News from the Front


Yes, if you operate in a country then you become subject to its laws. It will be interesting to see how this will pan out.

Your second link is duplicated.
I recall having read about that as well. I do not see how such practices are beneficial on the long-term.
This is a huge incentive for privacy concerned citizens to move away from roombas and buy competing devices instead.

You know, the more I read about these borderline ethics, the more I am beginning to think that Stallman was right all along.
 
The truth is that in most countries the law is totally unprepared for the Internet and mass processing of sensitive data. We have it for 30 years and we're using similar rules that about telephones and cardfiles.
The problem is that companies in fact want to make the Internet a second centralized system like telephone.
But, about Google, why only Canada? Google offices are nearly everywhere, there MUST be an office in some countries where e.g. orthodox-Buddhist or Islamic laws are present. Forcing Google to globally cut links because of these laws (and we're trained by media to fight with these laws) may have very interesting results.

About these vacuum cleaners, this was totally predictable. It's only matter of time, which company will try to do more.

Caine said:
You know, the more I read about these borderline ethics, the more I am beginning to think that Stallman was right all along.
Click to expand...
He was right in many cases, but let's face the truth, the GPL has no power in law. Company violating GPL will just delay all law enforcement processes enough to make system obsolete and e.g. not share the code because nobody will be then interested. This is an exact case in which one company made e-book readers with closed-source Linux mod.
 
PCXT said:
The truth is that in most countries the law is totally unprepared for the Internet and mass processing of sensitive data. We have it for 30 years and we're using similar rules that about telephones and cardfiles.
Click to expand...

I think there's also a problem with border control. Traditionally, you can station police and customs inspectors at ports, airport, border crossings, and so on - which allows a country to ensure that everything and everyone entering it complies with local law.

If my country bans a certain category of information, and even if they vigorously hunt down distributors of that information within that country, they have no way to stop me importing that information from a country with laxer laws. There's no such thing as customs for the internet.

The only solutions to this problem are:
  1. Build a spectacularly expensive filter that can monitor and intercept network traffic - but that results in an unwinnable arms-race against VPNs, Stenography, and that sort of thing
  2. Legalise the possession and transmission of any and all information - but that completely destroys the idea of copyright.
  3. Construct a huge international treaty, so that every country connected to the internet agrees to police its use - this brings up issues of sovereignty, and is politically unworkable.
  4. Step back a few decades and limit telecoms to voice only - and watch the economy collapse
Really, I have no idea which of those is best (or if there's one I've missed)
 
The GPL very much holds up in court. Punitive damages makes that a dumb game to play.

Also, canada law drunk, go home canada.

Edit: @Binky There absolutely is border-control of digital media. The reason why sourceforge cant distribute to iran, cuba and a few others. You will also get checked for illegal digital media when entering Australia.

Just because the UK is bonkers, doesn't mean there isn't worse to be had.
2+3 wouldnt be half bad
 
The idea of copyright is faulty and became faulty quickly after it became introduced. Damaging its foundation ideas was totally controlled process, with main objective to make monetary gains for one group by the cost of other (in USA) or control monopoly of sharing knowledge/books (in Europe). The development of technology generally suggests a bit different rules of its progress than these proposed by modern intellectual property philosophy. It is unfortunately well masked by "dead" laws, officially present in paper but almost never used due to conflicts with other articles or economic conditions. Although there is a theoretical separation between authorship rights and copy rights, it in most cases does not exist in reality at all, even in scientific research field. Literally a journal can take paper of author A and publish it under name B and there were such cases, some more known, some not known at all.

comradekingu said:
Just because the UK is bonkers, doesn't mean there isn't worse to be had.
Click to expand...
But most people in western culture are trained against these countries like Iran or Cuba. If UK gets it, they will blindly advocate for it only because western Europe does it. Currently it happens purely automatically, without thinking, probably by authority effect, if it goes too slow media may always flash with few terrorists and everything will be accepted.
This data harvesting development reminds me the first race for GUI in early 1980s. Who would do more like Xerox and won't get sued. This time - who will gut more data, disorient users and won't get bankrupt due to lack of customers. But with "social media"-controlled Internet we have a deficit of aware customers so it's much easier than before.
 
I'm curious to see how people who have the power to fight this crap and cause chaos react... you know those people who usually don't give two f's because theyre messing around with things or pushing the limits of what they can do without getting caught.

Its sort of like those macs never get viruses ads.

You know the people who viewed crap as Challenge accepted. Censorship of the internet is hard task because the ways to restrict it also open up back doors. China's system is infamous for this and is easily exploitable by those with the knowledge to do so.

The limitation or making knowledge illegal backfires because those willing to get it then have no reason to stop. It's like illegally making a gun. Might as well go for full auto, you're breaking the law anyways..

The internet is like the modern printing press. Politicians back then used to destroy the presses but the knowledge would still get out.

History always repeats itself.
 
Binky said:
The only solutions to this problem are:
  1. Build a spectacularly expensive filter that can monitor and intercept network traffic - but that results in an unwinnable arms-race against VPNs, Stenography, and that sort of thing
  2. Legalise the possession and transmission of any and all information - but that completely destroys the idea of copyright.
  3. Construct a huge international treaty, so that every country connected to the internet agrees to police its use - this brings up issues of sovereignty, and is politically unworkable.
  4. Step back a few decades and limit telecoms to voice only - and watch the economy collapse
Really, I have no idea which of those is best (or if there's one I've missed)
Click to expand...

5. World government. A special case or end-stage of 3 perhaps, but it is the direction where we were headed (EU & trade treaties).
With the new wave of protectionist populism we are turning towards 1 and eventually 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

blimpsgo180
The Definitive List of Pandora Games (native games and ports)
2 3
Replies
40
Views
35K
levi
levi
Back
Top