They may very well have convinced them that they'll only prosecute "evil" people for violations of the law. But that's just crazy, because it defeats the purpose of the rule of law. Applying laws somewhat evenly is what legitamizes force and the generally unpleasent notion of putting people in prison and such. Otherwise we could make walking illegal and only prosecute black people. Gee, he broke the law!!! This is why it is crucial that law must standup to rational scrutiny. This law doesn't.
They may very well have convinced them that they'll only prosecute "evil" people for violations of the law. But that's just crazy, because it defeats the purpose of the rule of law. Applying laws somewhat evenly is what legitamizes force and the generally unpleasent notion of putting people in prison and such. Otherwise we could make walking illegal and only prosecute black people. Gee, he broke the law!!! This is why it is crucial that law must standup to rational scrutiny. This law doesn't.
So, it does not in any way shape or form restrict my ability to obfuscate where data is coming from? It does not in any way ban NAT?
obviously I edited it intentionally. What am I going to do, post the entire document??? There certainly wasn't any other secret clauses that excluded otherwise legal action. I edited to highlight which part pertained to the argument. As you mentioned, anyone can read the whole thing for themselves.
I want to go to Michigan, run NAT and firewalling, serving up copyrighted content on kazaa, and spoofing traffic to my heart's content.
Oh wow! Now I've heard it all!
Corporations, which include colleges, universities, and telecommunications companies, never protect themselves from onerous legislation by some 'altruistic leap of faith'. NEVER! This is why they have lobbyists who go to the Capitol and consult with legislators on these kinds of things.
It is sheer ignorance of how our political process works on the most fundamental levels to conclude otherwise.
How many times do I have to come into these 'chicken little DMCA/RIAA' forums to analyze the text of these bills and play law professor to you all? When will you people start thinking on your own?
I suppose that's rhetoric; if you haven't by now, you never will.
I hope the MPAA headquarters or whatever they have is the first to let down their firewall as a show of support. Then the hackers can do their business. 
I think someone should tell the DA that the MPAA HQ has a firewall and that they should be prosecuted - gotta set a precedent. That would be beautiful.
I think someone should tell the DA that the MPAA HQ has a firewall and that they should be prosecuted - gotta set a precedent. That would be beautiful.First of all, it wouldn't be altruistic if the spin was that this particular law could be used to prosecute such and people that adversly effect the corporations in question. I'll also remind you that Reagan let it be known that his administration would not be prosecuting unlawfull action against unions, and shortly thereafter huge amounts of infractions were commited, so selective enforcement is not without some prescedent.
It is therefore ironic that you challenge people to think on their own, while blanketly assuming that any law that has been passed is in the best interest of the people, simply because of some paternalistic process.
edited to ad: It is our duty to analyze these things rationally. You needn't be a professor of law to understand the nature of generalization or specificity (what's basically in question here). While I don't doubt the spirit of the law is good and bent on benefiting the majority of businesses, I do think the broad language used is absurd, and probably the result of clueless law makers being advised by a very biased source.
That does not 'contradict' this seeming 'altruistic leap of faith' you implied. Lobbyists don't accept "trust me" as a guarantee. They wouldn't permit the law to be used against their interests by making sure the language of the bill precluded that possibility. That's what lobbyists do, and they're damned good at it.
Nice story, but it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. The laws were already on the books and enacted long before Reagan clarified this position of 'selective enforcement'. The laws weren't passed assuring the union of selective enforcement. Great anecdote, but for the wrong discussion.
That is not my assumption, but nice try.
I don't think reagan is apples to oranges. The point is that laws can exist and companies can and do violate them (risking prosecution) based on the word of those in power. Ergo: it's not a leap of faith to assume the same type of agreement can be made on present laws being passed.
As far as your assumptions go, you sarcastically said "i'm sure none of the companies/etc were consulted on the wording of this law", implying that BECAUSE they were consulted, the language of the law was somehow beyond scrutiny. Either that or it was just a random superfluous comment. Whatever
Two completely different things. Because the laws are already passed, the only possible option is to capitalize from a favorable political climate if you want to violate them. When you have the opportunity to make the law itself favorable to you, which will withstand the uncertainty of changing political climates, you do so where ever and when ever you can and never do companies exchange a legal certainty in favor of a political uncertainty. Its illogical and defies all rational basis. i.e. it did not happen.
Oversimplified.
My assumption was that, BECAUSE they were consulted, this law was surely not passed in ignorance, meaning if the law does indeed 'criminalize' firewalls, it does so as an intended consequence, not as an 'unintended' consequence. If such a law were passed, the opposition would be coming from every municipality (incorporated or otherwise), corporation, small business, public school, library, college, university, internet service provider, and telecommunications company who does business in Michigan, and all organizations or groups who represent the interests of these entities, not from some unheard of 'one-man' anti-RIAA organization 'somewhere' on the internet.
It is not only extremely unlikely that such a law would have a snowball's chance of getting out of committee, in the extremely unlikely event that it somehow managed to make it out of committee, on to the floor of both houses for a vote, then passed by both houses, and signed by the governor, we would have heard about it from a far more broad 'coalition' of interests than 'Chuck' and a bunch of screechy teenage anti-RIAA file traders.
Every software and hardware company who develops and markets firewall products would have "HELP STOP THE MADNESS!" emblazoned across the index page of their web portals. They do not.
So either we are to believe all of these vast interests who would be harmed by such a law are completely oblivious to its existence, and only 'Chuck' and the gang are 'in-the-know', or Chuck and the gang are blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
Ok, so having said that, what do you have of value to offer the discussion? Some of us decided to actually read the bill before posting crap like this. Tell us what it means, or you're a hypocrite.
Hey, I have an idea. Its an extremely wishful one with absolutely no chance of happening, I know, but a guy can dream, can't he?
Why don't you cite all the relevant sections of the law without selective editing to prove it prohibits firewalls. No one has yet provided the evidence of this 'alleged' prohibition, except for a half-ass deliberately dishonest attempt by isaacmacdonald. All that has been offered are lots of talk about it being true.
Since it was not I whom created the thread and made the claim, the burden isn't on me to prove its false, when not a single iota of support was provided in the first place.
And statements like "I read it, its true" do not constitute 'support' or 'evidence'.
??? Bah... aside from a completely OT argument about whether/why business members approved the bill, I didn't see you actually mention why the quote DID NOT prove that NAT was illegal. It clearly stated that any attempt to prevent an ISP or Gov't agency from knowing the source and destination of a communication was a prosecutable offense.
No additional sources are required... just read the freakin' document man!
*on a side note* I continue to wonder what was dishonnest about quoting the document-
"to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication"
So what happens if I don't put a return address on a letter ? Can the mailman be arrested too ?
And does this mean that I have to tell Earthlink I sent an Easter card to my Mother-in-law if they ask me ?
So what happens if I don't put a return address on a letter ? Can the mailman be arrested too ?
And does this mean that I have to tell Earthlink I sent an Easter card to my Mother-in-law if they ask me ?
won't stop anyone from running a firewall.. i wouldn't stop
that's pretty close to the dumbest thing i've ever seen in my life
that's pretty close to the dumbest thing i've ever seen in my life
Its kinda like those famous 'one-line' citations from the Bible so many people love to 'insert' into any discussion or issue; taken out of context, making a point by omission or in a vacuum.
You didn't see me mention why the quote was flawed because I could find no portion of your mysterious quote in any of the statutes offered by the website as 'evidence'. May I draw my own conclusions as to the reason you fail to give proper attribution or even a link for this mysterious quote?
This is just silly. The topic is "firewalls now illegal in michigan". The relevant information IS exclusively regarding sections that broadly prohibit firewalls and NAT. What is relevant about the irrelevant sections?
Edited to ad: topic should really be firewalls illegal in MA, michigan is MI
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
You know what I would like to say to those technologically ignorant politicians? "STFU!"
...Stupid politics, always screw things up...
...Stupid politics, always screw things up...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter