On 9/4/2013 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now....
>
> Suppose we take out the measures that prevent the non-standard behaviour
> that you're trying to use.  Does the number of botnets /increase/ because
> there's a new option?  Perhaps it does - so then it could be argued that
> those limitations are helpful (just like anti-murder/speeding laws have
> some utility, even if they don't prevent 100% of violations).
>
> Jim
>
Bad examples, all of them. This is more like the "drug war" or the 
constant attempts to curtail "theft of music", which leads to totally 
useless bs, no actual progress on the real problem, or idiotic rules, 
like the recent, "It should be illegal to stream music you own.", never 
mind things like some ISPs blocking bittorrent traffic. The solution to 
the problem isn't to prevent supposedly "unusual" usages, its to do 
something about the actual illegal ones. And, if your blocking 
completely **fails** to do the later, then, you know.. its just possible 
that the law is just adding to the problems, not correcting the problem.

It was a really poor, stopgap, solution, put in place because they 
couldn't fix their own security. They, in effect, built a wall around 
the city, because they couldn't figure out how to keep the thieves out 
in the first place. That isn't law, its paranoia, and behind bars is 
still "jail", even if the bars are, supposedly, keeping things out. 
Only, they don't even do that, laughably, the whole point is, "If the 
thief gets in, lets trap them inside the walls, with us, so they can't 
terrorize any other towns." Kind of insane, if you think about it...

Post a reply to this message