Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2010-05-14 20:48:50
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7000|US
...kind of punishing the victims here, aren't they?

NOTE:
People often define "freedom" in two different ways.
1) Freedom of (to)--the ability to make personal choices independent of government regulation.  i.e. Freedom of Speech.  (aka Civil Liberties)
2) Freedom from--the ability to enjoy life with protection from harmful things--often provided/regulated by government action.  i.e. Freedom from want.  (AKA civil rights)

Many Americans (especially libertarians) prefer to operate under a "Freedom of" view.
It seems many in Europe (and many American liberals) prefer "Freedom from."

While these aren't mutually exclusive, the liberal side (using the American meaning) tends to heavily favor "freedom from."  It does fit the "big government" mold quite well...
2010-05-14 22:32:24
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6991
Perfect example of politicians making laws when they have no understanding of the situation.
2010-05-14 23:34:28
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7060|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its the same logic Germans apply to keeping firearms secure, we know you don't get that either.
We do prefer freedom of choice here.  I know it's kind of alien to some Europeans.
yeah, yeah. freedom of choise to walk around with your dick out. "alien" is not the right word for how it looks to me, turq - "retarded" is more like it.

p.s. granted, i'm not european, but still...
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-05-15 10:24:06
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7000|US

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its the same logic Germans apply to keeping firearms secure, we know you don't get that either.
We do prefer freedom of choice here.  I know it's kind of alien to some Europeans.
yeah, yeah. freedom of choise to walk around with your dick out. "alien" is not the right word for how it looks to me, turq - "retarded" is more like it.

p.s. granted, i'm not european, but still...
Well, we like to be able to choose our own internet settings and how we store our own firearms...
The government has no business telling me how to configure my home network.
I also have the recognized right to own firearms for sport and personal defense, unlike many countries.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--the basis of our system.  If that is "retarded" to you, fine.  I think it works quite nicely, especially when compared to other systems.
2010-05-17 03:44:49
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How is the one whose internet access was illegally used responsible for the illegal acts of the one who used it?
read again, they are not responsible for illegal acts of others, only for not protecting their internet connection. if you have a gun you are supposed to keep it somewhere safe so that it can't be used for illegal stuff, right? why souldn't you do the same with your internet connection?
I don't need to read again. They are responsible for the illegal act because the illegal act requires the use of their internet connection in order to be performed. If someone steals your gun and uses it to perform a crime, should you be held accountable because your gun was stolen? Because someone committed an illegal act of their own volition? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You are being held accountable for someone else's poor decision-making.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Granted, it's a small thing to put in a password
passwords, mac-address filtering, even outdated wep-encryption are not enough these days to secure your wireless connection. people should stop breadcasting their wireless ssid and use wpa2 with dinamically changing keys to have a reasonable degree of protection.
There is a difference between technical ease/security requirements and civil liberties. Two different arguments.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-17 05:09:50
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7060|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

They are responsible for the illegal act because the illegal act requires the use of their internet connection in order to be performed. If someone steals your gun and uses it to perform a crime, should you be held accountable because your gun was stolen?
if i did not follow easy and reasonable pre-caution procedures ment to make my guns harder to steal? yes, i should be held accountable, but for that one thing only. actually, the severety of the crime commited with the use of my gun should also be taken into account.

FEOS wrote:

Because someone committed an illegal act of their own volition? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You are being held accountable for someone else's poor decision-making.
not at all. i'm being held accountable for being a careless prick who didn't use his basic common sence. this is what this issue is all about. just as much as i don't want anybody killed with my gun and, hence, keep it under the lock and key, i don't want bf2s.com or any other internet resource ddos-attacked with the use of my internet connection and have it password-protected and traffic encrypted. it's only reasonable.

