Will integrity issues be heating back up?
... probably not. It looks to me, based on the project page, that the vast majority of modifications come from local proxies the user is running, and the remainder is just on-the-fly image compression, which I am broadly not opposed to, as the human perception integrity is mostly maintained. (Not in favor of, mind you, but not opposed.)
Every once in a while something so very iRight-y comes along I just have to post it: DMCA author says DMCA is a failure.
The biggest problem it had was attempting to legislate technology, rather than people.
Would police officers be happy having that fact tatooed across their foreheads? "Police Officer" in big letters. Leave space so "retired", "dismissed", "ex-" or "disciplined" can be added later.
Would that be acceptable?
Of course not. It might make certain social situations... uncomfortable. It might mean they find it harder to get jobs. It might mean they're open to being attacked on the streets...
So why is it acceptable to publish personal information about everyone else? - katie on ID cards
A classic example of why legislation shouldn't involve technology, only effects: If you record MP3s off of your satellite radio, are you infringing a right belonging to the copyright owner, given a law that says it is legal to record music from a radio? That is, do one or both of the definitions of "radio" or "record" as used in the law somehow not apply in this case?
That last is the best argument, but the real problem here is the law that is too tied to specific technology.
So now a lawyer is trying to convince a court that a having a cached
file on your hard drive doesn't constitute possession. (Slashdot
Good luck with that. The real problem is the "possession" isn't the
real issue; it's the distribution and viewing, i.e., the
I wonder how long it will take us to figure out that the whole idea
of possession is fatally flawed in the Internet era?
|Past Posts ->|