Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

The Year in Internet Law 103

Posted by michael from the judicial-clue-quotient-not-increasing dept.
owenPS writes: "This New York Times article has "excerpts from e-mails written by six legal experts about the year's most important developments in law and technology...As in years past, the common element in the experts' responses seemed to be a sense that Internet law -- and cyberspace itself -- is still unfolding and that new battle lines are forming even as old conflicts are settled.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Year in Internet Law More

The Year in Internet Law

Comments Filter:

  • DO SOMETHING FUCKNUT! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Moray_Reef ( 75398 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @06:56AM (#2767038) Homepage
    From the Lawrence Lessig interview:

    "The more I'm in this battle, the less I believe that constitutional law on its own can solve the problem. If Americans can't see the value of freedom without the help of lawyers, then we don't deserve freedom. We should be working to help Americans recognize freedom again."

    I support the ACLU. Do you do ANYTHING?

    The following is just a sig.
    • From the Lawrence Lessig interview:

      Over the last couple of years my opinion of Lessig switched from being pretty favorable to considering him something of a blowhard. I would have had more respect for him if he had stayed out of the Microsoft case after getting bounced out by the Appeals court. Instead he goes back to support Jackson in a quasi-judicial role that should have required impartiality. The behavior of Jackson and to a lesser extent Lessig is the reason the case ended the way it did. What Microsoft did is essentially get the line umpire so mad at them that he made an obvious foul on them so the decision was bound to be overuled by the chief umpire.

      It is easy to agree with someone who appears to be arguing the same case you are. Only I start to get the feeling that we are simply seeing our own prejudices getting reflected.

    • Re:DO SOMETHING FUCKNUT! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Flower ( 31351 )
      If constitutional law can't resolve this then we are fubared because it is obvious that as a societal entity "Americans" don't give a rip about these issues. For now, I'll stick with the DMCA and skip the USA act.

      Big media has a coherent, easy to digest mantra that they have unified behind. The Internet without controls threatens our business and we need legal backing to protect our investments (aka property.) It is a compelling interest that the courts and government have bought into.

      We, as geeks/IT professionals/what-have-you, can't even agree to whether code is speech. We have no mantra and our arguments are not easily digestable for the masses. I have yet to find one co-worker/family member/man on the street who gave a damn that DVDs can't be viewed under linux, that Dmitry was arrested, or that computer security researchers feel that they have to think twice before publishing.

      These issues are too remote for 99% of the public to care about. And just as the courts decided in the Felton case and as can be read in the copyright office's report, most people don't see these concerns as being ripe. In the age of Napster where infringement is so common that music on the Internet has no worth what argument can you craft that can be heard over that of Big Media? When the RIAA can point to kids hording gigs of MP3s that no one, including the artist, has seen a dime on and then further point out that they are "sharing" these files what hypothetical is going to convince your congress-critter that something like the DMCA is a bad thing?

      Please be aware that I am in full agreement that for those who care about these issues we need to be politically active. But I look at these issues and sorry to say I don't see the next civil rights movement here.

  • This kind of thinking is necessary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Adversive ( 159469 ) <adversive AT adversive DOT net> on Monday December 31, 2001 @07:01AM (#2767044)
    The internet is not owned by a single country and is not governed by a central authority. Laws that apply in one state or country may not necessarily reflect the laws or customs in another.

    Things like sales tax, censorship, and criminal law take whole new meanings online and cannot be held to the old standard. Napster's distribution model disagreed with the old thinking, but proved that not everything can be applyed to those laws.

    It's important to realize this before the internet ceases to be relatively free.

    • S'right.

      Unless they can force US ISPs to firewall off the rest of the world (how technically possible is that?), then the Russian Federation (and others) will happily supply all your ripped music, porn and video needs.

      Folks want porn. Folks want CDs they can play in their PCs [theregister.co.uk]. Folks want to be able to listen to music they'll never hear on the radio before buying the CD - and when they do buy the music, they don't want to rent it for a month and they don't want to lose the lot next time their IBM drive goes tits up.

      Hope I don't get modded up for that - it was obvious and I wanted this to be a trolling account.
    • Or even, Laws that apply in one state or country may not necessarily apply. Think about it... just scribbles and noises.

      Oh crap, now I'm for it.

    • Necessity of Law (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dunstan ( 97493 ) <dvavasour@iee . o rg> on Monday December 31, 2001 @09:35AM (#2767258) Homepage
      No, the internet is totally international, but users, content providers, ISPs are all going to be subject to law somewhere. Sometimes this is fairly sound and sensible (e.g. paedophile rings which have been cracked by analysing their internet traffic patterns, but prosecuted on the basis of information stored on their disc drives). Sometimes it isn't (a UK ISP was fined for failing to cancel a Usenet posting which was deemed libelous - the court took the view that they were publishing Usenet rather than a carrier).

      The internet may be international, like the sea, but the actors in the network, be they content providers, ISPs or users, are somewhere, and can be subject to law wherever they are. Your views on the law may influence where you decide to live.

      If I spend $1,000 on proprietary software in the US, and import it across the wire, I'm still subject to paying UK import duty/VAT even though it's not coming through a port, and the retailer is still subject to sales tax wherever (s)he sold it. If I then make an illegal copy of that software and pass it to my friend, I'm still subject to action under UK law for breach of copyright.

      Similarly, if I decode a DVD and make a copy of the content, then DMCA or no DMCA, it's still a copyright breach the same as if I copy a music CD onto a CD-R.

      It seems as if the legal head-up-arse syndrome has come from an inability or unwillingness to tackle the subject of copyright infringement at the point where it happens, and instead to try to use law against the wrong targets. Remember, before CD-R the record companies were trying to get a levy introduced onto blank cassettes on the assumption that blank cassettes were only ever used for illegal copying - i.e. to levy for an unproven offence.

      What's new isn't the need for law, or even the applicability of law, it's the newfound increase in difficulty of its enforcement. IMHO, there is a particular onus on lawmakers when they make law which forbids something which I can legitimately do today - I need a higher level of proof that such law is necessary and will be effective. Where such law is being introduced for my security then if the case is properly put I will consent to that loss if liberty (e.g. drink driving laws). Where such law is being introduced for someone's commercial benefit (e.g. the banning of reverse engineering or decoding) I don't find that the burden of proof has been met.

      Dunstan

      • Re:Necessity of Law (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Fjord ( 99230 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @11:40AM (#2767667) Homepage Journal
        Similarly, if I decode a DVD and make a copy of the content, then DMCA or no DMCA, it's still a copyright breach the same as if I copy a music CD onto a CD-R.

        This simply isn't true. I'm sure you are tired of people yelling "Fair Use" at you but you really have to realise that there are cases that allow you to make mix tapes and whatnot under fair use. It is not a copyright breack if I make a copy of a CD for the car (where CDs are more likely to be stolen from than my house). It is not a copyright breach is I encode my CDs onto MP3s so that I can burn them onto a CD and play in my MP3 player. Furthermore, it won't be a copyright breach when I eventually copy my DVDs to a later media or to the same media, with the hope of continued preservation of them. There are reasons we have Fair Use: because it's fair.

  • To access this article without registering (Score:3, Redundant)

    by Adversive ( 159469 ) <adversive AT adversive DOT net> on Monday December 31, 2001 @07:10AM (#2767047)
    NY Times will let you access their articles without registering, but you have to already be on their site to do it.

    1. Click the original link from the headline:

    http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.n ytimes.com/2001/12/28/technology/28CYBERLAW.html [nytimes.com]

    2. From that URL, replace the first "www" with either the word "archive" or the word "college".

    That should let you view it without logging in.

    • none of these work

      http://archive.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http:/ /w ww.n ytimes.com/2001/12/28/technology/28CYBERLAW.html

      http://college.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http:/ /w ww.n ytimes.com/2001/12/28/technology/28CYBERLAW.html

      Slashdot supporting sites (by linking to them) that dont value freedom is just as bad as slashdot promoting non-free software.

      Do you consider yourself to be hypocrites ?

  • Copyright Law (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It seems curious that although Copyright and other forms of IP law seem to be such big issues in the electronic world, there is little discussion in the mainstream press of this rather important area of the law.

    • 1) the mainstream press is owned by the same people writing copyright law; 2) copyright law is about as exciting as, well, law; and 3) people don't care about things that don't affect them. See how quickly people are willing to limit freedoms specified in the bill of rights, why would they even hesitate to limit freedoms not mentioned specifically?

    • It seems curious that although Copyright and other forms of IP law seem to be such big issues in the electronic world, there is little discussion in the mainstream press of this rather important area of the law

      There are quite a number of things which have plenty of coverage on the net, but virtually none in the "mainstream press". The "mainstream press" is effectivly the mouthpiece of the "establishment", thus there is a wish not to rock the boat. Further the people who actually own newspapers, radio & TV stations, etc have been quite active in lobbying for changes in IP laws...

  • Shipping Law... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @07:25AM (#2767060) Homepage
    What always suprises me about "internet" law is that international shipping law is never mentioned with it. Take the following standard case

    Shipping company is Danish lets say Maersk
    Sony want to ship 100,000 units from its Corp HQ in Japan to its Inc in the US.

    The ship is due to go via Hong Kong for loading onto a larger container ship, it will also go via the Panama canal.

    In the carribean it is hit by a freak storm and the articles are damaged.

    The contracts that Sony have with Maersk will have clearly defined countries in which the court cases will take place and for the most part this is defined by Maersk.

    Why are the internet cases any different, the basic model is the same.

    Of course it could just be lawyers generating money for themselves.

    • Re:Shipping Law... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      it's because of the lack of control one has over the route of the "goods". this will change. i predict that within 2 years, routers will have to be geographically aware.

    • Re:Shipping Law... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gorgonzola ( 24839 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @08:01AM (#2767104) Homepage
      Although the analogy you bring up certainly has merits, it is, as analogies often are, flawed. In the case of the internet it is quite hard to identify where each of the 100,000 units in your example are at a given time. It is not even possible to tell which route they took after the transaction has been completed. On top of that, the reason why the international shipment cases work the way they do is that most jurisdictions have exceptions in their laws specifically for the transportation of physical goods in order to make international trade easier to work from a legal perspective. These exceptions are specifically designed for these cases and are not necessarily easily applicable to internet transactions. Moreover, most of these national rules that allow other legal systems to take precedence over national law by contract, do not allow such clauses in cases were consumers are involved. Otherwise their consumer protection laws would be rendered invalid because every corporation would consider for example Afghan law to be applicable for any transaction you as an end-user would have with them and put such a clause in their standard contracts.

  • most incisive comment of the lot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kubla2000 ( 218039 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @07:43AM (#2767084) Homepage

    Cass Sunstein
    University of Chicago Law School


    2. The growing belief that copyright law and the First Amendment are on a collision course. When some people's copyright protections mean that other people can't say what they want to say, there is going to be a constitutional issue. The issue has been neglected for decades. It isn't being neglected anymore.

    The full brunt of this issue will come as a sharp slap to the face of everyone involved in this industry if Microsoft, Adobe and others are allowed to continue to get away with gag orders restricting or preventing the announcement of security holes.

    It will make an interesting test case when one company sues another for, say, loss of data and it turns out that the defendant was prevented from making it known to the plantif that its IP was at risk because of a third company's restriction on the defendant's ability to act on a security flaw they knew about which would have saved the plantif's data.

    Let's say that the defendant is hosting a credit-card brokerage's database. Let's say that the database is compromised and data is stolen at great cost to the brokerage. They'd be insured, sure, but might take action if they learned that the defendant was aware of security holes in the database. What happens when the defendant says that they were aware of the hole but were unable to patch because a patch hadn't be released and were unable to notify their client because of a gag order imposed by the lawyers of the company that produced the database?

    • Even scarier - what if the credit card brokerage is prevented from telling anyone about the security breach because it would mean that knowledge of the existance of a hole was made public?

  • There is a world outside USA ! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31, 2001 @07:47AM (#2767089)
    surely it should be "American Internet Law" not "Internet Law", in which case not a lot happened since DMCA and RIAA and the like means absolutly nada in the rest of the world, we can copy cd's dvd's whatever we like without dumb lawyers pointing fingers
    • I think you need to take a look the Cybercrime Treaty again...
    • What happens in America is the start of a wave that will happen in other countries. America will use it's economic power to sanction against other countries that don't tow the line of its own industry. This is what globalization means. This is why people protest the WTO.

      And in the end, the Americans will look around and say "why do they hate us"?
      • America will use it's economic power to sanction against other countries that don't tow the line of its own industry.

        Wrong tense, the USA has been doing this for at least a century (usually with covert military backup, however.)

        This is what globalization means. This is why people protest the WTO.

        At the same time "regionalisation" is being promoted for things such as retail. Obvious examples of this are the region coding on DVDs, staggered release of CDs and video tapes and court cases against "grey imports".
    • Of course, the Berne Convention means that the copyright laws of the United States are also recognized by many other countries when applied to works originating from the United States.

      Look it up. Article 5, paragraph 1.

      Just because no one's going to bother extraditing you to the US for violating copyright doesn't mean you're allowed to do so.
  • When you cannot fight the growing restrictions being created by lobby backed politicians/law makers, then it's time draw the line between what is higher on the acceptability list and what is not in regards to abuses of these laws.

    Such a line that is better than what the ACLU and EFF are capable of drawing with there high or potentially profile case selection. Yes we ALL know that is ultimately and inherently the basis of their case selections.

    First thing is to recognize the question of "who likes lawyers?" and the whys behind the yeahs and nays. As a matter of understanding the limitations and abuses of lawyers.

    In other words, a line on a list that says there is plenty to do in the upper half of the list, that you should not need to spend much time on the lower part of the list. Focusing on items on the lower part could and would indicate abuses of the laws. Not saying the laws are right or wrong, just that being productive and supportive of individual freedoms is how the list is created. Where those things listed higher on the list are more likely to be retrictive or counter of (going against):

    **
    The Constitution of the Universe (Internet included)

    Preamble
    The purpose of human life is to live happily.
    The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:

    --
    Article 1
    No person, group of persons or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

    Article 2
    Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.

    Article 3
    No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

    --
    This Constitution rests on six axioms:

    -Values exist only relative to life.
    -Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism. Whatever harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.
    -The basic value against which all values are measured is the conscious individual.
    -Morals relate only to conscious individuals.
    -Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm others through force, fraud, deception, coercion -- or from individuals choosing to usurp, attack, or destroy values earned by others.
    -Moral actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by competitively producing values for them.
    ***

    As an Example of such a list there is Web Police [web-police.org] and their Latest Web Statistics [intergov.org]

    Untill the internaional law and legal system can prove itself competent in actually dealing effectively with such a list, so as to level off or reduce the crime rate, it really doesn't need to be making up new laws, especially ones that may infringe upon the above constitution. As such, the resources being spent in creating new laws can be better spent in dealing what the longer established crimes that exist and are growing in number.

    Also there is something to be said for preventitive measures, such as along the lines of preventitive healthcare and what could be as well consider resources for preventitive warfare [osearth.com], but here on the internet, creating the incentive to not be anti-constitutional (as in the above constitution). To do this by some means of removing the "consumer" and "producer" separation headings and replacing them with "participants" in a manner consistant with the above constitution and respectful of values injected into the internet by individual, groups and world participants.
    • The purpose of human life, and all other life, is to procreate. The fact that we can think up more noble purposes in an effort to get people to behave the way we want is interesting, but ultimately not important to "life".

      You should never ask a government to PROMOTE or "guarantee" anything. As soon as a government is allowed to promote anything all of a sudden every vile thing it does is in support of whatever it is supposed to be promoting. For example, I'm going to trample all over adults rights "for the children".

      The governments job is to prevent "evil". The government under no circumstances should be trying to promote "good".

      All rights are artificial constructs. Rights are just laws thought up by people to clarify their thinking about other laws they are considering.

      The only reason any government is required is that not all people are good. There are in fact enough bad people that it makes economic sense (not moral sense) to centralize the enforcement of laws.

      As we do live in the real world, what should a government's constitution look like? A constitution is a framework controlling, reining in, all governments tendencies to continually take up more power.

      Bill of rights

      Everyone has the right to do whatever they like that does not directly harm other people.

      And then you argue about what laws this leads to, when you should override individual rights for the "common good" (rarely), what harm is, how the judiciary should work, etc...

  • sigh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by the_rev_matt ( 239420 )
    When I submitted this story on the 28th, it was rejected. Today it's accepted. I love the consistency.
    • me too..... only i was a day later and tried it twice

      2001-12-29 22:24:59 Legal Year In Review (articles,doj) (rejected)
      2001-12-29 23:11:01 2001: The Legal Review (yro,news) (rejected)
    • Know what? I'm willing to take a Karma hit on this. (It's only ones and zeros). So, mod me down if you wish. However, this is an issue which I feel strongly about, and after seeing the original poster get modded down as offtopic, I feel even MORE strongly about it.

      The original poster shares a concern that I have. What bothers me is that a submitter goes to the trouble to find the story, compose the submission, and check their links, only to be rejected out of hand. The story invariably resurfaces, sponsored by one of the slashdot editors, with no mention of the original submitter or submitters of the story.

      It's not like submitters expect money for their work. They just want a reasonable footnote of recognition as reward for their efforts in contributing to the slashdot community.

      Does it take extra effort on the part of the editors to recognize the people who submitted the story? You bet it does. Does it pay off in easily measurable metrics and tangible returns? I'd bet not, but it's the paying of attention to the little extras that makes the difference between a good publication, and a great publication.
      • i agree with ya. This kind of bs has been happening a little more often to me recently, but then again I do submit a large number of submissions, which is probably why I lead the charge in the hof [slashdot.org]. The guy right behind me, FortKnox [slashdot.org], records his submissions in his journal. Maybe that'll be my New Years Res. Checking FK's journal right now, he's writing about getting a rejection a month ago on Flying on Mars, which appeared the other day.
        • Hey how often are those stats refreshed? Do they include only items that have been posted or items that have been submitted and rejected?
          • they get refreshed every few hours. the numbers for submitters are accepted items since /. started keeping track of those numbers the last slashcode upgrade some months ago.
      • > Does it take extra effort on the part of the editors to recognize the people who submitted the story? You bet it does.
        Not necessarily that much effort, though, if slashcode was improved. Check out my proposal here [slashdot.org]. Actually, though I'm vocal, I'm not so concerned about the recognition. It just peeves me off when a crapy article goes up when someone else has made the effort to do it right. You know, a want to make this a better site. I like the journal submission idea... I think I'll do that.

        I'm new to submitting articles, but here's the one that got me upset [slashdot.org]. Maybe it was someones taste, maybe I put too many details in the article (hey, if I highlight the portions of the proposed scheme that may be of interest to slashdot readers, then I rob them of the opportunity to make a +5 Insightful comment). The article was in about the top 5 most-posted-to for the week (dec25-31), so it couldn't have been that bad. I'm surprised no one else submitted it and michael found it all by himself. Which is possible; I'm not just giving michael a hard time [sethf.com] -- it was on the front page of eet.com when I found it, but had been bumped off by the time that michael posted the article.
      • OwenPS [slashdot.org] submitted it too. As you can see, it's in his user profile. Probably many people submitted it too. Maybe it took a little while to get to it.

        So what if one was rejected, and the other not? You still get to post in the article, don't you?

        • owenPS is the guy who got his submission accepted, 3 days after someone else's submission was rejected. we're bitching about the fact that people take the time to do a write up on an article/topic, get it rejected by /., and then see the article appear on the front page days later. Occasionally that "days later" is weeks, which *really* pisses off the person who sent it in the original.
  • I find it interesting that the first mention in the article is about the Patriot Act. This Act is a major attack on our rights. For more information on how it affects the FBI's use of Carnivore, please see The Patriot Act and Carnivore: Reasons for concern? [techtarget.com] an editorial I wrote for the SearchSecurity.com [searchsecurity.com] website.
  • From the article:
    Barnesand Noble.com's victory over Amazon.com in an appeal of Amazon's claim that Barnes & Noble infringed on Amazon's one-click shopping patent, thereby bringing a ray of commonsense into the otherwise murky world of business-method patents.

    When did that happen!? I dont recall seeing it on slashdot or any other news site. A quick search through the /. archives comes up with this [slashdot.org] as the last article on the topic.
  • This is a bit off-topic, but I'd just like to say doh! [instinctdesign.com] Does this happen often?
  • I submitted the same news item minutes after it hit NYTIMES site.

    2001-12-29 06:44:40 Internet Law Review for 2001 (articles,news) (rejected)

    24 hours later someone else posts it and it's accepted.

    How does the approval queue for Slashdot work? I imagine it's multiple people looking at stories and then deciding to post them. Is that right?

    Is there a guide to the whole submissions process?
  • It's clear that a lot of people had considered the Internet to be somewhat immune to the possibility of regulation because of its lack of physicality and the great number of countries it serves - I've heard people say 'the net will never be regulated - to do it you would have to get every county in the world to agree upon, enact and then enforce an international multi-faceted agreement/legislation'
    They would go on to say that we were therefore safe because all you would need would be to have one country refuse to enter into the agreement as one no doubt would)and it would be rendered useless - because everyone would then have their sites and content hosted in the abstaining country where there were no laws relation to Internet content etc - then unless you made it a crime to view such sites - who could stop you?

    That's great in theory, but of course it doesn't take into account the willingness of countries to enact draconian legislation to regulate the activities of their own citizens in relation to the use of the Internet. You don't need world spanning legislation to regulate the Internet when a local law can address every aspect of the use of that medium. If it's illegal for me to submit a hack for a buggy OS, or a new set of algorithms to decode a DVD in my own country, what the heck do I care if someone in Bangladesh can do it with impunity - it still stops me from doing it - or at least makes it dangerous for me to try.

    There is little limit to the laws a government can choose to enact, especially if it decides to employ such terms as 'National Security' in it's reasoning for the inception of laws. So there's not even any hope in the possibility of an international declaration that the Internet isn't the property of anyone (and therefore it is untra-vires for any country to attempt to make law for it) - because you don't need to make laws any further away from home to cripple the net as we know it.

    I think the commentators have somewhat missed the boat when it comes to identifying the most important Internet Law development of the year, which is simply that at last the lumbering colossus of commerce and government has realised that it's going to wake up one day very soon and find their accepted ways of business have been replaced completely by functionality in the ether.

    It's something that they have failed to grasp properly for years, and they intend to make up for that lack of foresight by enacting every possible law they can to regulate what they see as their worst enemy - free speech on a global basis. I include in my definition of 'free speech' the ability to write and propagate code, and disseminate information that is directly in conflict with that of others - including governments and big business.

    We live in a capitalist world. That's the way it is, it isn't any other way - wish what you might. Commonsense dictates then that there must be laws to protect and aid trade - both locally and internationally. Most people agree to these laws without even thinking about them. But with law and the internet, these things have begun to take on an entirely different persona.

    It could well be too late for the Internet, at least in it's current incarnation and at this point in time. The only thing that can really prevail against the rising tide of regulation and invasive legislation is a massive public outcry that goes to the roots of the governments in office. Unfortunately, I can't see that occurring. Sadly, most people are either unaware or have a lackadaisical attitude to the growing spectre of over-regulation and the peeling back of civil privacy rights.
    It's been said before and does sound terribly uncomplicated (and thereforebound to draw derision) but since this is really the only way that big business and governments are going to be held in check, then I think a concerted effort needs to be made by those of us who give a damn. Make people aware of the problem, scare them, do whatever you think will communicate the message that one of the worlds greatest wonders could simply vanish under a varnish of business slogans and regulation - along with many of the rights they have taken for granted for so long.

    I'm a lawyer //insert jeers here - and I belong to a group of lawyers that spend a lot of time appealing proposed and existing legislation regarding the internet and it's collateral privacy issues. Unfortunately though, governments have huge scope to make provisions for national security, and so at the end of the day it all comes back to the people, because they are the only thing, en masse anyway, that can hold a government to task.

    There's little point talking about the intricacies of certain pieces of legislation, we can argue legal technicalities till the cows come home, and do, but it's little better than a stalling tactic - that we're losing.

    Take it up on a constitutional basis and when that fails, take it up on a popularity basis. Nothing else is going to work. People must learn that they do have power, they do have a voice, and they should exercise it before that right disappears in deference to fast food, a warm bed and the protection that only a prison warder can give.

Slashdot Top Deals

Like punning, programming is a play on words.

Close