FEOS wrote:

There is a difference between technical ease/security requirements and civil liberties. Two different arguments.
that's right. my english once again failed me. i was just pointing out that passwords are not enough and that the thechnical side of this issue is actually more complex than it might look. this, of cource, does not directly relate to the OP.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-05-17 05:11:30)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-05-17 12:09:50
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How is the one whose internet access was illegally used responsible for the illegal acts of the one who used it?
read again, they are not responsible for illegal acts of others, only for not protecting their internet connection. if you have a gun you are supposed to keep it somewhere safe so that it can't be used for illegal stuff, right? why souldn't you do the same with your internet connection?
I don't need to read again. They are responsible for the illegal act because the illegal act requires the use of their internet connection in order to be performed. If someone steals your gun and uses it to perform a crime, should you be held accountable because your gun was stolen? Because someone committed an illegal act of their own volition? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You are being held accountable for someone else's poor decision-making.
If you have something in your possession which can be used to commit crimes, it is your responsibility to minimise the risk of that happening.

Whether that be a gun which you have carelessly left lying around and an internet connection you have carelessly left unsecured.

It's about taking due care and attention to help reduce crime. It's about being responsible - but of course there are lots of people too stupid or complacent to be responsible with these sorts of things, hence the laws.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-05-17 12:29:09)

2010-05-18 03:52:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

They are responsible for the illegal act because the illegal act requires the use of their internet connection in order to be performed. If someone steals your gun and uses it to perform a crime, should you be held accountable because your gun was stolen?
if i did not follow easy and reasonable pre-caution procedures ment to make my guns harder to steal? yes, i should be held accountable, but for that one thing only. actually, the severety of the crime commited with the use of my gun should also be taken into account.
Bullshit.

You should not be held accountable because someone else made the decision and took the illegal action to steal something that wasn't theirs and then used it to commit a crime with it, regardless of the circumstances involved with their theft of it. That's ridiculous. That's holding the victim responsible for their own victimization.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because someone committed an illegal act of their own volition? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You are being held accountable for someone else's poor decision-making.
not at all. i'm being held accountable for being a careless prick who didn't use his basic common sence. this is what this issue is all about. just as much as i don't want anybody killed with my gun and, hence, keep it under the lock and key, i don't want bf2s.com or any other internet resource ddos-attacked with the use of my internet connection and have it password-protected and traffic encrypted. it's only reasonable.
So women should be held accountable for dressing like sluts when they get sexually assaulted? It's only reasonable.

If we're going to hold victims accountable for their own victimization, let's just go all out, shall we?

Yes, it's a ridiculous logical leap. But that's the point. It's the civil liberties slippery slope. When we hold victims responsible for crimes committed against them, when does it stop?

Bertster7 wrote:

If you have something in your possession which can be used to commit crimes, it is your responsibility to minimise the risk of that happening.

Whether that be a gun which you have carelessly left lying around and an internet connection you have carelessly left unsecured.

It's about taking due care and attention to help reduce crime. It's about being responsible - but of course there are lots of people too stupid or complacent to be responsible with these sorts of things, hence the laws.
I have a pocketknife. I left it on the counter a work. Someone took it and killed someone with it. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

I have a coathanger. I left it in the closet in my office at work. Someone took it and used it to assault someone with it. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

I was at a baseball game. I brought a baseball bat with me. Someone took that baseball bat and attacked the umpire with it after a bad call. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

In each case, there was an item that no reasonable person would assume was something that would be used to commit a crime and would require special protection, yet it was used to do just that. Why should someone assume their internet connection will be used to commit a crime? Should we all assume our cars will be used to commit crimes if they aren't locked at all times, as well?

This is a flawed ruling. On many levels.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-18 04:43:25
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7060|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

That's ridiculous. That's holding the victim responsible for their own victimization.
if the reason for for somebody's victimization is their own carelessness - i see no problem whatsoever.

FEOS wrote:

So women should be held accountable for dressing like sluts when they get sexually assaulted? It's only reasonable.
she dressed like a slut - she gets assaulted. what's there to punish her for? now - and here's a ridiculous logical leap of my own - if the way she chose to dress made it so somebody else gets assaulted - yes, she should be held accountable, but only for dressing like that, NOT for the assault itself. read the OP again - they aren't going to make you liable for all the damages done using your internet connection, they simply going to fine you for, like, a hundred bucks, if it wasn't password-protected.

FEOS wrote:

Yes, it's a ridiculous logical leap. But that's the point. It's the civil liberties slippery slope. When we hold victims responsible for crimes committed against them, when does it stop?
when in doubt i find it prudent to use my common sence. drop the idiotic "they are infringing on my right to be an irresponcible dick"-bullshit and try it sometime.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-05-18 05:25:58
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's ridiculous. That's holding the victim responsible for their own victimization.
if the reason for for somebody's victimization is their own carelessness - i see no problem whatsoever.

FEOS wrote:

So women should be held accountable for dressing like sluts when they get sexually assaulted? It's only reasonable.
she dressed like a slut - she gets assaulted. what's there to punish her for? now - and here's a ridiculous logical leap of my own - if the way she chose to dress made it so somebody else gets assaulted - yes, she should be held accountable, but only for dressing like that, NOT for the assault itself. read the OP again - they aren't going to make you liable for all the damages done using your internet connection, they simply going to fine you for, like, a hundred bucks, if it wasn't password-protected.
They are still punishing the person whose internet connection was illegally used without their knowledge to perform an illegal act. If the act performed were not illegal, there would be no issue. So yes, the victim here is being punished for the other person's illegal act...in fact, for two of them: 1 - the theft of their internet connection; 2 - the illegal act that was traced back to said internet connection. Two leads to one. The victim wouldn't be punished for the lack of password on one if it weren't for two, therefore, they are being punished for the commission of two.

They aren't being punished for their own carelessness. They are being punished for another person's clear, discriminate, actions. Not their own.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, it's a ridiculous logical leap. But that's the point. It's the civil liberties slippery slope. When we hold victims responsible for crimes committed against them, when does it stop?
when in doubt i find it prudent to use my common sence. drop the idiotic "they are infringing on my right to be an irresponcible dick"-bullshit and try it sometime.
You're not applying common sense. You're applying fascist mentality. I guess that passes for common sense where you're from, but not so much in other places.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-18 06:04:15
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7060|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

They are still punishing the person whose internet connection was illegally used without their knowledge to perform an illegal act. If the act performed were not illegal, there would be no issue.
what makes it illegal? how does one even find out if it's illegal to use a particular wireless network? someone sets up a wireless access point and doesn't even password-protect it - how would i, a simple law abiding person, even know if i'm breaking the law by accessing internet through that when there's a shitload of open networks out there made available by isp-providers for trial purposes; by cafes, clubs and such as a complimentary service for their clients and allah knows what else? even in a godforsaken shithole of a coutry that russia is today there are several wireless networks always availabe whenever i make a scan for them - i imagine in germany there are helluwa more.

FEOS wrote:

So yes, the victim here is being punished for the other person's illegal act...in fact, for two of them: 1 - the theft of their internet connection; 2 - the illegal act that was traced back to said internet connection. Two leads to one. The victim wouldn't be punished for the lack of password on one if it weren't for two, therefore, they are being punished for the commission of two.
bullshit. already explained above - the victim's not being punished for anything but their own stupidity. to set this all in order they should simply have the police run around scanning for unprotected wireless networks, and promptly fine every dumbass who set those up. everybody would then have the read the fucking manual - as they should have done from the beginning - and i doubt there will be many networks left unprotected after that. bam! - problem easily solved.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, it's a ridiculous logical leap. But that's the point. It's the civil liberties slippery slope. When we hold victims responsible for crimes committed against them, when does it stop?
when in doubt i find it prudent to use my common sence. drop the idiotic "they are infringing on my right to be an irresponcible dick"-bullshit and try it sometime.
You're not applying common sense. You're applying fascist mentality. I guess that passes for common sense where you're from, but not so much in other places.
yeah, yeah. heard that before. no way we'd be able to properly check the opinions on this around all the "other places", so we'd just have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-05-18 06:27:56)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-05-18 06:09:51
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:


