[lordofduct]

farrell2k, on 28 February 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

..snip

How does the government prevent two or more private entities from cooperating in a legal venture? That sounds like the "big gubment" that everyone here in the U.S. decries.

...snip

Key part is that it's questionably legal. I thought hannibal outlined why it's questionable very well. The government is there to enforce the laws it creates, and to interpret those laws when the circumstances are grey.

As you pointed out, maybe we should have the same privacy we do on our telephone lines. Something noone (government or private) is allowed to tap (well they can now if you're a terrorist, whatever that is) with out a warrant.

And the thing is, most internet is over some type of telephone communication line. That or cable lines.

Hence the questionably legal aspect.



And our privacy rights do protect us from other private individuals. As well as our property rights. Hence why you can't peep in my windows, sneak around my property, and other various monitoring acts.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 28 February 2013 - 08:28 AM

[modi123_1]

Just a heads up on how comcast is dealing with this - popups straight to your browser.

http://arstechnica.c...ert-looks-like/

[h4nnib4l]

Quote

That's the absolute silliest thing I have ever read.

What does your hyperbolic condescension ever add to debates? You either scream "logical fallacy" or insult the arguments of everyone (or just insult everyone) on the opposite side of a debate as you. It's childish and extremely ignorant.

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 28 February 2013 - 09:01 AM

[farrell2k]

You don't think it's silly to claim that no government involvement is tantamount to government involvement? That tell me everything I need to know about your reasoning skills.

I didn't realize that pointing out the silliness of an argument constituted a personal attack.

Silly arguments are by their very nature deserving of ridicule, although I wouldn't necessarily consider the word "silly" deserving of such a definition.

Don't take criticism of argument as as a personal attack.

I did -1 you, but I don't like to do that for opinion posts, as that is childish, so I +1 you somewhere else.

lordofduct, on 28 February 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

As you pointed out, maybe we should have the same privacy we do on our telephone lines. Something noone (government or private) is allowed to tap (well they can now if you're a terrorist, whatever that is) with out a warrant.

Yes, I think we should. Where does it stop, though? It obviously has to be ok to look at data type and routing information. I guess that would be analogous to knowing the phone numbers and the names and addresses of people your neighbor calls, while not knowing the things said in the conversation.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 28 February 2013 - 09:17 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

Probably not entirely the silliest thing you've ever read, though.

(Just to be fair.)

[farrell2k]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 February 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Probably not entirely the silliest thing you've ever read, though.

(Just to be fair.)

No. No. I think that was probably the silliest, even more than some of the pro gun arguments.

The color red is red because it is not red. That pretty much does it, man.

[h4nnib4l]

I didn't take this as a personal attack, I was just commenting that it was unnecessary, and that you have a history of doing the things that I outlines, including being blatantly insulting to me; however, you don't see me going back and down-repping you for insulting shit you've said to me.

Quote

Silly arguments are by their very nature deserving of ridicule

Okay. And a pattern of condescension and misusing logical fallacies is worth pointing out too. But I haven't down-repped you for it, even when you've done it to me.

Quote

That tell me everything I need to know about your reasoning skills.

Really dude? That's a pointless, goading statement. How the fuck could I accomplish this? It's the internet, and you don't know me (nor do I know you).

All I did was point out that you always use that tactic. And who got their panties in a twist? You did.

[modi123_1]

A bit more information/interpretation:

Quote

First things first: the Copyright Alert System is not a government program. Your ISP won't even give up your personal information to the content partners unless it's required by law through a subpoena or court order. The most annoying thing that'll happen if you get caught is that your bandwidth might be throttled.

The Copyright Alert System only monitors peer-to-peer traffic from public BitTorrent trackers. That means they're not looking at private BitTorrent trackers, email attachments, file lockers, or anywhere else. Basically, if you're not using BitTorrent you have nothing to worry about.

cite 2

[jon.kiparsky]

I would like to just point out that any further back and forth on this particular point of personal privilege will constitute stalemate and thus a drawn match.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 28 February 2013 - 09:26 AM

[CharlieMay]

Quote

Click the button below to confirm that you received this message and close it.

So Alt-F4 then or End Task.

[h4nnib4l]

I thought we were all going to end up believing the exact same things and hugging a lot this time. Fuck. Oh well, I bet gabehabe will hug me.

[jon.kiparsky]

h4nnib4l, on 28 February 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

I thought we were all going to end up believing the exact same things and hugging a lot this time. Fuck. Oh well, I bet gabehabe will hug me.

I don't remember seeing that on his rate sheet, but I'm sure he could come up with a quote for you.

[supersloth]

CharlieMay, on 28 February 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Quote

Click the button below to confirm that you received this message and close it.

So Alt-F4 then or End Task.

so... you're unaware they can keep sending the message or cut off your connection until you acknowledge receipt?

[lordofduct]

farrell2k, on 28 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

...snip

The color red is red because it is not red. That pretty much does it, man.

The argument isn't the color red is red because it's not red.

The argument is that failure to do something right is tantamount to doing something wrong.

If I as a doctor stand-by and watch a man die of something I could have done something about makes me involved. I'm involved in that I'm already present, and my action is that I didn't do anything to help.

Same goes for a cop who turns a blind eye to crimes.

Unwillingness to act against, can be an act of condoning.

(note I say 'can', and I don't mean to imply that it's always an act of condoning... in this case though when a government's role is to enforce/interpret their laws, and they fail to do so, is an act of condoning the breaking of said laws)

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 28 February 2013 - 10:54 AM

[farrell2k]

lordofduct, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

(note I say 'can', and I don't mean to imply that it's always an act of condoning... in this case though when a government's role is to enforce/interpret their laws, and they fail to do so, is an act of condoning the breaking of said laws)

what laws? I still haven't figured out which laws you guys claim are being broken. All I see is emotionally charged rhetoric.

They're collecting IP addresses (public information) from public P2P networks, then notifying ISPs of suspected copyright infringement from that address (They don't know who you are). Your ISP then finds you and sends up to six warnings, after which they disable your account until you call them, or they just throttle your bandwidth. You're on a P2P network where every bit of traffic is completely visible to anyone else on the network. How could you ever have any expectation of privacy in such a situation?

You guys complain when the government gets involved in something that is not its business, then complain again when it does not get involved in something that is not its business.