pretty flawed. It seems to be just as aggressively pursued as copyright infringement, but gets less notice in the press since the "evil recording companies" aren't the pursuers, and the victims aren't "innocent music lovers".
Rob Graham wrote:
Microsoft and SCO both have standing $250K rewards for information leading to conviction of virus authors
I thought that was introduced for the Conficker virus, as that was the first time I had heard of it. But it was the media making a big deal of something that has been around for years, I feel ashamed.
Rob Graham wrote:
May, 2008[^] looks to be the most recent.
Technically, that guy was done for Copyright.
Rob Graham wrote:
just a quick Google search seemed to indicate a successful prosecution nearly each year for the past decade or so.
Rob Graham wrote:
your suggestion that this is not prosecuted seems pretty flawed
One a year for the last ten years? Does that sound like a system that works? I hope that more are convicted which haven't caught the media's attention.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
-
Should people who know absolutely nothing about technology be allowed to make laws on it? I'm talking about laws regarding the Internet in particular. The people in question are the politicians in the Houses' of Commons and Lords, Lords in particular, or any other governing body, who don't know what the technology even does or is. There are even some politicians who have never even used a computer and have secretaries to email and read emails for them on their behalf etc. Personally, I don't believe they should even be allowed an opinion on the matter unless they are informed and familiar enough with the technology in question, which they certainly aren't. This also relates to another question which is: Should there be laws regulating the Internet if they cannot be enforced?
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
Should people who know absolutely nothing about laws be allowed to make laws on technology?
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Should people who know absolutely nothing about laws be allowed to make laws on technology?
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
I'd rather see people with some technical understanding cook up these laws - or even better, good lawyers that are humble enough to ask the right people.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Rob Graham wrote:
Microsoft and SCO both have standing $250K rewards for information leading to conviction of virus authors
I thought that was introduced for the Conficker virus, as that was the first time I had heard of it. But it was the media making a big deal of something that has been around for years, I feel ashamed.
Rob Graham wrote:
May, 2008[^] looks to be the most recent.
Technically, that guy was done for Copyright.
Rob Graham wrote:
just a quick Google search seemed to indicate a successful prosecution nearly each year for the past decade or so.
Rob Graham wrote:
your suggestion that this is not prosecuted seems pretty flawed
One a year for the last ten years? Does that sound like a system that works? I hope that more are convicted which haven't caught the media's attention.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
fly904 wrote:
Technically, that guy was done for Copyright.
Only because the Japanese didn't ahve any other appropriate law onn the books. The do now.
fly904 wrote:
One a year for the last ten years? Does that sound like a system that works?
It's about the same as the copyright prosecution rate. Given the difficulty of tracking down the perp, then actually proving authorship/release (most succeed because some friend turned), it's not that bad. Some end up being prosecuted for the other crimes committed (identity theft, mail fraud) and the virus authorship is hardly mentioned, since it was just a means to the larger crime.