when in doubt i find it prudent to use my common sence. drop the idiotic "they are infringing on my right to be an irresponcible dick"-bullshit and try it sometime.
You're not applying common sense. You're applying fascist mentality. I guess that passes for common sense where you're from, but not so much in other places.
yeah, yeah. heard that before. no way we'd be able to properly check the opinions on this around all the "other places", so we'd just have to agree to disagree.
tbh, it's not fascist mentality, it's common sense.
2010-05-18 11:36:47
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6609|Graz, Austria
About the car analogy:
I'm quite sure that insurance companies won't pay if your car gets stolen and they can prove you didn't lock it.

Also, AFAIK, at least here in Austria all ISP have some clauses in their contracts that you are responsible for anything that happens with your internet connection.
So, it's in your own best interest to keep your connection secure, because you could have a hell of a problem proving that it wasn't you who did something illegal with your unprotected, open WLAN connection.
2010-05-18 14:57:12
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Trotskygrad wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You're not applying common sense. You're applying fascist mentality. I guess that passes for common sense where you're from, but not so much in other places.
yeah, yeah. heard that before. no way we'd be able to properly check the opinions on this around all the "other places", so we'd just have to agree to disagree.
tbh, it's not fascist mentality, it's common sense.
Perhaps not, but the following certainly has those overtones....

Shahter wrote:

bullshit. already explained above - the victim's not being punished for anything but their own stupidity. to set this all in order they should simply have the police run around scanning for unprotected wireless networks, and promptly fine every dumbass who set those up. everybody would then have the read the fucking manual - as they should have done from the beginning - and i doubt there will be many networks left unprotected after that. bam! - problem easily solved.
Besides, the majority of the reason for this law isn't to protect people -- it's to satisfy copyright groups.  This is a backdoor anti-piracy policy.

Admittedly, it's very clever, because many people can easily be tricked into buying into it.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-18 14:59:48)

2010-05-18 16:05:15
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

Turquoise wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Shahter wrote:


yeah, yeah. heard that before. no way we'd be able to properly check the opinions on this around all the "other places", so we'd just have to agree to disagree.
tbh, it's not fascist mentality, it's common sense.
Perhaps not, but the following certainly has those overtones....

Shahter wrote:

bullshit. already explained above - the victim's not being punished for anything but their own stupidity. to set this all in order they should simply have the police run around scanning for unprotected wireless networks, and promptly fine every dumbass who set those up. everybody would then have the read the fucking manual - as they should have done from the beginning - and i doubt there will be many networks left unprotected after that. bam! - problem easily solved.
Besides, the majority of the reason for this law isn't to protect people -- it's to satisfy copyright groups.  This is a backdoor anti-piracy policy.

Admittedly, it's very clever, because many people can easily be tricked into buying into it.
tbh, bottom is fascist.

lol, the idea just made me shit and giggle (mentally, because it's such a waste of police funds)

"Sir, your network is unprotected, I'm going to have to arrest you if you don't pay this fine."
2010-05-18 16:21:02
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6952

Too bad most cable internet setups are still WEP with simple broadcasted SSID's and unchanged password etched on the bottom of the routers.
2010-05-18 19:43:58
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

They are still punishing the person whose internet connection was illegally used without their knowledge to perform an illegal act. If the act performed were not illegal, there would be no issue.
what makes it illegal? how does one even find out if it's illegal to use a particular wireless network? someone sets up a wireless access point and doesn't even password-protect it - how would i, a simple law abiding person, even know if i'm breaking the law by accessing internet through that when there's a shitload of open networks out there made available by isp-providers for trial purposes; by cafes, clubs and such as a complimentary service for their clients and allah knows what else? even in a godforsaken shithole of a coutry that russia is today there are several wireless networks always availabe whenever i make a scan for them - i imagine in germany there are helluwa more.
Was it used without permission?

Illegally used.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So yes, the victim here is being punished for the other person's illegal act...in fact, for two of them: 1 - the theft of their internet connection; 2 - the illegal act that was traced back to said internet connection. Two leads to one. The victim wouldn't be punished for the lack of password on one if it weren't for two, therefore, they are being punished for the commission of two.
bullshit. already explained above - the victim's not being punished for anything but their own stupidity. to set this all in order they should simply have the police run around scanning for unprotected wireless networks, and promptly fine every dumbass who set those up. everybody would then have the read the fucking manual - as they should have done from the beginning - and i doubt there will be many networks left unprotected after that. bam! - problem easily solved.
Stupidity isn't illegal.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

when in doubt i find it prudent to use my common sence. drop the idiotic "they are infringing on my right to be an irresponcible dick"-bullshit and try it sometime.
You're not applying common sense. You're applying fascist mentality. I guess that passes for common sense where you're from, but not so much in other places.
yeah, yeah. heard that before. no way we'd be able to properly check the opinions on this around all the "other places", so we'd just have to agree to disagree.
I deem it common sense to hold you accountable for another person's illegal actions because I think you're stupid.

Yep. Sounds pretty fascist.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-18 20:28:28
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

They are still punishing the person whose internet connection was illegally used without their knowledge to perform an illegal act. If the act performed were not illegal, there would be no issue.
what makes it illegal? how does one even find out if it's illegal to use a particular wireless network? someone sets up a wireless access point and doesn't even password-protect it - how would i, a simple law abiding person, even know if i'm breaking the law by accessing internet through that when there's a shitload of open networks out there made available by isp-providers for trial purposes; by cafes, clubs and such as a complimentary service for their clients and allah knows what else? even in a godforsaken shithole of a coutry that russia is today there are several wireless networks always availabe whenever i make a scan for them - i imagine in germany there are helluwa more.
Was it used without permission?

Illegally used.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So yes, the victim here is being punished for the other person's illegal act...in fact, for two of them: 1 - the theft of their internet connection; 2 - the illegal act that was traced back to said internet connection. Two leads to one. The victim wouldn't be punished for the lack of password on one if it weren't for two, therefore, they are being punished for the commission of two.
bullshit. already explained above - the victim's not being punished for anything but their own stupidity. to set this all in order they should simply have the police run around scanning for unprotected wireless networks, and promptly fine every dumbass who set those up. everybody would then have the read the fucking manual - as they should have done from the beginning - and i doubt there will be many networks left unprotected after that. bam! - problem easily solved.
Stupidity isn't illegal.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:


You're not applying common sense. You're applying fascist mentality. I guess that passes for common sense where you're from, but not so much in other places.
yeah, yeah. heard that before. no way we'd be able to properly check the opinions on this around all the "other places", so we'd just have to agree to disagree.
I deem it common sense to hold you accountable for another person's illegal actions because I think you're stupid.

Yep. Sounds pretty fascist.
Quote breakdown, damn...

Anyways, I'm pretty sure we're all in consensus that the solution is mandatory filtering for P2P traffic on all open networks. Bam done.

Only a minority of Pirates will be able to bypass that.
2010-05-19 00:50:12
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7060|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Was it used without permission?

Illegally used.
don't know much about the technical aspect of this, do you? most of the networks i mentioned are ment to be used without permission. those are marketing tools and thus should be as easy to access as possible. so how does one tell such a network from a private one? - i'll tell you: private network, by definition, should have some privacy mechanism implemented - like password and encryption. oh, wait... that's what this thread is about. hmmm...

FEOS wrote:

Stupidity isn't illegal.
its consequences often are, though.

FEOS wrote:

I deem it common sense to hold you accountable for another person's illegal actions because I think you're stupid.

Yep. Sounds pretty fascist.
keep juggling with the words, huh? well, if you have nothing of substance to add, then i already addressed everything you said. feel free to get back to me when you have a point.

Trotskygrad wrote:

Anyways, I'm pretty sure we're all in consensus that the solution is mandatory filtering for P2P traffic on all open networks. Bam done.

Only a minority of Pirates will be able to bypass that.
that wouldn't last long. if that was implemented isp's would simply start selling private vpn connections which would easily defeat just about any filtering there is. the whole piracy issue is very complex, there's no "bam done" solutions for it, especially with the people around, who start screaming murder at the sound of the word "mandatory".
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-05-19 06:27:36
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

Shahter wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Anyways, I'm pretty sure we're all in consensus that the solution is mandatory filtering for P2P traffic on all open networks. Bam done.

Only a minority of Pirates will be able to bypass that.
that wouldn't last long. if that was implemented isp's would simply start selling private vpn connections which would easily defeat just about any filtering there is. the whole piracy issue is very complex, there's no "bam done" solutions for it, especially with the people around, who start screaming murder at the sound of the word "mandatory".
Backdoor filtering updates wuuuuuuut? Blocking all VPN connections? State mandated firmware for all wireless routers? Owait, that's fascist.
2010-05-19 07:28:04
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7060|Moscow, Russia

Trotskygrad wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Anyways, I'm pretty sure we're all in consensus that the solution is mandatory filtering for P2P traffic on all open networks. Bam done.

Only a minority of Pirates will be able to bypass that.
that wouldn't last long. if that was implemented isp's would simply start selling private vpn connections which would easily defeat just about any filtering there is. the whole piracy issue is very complex, there's no "bam done" solutions for it, especially with the people around, who start screaming murder at the sound of the word "mandatory".
Backdoor filtering updates wuuuuuuut?
huh?

Blocking all VPN connections?
how do you tell a vpn connection from others? even if you block all the ports save, say, http and https they'd simply have their vpn servers listening on those ports.

State mandated firmware for all wireless routers? Owait, that's fascist.
not to mention impractical. imagine waiting for the state-run licensing entity to check and approve every new firmware for every router every time a bug is found and fixed?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-05-19 08:37:52
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

Shahter wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Shahter wrote:


that wouldn't last long. if that was implemented isp's would simply start selling private vpn connections which would easily defeat just about any filtering there is. the whole piracy issue is very complex, there's no "bam done" solutions for it, especially with the people around, who start screaming murder at the sound of the word "mandatory".
Backdoor filtering updates wuuuuuuut?
huh?

Blocking all VPN connections?
how do you tell a vpn connection from others? even if you block all the ports save, say, http and https they'd simply have their vpn servers listening on those ports.

State mandated firmware for all wireless routers? Owait, that's fascist.
not to mention impractical. imagine waiting for the state-run licensing entity to check and approve every new firmware for every router every time a bug is found and fixed?
What I was talking about is routers must run a certain software made by the state, that blocks connections and can be updated remotely through a backdoor to account for new piracy methods as they come up.
2010-05-19 12:02:35
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

If you have something in your possession which can be used to commit crimes, it is your responsibility to minimise the risk of that happening.

Whether that be a gun which you have carelessly left lying around and an internet connection you have carelessly left unsecured.

It's about taking due care and attention to help reduce crime. It's about being responsible - but of course there are lots of people too stupid or complacent to be responsible with these sorts of things, hence the laws.
I have a pocketknife. I left it on the counter a work. Someone took it and killed someone with it. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

I have a coathanger. I left it in the closet in my office at work. Someone took it and used it to assault someone with it. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

I was at a baseball game. I brought a baseball bat with me. Someone took that baseball bat and attacked the umpire with it after a bad call. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

In each case, there was an item that no reasonable person would assume was something that would be used to commit a crime and would require special protection, yet it was used to do just that. Why should someone assume their internet connection will be used to commit a crime? Should we all assume our cars will be used to commit crimes if they aren't locked at all times, as well?

This is a flawed ruling. On many levels.
Depends on the circumstances. In some of those instances, if you had been negligent, then you should be held accountable - not for the crimes themselves, but for not taking the proper precautions to minimise the risk.

It all depends on circumstances. You leave a pocket knife in a childrens play area and some children end up getting stabbed - damn right you should be held accountable.
2010-05-19 19:12:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Was it used without permission?

Illegally used.
don't know much about the technical aspect of this, do you? most of the networks i mentioned are ment to be used without permission. those are marketing tools and thus should be as easy to access as possible. so how does one tell such a network from a private one? - i'll tell you: private network, by definition, should have some privacy mechanism implemented - like password and encryption. oh, wait... that's what this thread is about. hmmm...
I actually know quite a bit about the technical aspect of this. I test network security for a living and have multiple certifications. So yeah...I understand more than a little about the technical aspect of this. That's not the issue.

What differentiates public from private is ownership and intended usage. Period. Not privacy/authentication mechanisms. Just because it's not protected with a password doesn't mean it's a public network.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Stupidity isn't illegal.
its consequences often are, though.
Wrong again. Consequences aren't illegal. Consequences are the result of illegal behavior/choices.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I deem it common sense to hold you accountable for another person's illegal actions because I think you're stupid.

Yep. Sounds pretty fascist.
keep juggling with the words, huh? well, if you have nothing of substance to add, then i already addressed everything you said. feel free to get back to me when you have a point.
The point's been made. In spades. You just don't have a counter when the light of day is shone upon the mentality you are applying to this.

Shahter wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Anyways, I'm pretty sure we're all in consensus that the solution is mandatory filtering for P2P traffic on all open networks. Bam done.

Only a minority of Pirates will be able to bypass that.
that wouldn't last long. if that was implemented isp's would simply start selling private vpn connections which would easily defeat just about any filtering there is. the whole piracy issue is very complex, there's no "bam done" solutions for it, especially with the people around, who start screaming murder at the sound of the word "mandatory".
It's about far more than just P2P traffic. And the German court's decision mandated no more open networks...at least for private citizens, so it's a moot point, anyway.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-19 19:17:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

If you have something in your possession which can be used to commit crimes, it is your responsibility to minimise the risk of that happening.

Whether that be a gun which you have carelessly left lying around and an internet connection you have carelessly left unsecured.

It's about taking due care and attention to help reduce crime. It's about being responsible - but of course there are lots of people too stupid or complacent to be responsible with these sorts of things, hence the laws.
I have a pocketknife. I left it on the counter a work. Someone took it and killed someone with it. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

I have a coathanger. I left it in the closet in my office at work. Someone took it and used it to assault someone with it. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

I was at a baseball game. I brought a baseball bat with me. Someone took that baseball bat and attacked the umpire with it after a bad call. I guess I should be held accountable then, right?

In each case, there was an item that no reasonable person would assume was something that would be used to commit a crime and would require special protection, yet it was used to do just that. Why should someone assume their internet connection will be used to commit a crime? Should we all assume our cars will be used to commit crimes if they aren't locked at all times, as well?

This is a flawed ruling. On many levels.
Depends on the circumstances. In some of those instances, if you had been negligent, then you should be held accountable - not for the crimes themselves, but for not taking the proper precautions to minimise the risk.

It all depends on circumstances. You leave a pocket knife in a childrens play area and some children end up getting stabbed - damn right you should be held accountable.
The point being, there is no inherent negligence. The negligence is on the part of the person who chose to take the inherently neutral item and commit the crime with it. There is no negligence on the part of the person who left the neutral item there, where no reasonable person would assume a crime would be committed with it or harm would come of it.

That's the great thing about the law here in the US. We have the "reasonable person" argument. I guess Europe (minus England, apparently) doesn't worry about that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard