On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:51 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> You're changing the subject.  Surveillance (sic) does not interfere in
>> a person's activity and is itself a passive activity.  Packet filtering
>> interferes with legitimate traffic and is not a passive activity.
> 
> How so? I use spam filtering and while spams indeed get filtered out,
> legitimate content just passes through. Active/passive activity
> distinction is arbitrary. Everything is "active" on the internet,
> otherwise packets never will go from one point to another.

If you don't know the difference between packet filtering and spam 
filtering, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on the use of these 
technologies.

>> >> Prosecute those who *actually violate the law*.
> 
>> > There's no single easy easy solution. You also need to make it hard
>> > for people to violate the law.
> 
>> While we're at it, let's make it illegal to use photocopiers and
>> scanners, lord knows those are used for illegal activities.
> 
> Glad you brought it up, you are only helping my case. See, commercial
> copiers already have "active" filters in them, and will block and even
> lock up when trying to copy currency. That's a very "active" measure

Not all of them do.

However, what you're proposing by saying "block all P2P traffic" isn't 
the same as this type of technology in copiers.  Your proposal would be 
analogous to saying "let's remove the copying circuitry from copies".

> taken to *prevent* a crime, and it's a good one, IMO. Google "Eurion
> Constellation", for instance. 

I'm quite aware of it.  I've actually been responsible for implementing 
it.  That is a measure to prevent copying of specific documents, not the 
copying of all documents.

> Sure, it will only deter amateurs with bad
> judgement, but like I said above, there's no single easy solution to
> combatting piracy. I lock my door every day, even though it would take a
> professional 5 seconds to unlock it. You *have* to make it hard to break
> the law.
> 
>> How about we also outlaw cars, since those are used to commit crimes.
> 
> Did I ever mention outlawing internet or copiers? In any case, that's a
> very silly slippery slope argument not worth countering.

Not silly at all.

You are proposing restricting a technology because it *may* be used for 
copying copyrighted content, IOW, it may be used to break the law.

If that's the threshold that you think is reasonable, then we should 
apply it consistently across all aspects of our lives.  Violating 
copyright is a crime, certainly, but compared to the deaths caused by 
illegal uses of automobiles, it seems reasonable (using your own logic) 
to say "hey, we can save lots of lives by outlawing cars" and making that 
happen, too.

Or guns, shall we apply this logic to guns?

Jim

Post a reply to this message