Here they come again...
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
I think the best thing about the article is the .prn TLD. :laugh: www.sex.prn www.pr0n.prn www.ilike.prn Too much fun to be had with those names. Jon Sagara There is no spoon.
-
That brings up all kinds of other problems, Eddie. For example, as an American citizen do these laws apply to me if the server isn't on US soil? If the content on the server doesn't break the laws where it is present, then I don't think citizenship is the issue. Also, in my particular case I have dual citizenship so how would that affect this? What about an American citizen not living in the US and the server not being in the US. My point is that the whole reason for alot of the problems we're dealing with regarding the Internet and legalities is that this is a brand new paradigm that the legal system hasn't quite figured out and probably won't for a very long time. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: American citizen do these laws apply to me if the server isn't on US soil? If you're an american citizen, it doesn't matter where the server or you are located; you must follow the US law and the law of the country you live in. If you live in the US your citizenship doesn't matter you have to follow US law. Tom Archer wrote: Also, in my particular case I have dual citizenship I have dual citizenship too and it just means that there's two sets of laws to I have to abide to.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NET -
But of course reading further: The bill would not apply to security cameras in private places such as department store dressing rooms, nor would it penalize those filming on city streets or other public places where privacy does not exist. So in fact the part of the bill relating to videoing people seems to be pretty well targeted. Of course bolting the web related stuff on the side is a typical government trick: Attach dubious legislation to reasonable in the hopes that people desire to get the latter passed wont be overwhelmed by their dislike of the former. Of course the other question posed is: Why is acceptable to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent if you happen to be a department store security guard at work? Dan
Personally, I just assume that I'm always being video taped. I figure if the guy/girl at the Courtyard has nothing better to watch and it's not hurting me, then I why should I care? Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
I see your point there. I didn't think of that angle. It's interesting, law making as a whole. Back in college I was in a fraternity and was in charge of the chapter's by-laws (and of course computer accounts, web page, etc.). I gotta admit I hate politics and I think alot of it stemmed from that. It was amazing to me how difficult it was to put a "law" down on paper that didn't: 1) Have too many holes in it. 2) Could be used for something else entirely we never even considered. I suppose we're bad about that here... but it's because in America everyone is always looking for that angle.
Matt Philmon wrote: ...but it's because in America everyone is always looking for that angle Isn't that the truth! I love watching investigative reports on A&E and the Learning Channel where someone has taken some completely benign concept and figured a way to commit a crime with it. It never ceases to amaze me what ideas people can come up. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Tom Archer wrote: American citizen do these laws apply to me if the server isn't on US soil? If you're an american citizen, it doesn't matter where the server or you are located; you must follow the US law and the law of the country you live in. If you live in the US your citizenship doesn't matter you have to follow US law. Tom Archer wrote: Also, in my particular case I have dual citizenship I have dual citizenship too and it just means that there's two sets of laws to I have to abide to.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NETThis is not true. So far, almost all judgements in Internet-related cases have been decided with the laws that govern where the server is. Eddie Velasquez wrote: I have dual citizenship too and it just means that there's two sets of laws to I have to abide to. Which doesn't work when the laws conflict. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
This is not true. So far, almost all judgements in Internet-related cases have been decided with the laws that govern where the server is. Eddie Velasquez wrote: I have dual citizenship too and it just means that there's two sets of laws to I have to abide to. Which doesn't work when the laws conflict. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: This is not true. So far, almost all judgements in Internet-related cases have been decided with the laws that govern where the server is. I was expresing my opinion on the cases you mentioned, sorry for not making it clear. And, I was talking about the US citizen not the server. The server operator shall abide by the laws governing his country, but the US citizen shall abide by US law. Where there are conflicts between legislations and the US citizen decides to go against US law, he must renounce to his citizenship or face the potential consecuences. Again, this is my opinion and I'm not a lawyer, so I may be completly wrong regarding US and foreign law conflicts for the US point of view.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NET -
I think the best thing about the article is the .prn TLD. :laugh: www.sex.prn www.pr0n.prn www.ilike.prn Too much fun to be had with those names. Jon Sagara There is no spoon.
I think it's a great idea. Pornographic websites should be in the .xxx (or something related) domains. It makes it a bit easier to control access to minors.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NET -
Tom Archer wrote: This is not true. So far, almost all judgements in Internet-related cases have been decided with the laws that govern where the server is. I was expresing my opinion on the cases you mentioned, sorry for not making it clear. And, I was talking about the US citizen not the server. The server operator shall abide by the laws governing his country, but the US citizen shall abide by US law. Where there are conflicts between legislations and the US citizen decides to go against US law, he must renounce to his citizenship or face the potential consecuences. Again, this is my opinion and I'm not a lawyer, so I may be completly wrong regarding US and foreign law conflicts for the US point of view.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NETUnderstood. However, some of these issues are exactly what the lawyers are haggling over now because there's simply no precedent for the Internet. I have a couple of lawyers that oversee my Internet ventures and believe me it's not simple stuff with so much of it being decided and invented now and for the forseeable future. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
I think it's a great idea. Pornographic websites should be in the .xxx (or something related) domains. It makes it a bit easier to control access to minors.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NETI never said it was a bad idea, just that ".prn" strikes me as funny. Jon Sagara There is no spoon.
-
Yes, but this means that an Adult website ran out of Europe or somewhere else would be in violation of U.S. law if it registered a .com domain whereas anywhere else in the world it would be perfectly legal. I do believe that there should be a domain just for adult crap, but, it would have to be decieded by an international body, not the U.S. Jason Gerard
Jason Gerard wrote: Yes, but this means that an Adult website ran out of Europe or somewhere else would be in violation of U.S. law if it registered a .com domain whereas anywhere else in the world it would be perfectly legal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't America own/run/manage whatever you wanna say, .com .net and .org? I could be wrong on this, but even if I am, you guys should quit bitching about America trying to put laws on the internet and thank it for creating the thing in the first place. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
-
Jason Gerard wrote: Yes, but this means that an Adult website ran out of Europe or somewhere else would be in violation of U.S. law if it registered a .com domain whereas anywhere else in the world it would be perfectly legal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't America own/run/manage whatever you wanna say, .com .net and .org? I could be wrong on this, but even if I am, you guys should quit bitching about America trying to put laws on the internet and thank it for creating the thing in the first place. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Just to let you know, I'm an American. And yes, without DARPA, the internet probably wouldn't exist. But, it is now an international entity and should be governed by an international organization. Jason Gerard
-
Russell Morris wrote: You're kidding, right? Partly. Your job is to figure out the sarcasm and the underlying truths of it. Russell Morris wrote: US Congress has no business whatsoever making laws that tell other countries' citizens what they can and can't do while not on US soil. To say otherwise is absolute foolishness. Really. Try telling that to Deutsche Bahn and New Zealand, just to name a few recently. .AU was in the news a while back about similar things too. Once Bush Jr complete's Daddy Bush's 1000 points of light, we'll all be one happy big new world order planet. Then you too can bitch and moan about how things used to be while watching football on your HDTV.
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
Todd C. Wilson wrote: New Zealand Whats the refernce here please ? I'm confused sorry. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
-
You're putting words in my mouth - I have a person that does that already and she's Mrs. Archer :laugh: Seriously, what I'm against is that the law is too broadly worded and would encompass many acts that it should not. I definitely believe in privacy. However, the way the bill is worded if I tape the Mardi Gras party, I would be in violation. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: I have a person that does that already and she's Mrs. Archer Gosh, what a broad minded family, letting your Mum videotape you and your wife. My Mum wouldn't do that for us, mind I have never asked. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
-
I never said it was a bad idea, just that ".prn" strikes me as funny. Jon Sagara There is no spoon.
Jon Sagara wrote: I never said it was a bad idea, just that ".prn" strikes me as funny. There is no reason why a level domain name has only 3 letters, like .museum for instance. They could make it just .restricted for example to cover a range of things. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
-
Tom Archer wrote: I have a person that does that already and she's Mrs. Archer Gosh, what a broad minded family, letting your Mum videotape you and your wife. My Mum wouldn't do that for us, mind I have never asked. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Live in Amsterdam for a couple of years. You'd be surprised at how those inhibitions come tumbling down :-P Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Jon Sagara wrote: I never said it was a bad idea, just that ".prn" strikes me as funny. There is no reason why a level domain name has only 3 letters, like .museum for instance. They could make it just .restricted for example to cover a range of things. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Ok, how about this: There is nothing wrong with the idea, and .prn is a fine extension if they want to use that. Upon first viewing, it made me laugh. That's all I meant. Jon Sagara There is no spoon.
-
Ok, how about this: There is nothing wrong with the idea, and .prn is a fine extension if they want to use that. Upon first viewing, it made me laugh. That's all I meant. Jon Sagara There is no spoon.
Jon Sagara wrote: There is nothing wrong with the idea, and .prn is a fine extension Yeah I was just being to too serious, as a parent I want to see the web cleaned up, but not censored etc. I got double standards. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
-
Live in Amsterdam for a couple of years. You'd be surprised at how those inhibitions come tumbling down :-P Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: Live in Amsterdam for a couple of years. Yeah, I use to hang out at some joints in the Canal Street area. Typical tourist stuff. :-) But my mum mever new I went to Amsterdam. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
-
Tom Archer wrote: Live in Amsterdam for a couple of years. Yeah, I use to hang out at some joints in the Canal Street area. Typical tourist stuff. :-) But my mum mever new I went to Amsterdam. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Of all the places I've lived, definitely my favourite! Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
The trouble with freedom is that it usually ends up being exploited as "freedom to do evil". Here in Canada we had a case of a man who was caught with pornographic stories he had written on his computer depicting kidnap, and graphic sexual torture of children. He was acquitted on the grounds that his work had "inherent artistic merit", and that he had freedom to write whatever he wanted to in the privacy of his own home. I'm all for freedom, but where do you draw the line? What happens if this same guy really does kidnap and sexually torture a young boy? Would that be consider "performance art" by the liberals of society? Once again the protection of the rights of criminals has outweighed the protection of society. :mad: Anyway, just another frustrated kevnar rant. Why not throw away a dime? I throw away ten pennies all the time.