Why are we still hung up on using URL shorteners? Why the fear of real URLs?
If the deal is that we still want non-HTML agents to still show a brief inline cititation, when why not stick to footnotes? Make the inline line a Source 1 and then let non-HTML agents show the full URL in a footnote.
"In the 21st Century, access to the internet has become an indispensible communication tool and a forum for vigorous public discourse. We have seen the power of the internet leveraged to promote democracy and topple repressive regimes in North Africa. While the internet has become a great tool for good..."
So, the Internet has been a tool for good and vigorous public discourse in places where governments do not have means of killing that communication. Therefore, we need to build the means of killing that communications.
You managed to miss the entire point of my comment.
Do you not agree that someone (neighbors, cops, Google) spying on your cordless phone conversation would be considered wiretapping?
My point was that you can't make the type of radio wave your sole consideration for what constitutes wiretapping. Lots of things are transmitted over radio waves. Some are private (like phone calls) and some are not.
I did say that Google is still right for other reasons, though.
Consider cordless household phones that operate on the 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.4GHz frequecenies. These radio frequencies are in the same range as some wifi. Remember talking on these phones, and sometimes, if you accidentally got on the wrong channel and live too close to the neighbors, you could hear their conversation. These phones aren't encrypted or anything. If you did this intentionally, surely you would agree that's no different from wiretapping? I don't think you want to go down the road that just because something operates on these frequencies it's the same thing as FM radio.
That said, Google is still right. You have to consider the intent of the communication protocol. SSID broadcast is built into the protocol and happens on the same frequency. It's not Google's fault that the protocol makes no distinction between reading someone's welcome mat and rifling through their underwear. What Google did is no different from what any other Wifi device does except that the Google car threw those bits into a bucket to be sorted later instead of sorting through the bits immediately.
It's a good power to have but a sort of weak one. It should be easier for the "people" to have laws overturned. For example, we should create a system where the jury can go beyond just saying "not guilty" but also force the judge to rule on constitutionality of the law or force a referendum to the legislature on repealing the law.
Now, there might be better ways to do that, but still the People need more power than to just stick their tongues out at the law in isolated cases.
I honestly don't know how I feel about jury nullification in general...
If a person is found guilty of a completely retarded law, that could create enough public outrage to have the law overturned (hopefully in a way that frees the "guilty")
If a person is guilty of a completely retarded law, but found innocent through jury nullification, the law still exists and doesn't prevent the next person from being found guilty of the same retarded law.
Of course, if it were me on trial, I'd probably be all for it, and I'm not particularly against it in any ethical sense.
Rule of thumb: don't "spank" your child harder in discipline than you would wrestling and playing on the living room floor. It always amazes how the same amount of force can be funny (to the child) when playing but effective discipline other times.
I think the US constitution is a little unclear in areas (and kinda hard to read unless you read an annotated copy with the bits crossed out that were repealed over the years), but other than that needs to be left alone.
I would, however, love to see the STATES wikify their constitutions.
This isn't really that big of deal in comparison to more common situations. What's worse is when Walmart refuses to print a family photo because the photo LOOKS too professional and therefore *must* be owned by some photographer, and not you, you damned dirty criminal.
Bill, I'm not sure you're aware, but Mike Masnick, or one of his partners, has reposted this story on techdirt.com. Can you verify, on a stack of Hitchhiker's Guides, that you are in fact, Bill Benzon of ΣE37901ΔΓ and that you give permission for this story to be reposted?
There appears to be some guy from over in ΣE37901ΔΔ posting stuff without your permission, plagiarizing you in books and such, and we just want to make sure everything is on the up and up.