That's what I was wondering. Maybe they're *still* only required to report ones that are brought to their attention? In which case this law would be redundant and create no new real crimes.
It's already a crime to fail to report what you know about, and you're already allowed to choose ignorance and wait for someone to tell you what you're hosting, which especially benefits big places like say imageshack, who can't feasibly go over every image, but do have a reporting system.
No matter how many people try and take away things like this from kids, no matter how "hard" they try and make things for paedophiles, it will never work.
The more you try and stop them, the more determined they get. No level of restriction will stop them from scoping out schools and nabbing a young girl.
The best thing to do would be to keep a good eye on your children, and if you don't want paedos using their Nintendo as a way of getting at them, take it away. For the record, no child has been molested as a result of using his Nintendo (I assume it would have hit the MSM, or at least gaming news sites), and only a few gullible (read: stupid) teenage girls have been roped in by predators on MySpace.
Scott - I'm not going to make a judgement call or anything and I hope you'll afford me the same, but no, I don't believe that local governments should provide any services at all. I believe in total privitization, so that money is spent and taken in by consent, rather than gunpoint, and the way it is spent is dictated by consumers, not panels or boards or councils.
The government needs to be more of a societal skeleton than the meat and organs of society, let the private sector handle that. The gov doesn't exist to serve every whim of the people. That'd be terribly dangerous, as 51% can sure ask for a lot, when it suits them. A 50+% tax to pay for all that doesn't sound appealing to me.
Mike - As a part of deregulation, Earthlink, and whoever else came along, would basically be free to setup their own wifi network for the city. As deregulating things like this is unlikely, I do think that it's a good idea for cities to clear the way for private wifi providers. I'm all for city-wide wifi (if only I were in a city), so long as I'm not the one paying for it - I already pay for my own line and my own wireless router, and, forgive me if I sound miserly here, I don't want to pay for everyone elses.
And as for natural monopolies - I think the first step to curing this is eliminating the legal definition of a corporation, that "single entity" legal definition of a company. And again, in a truly free market, if you don't like the monopoly, you can always try starting up some competition yourself. When a company becomes so saturated into society that living becomes impossible outside of its realm, then there is a true societal problem, and societal problems are certainly within the government's role to take a hand in solving.
It is not the governments role, nor its place to be taking taxpayer dollars and spending them on frivilous things such as free internet for people. Tax money is collected from everybody, that does not mean that it ought to be used for services like this, if anything, return everything that doesn't NEED to be spent, rather than wasting it on things like municipal internet. The entire concept of "public money" is socialist by nature, anyway.
Deregulation is more likely to foster growth and new options in this area. If more companies were free to lay lines and compete with the big providers, prices would go down (as always happens when there is adequeate competition), and people would be happier with the freedom to say to their provider "stop raising rates or I'll SWITCH."
Full disclosure here: I am a very politically active libertarian, and pre-law.
Re: Safe Act
That's what I was wondering. Maybe they're *still* only required to report ones that are brought to their attention? In which case this law would be redundant and create no new real crimes.
It's already a crime to fail to report what you know about, and you're already allowed to choose ignorance and wait for someone to tell you what you're hosting, which especially benefits big places like say imageshack, who can't feasibly go over every image, but do have a reporting system.
No Subject Given
Aren't they just arguing that it includes a "mechanism to bypass copy protection?"
Sure that's still a flawed argument, but I didn't think DRM was mandatory... yet.
No Subject Given
A friend of mine in Vermont can't get high speed internet, and the ONLY ISP with a number that's a local call is AOL...
I've been pushing him to go to Satellite for a while now, so hopefully this will push him over theline.
No Subject Given
No matter how many people try and take away things like this from kids, no matter how "hard" they try and make things for paedophiles, it will never work.
The more you try and stop them, the more determined they get. No level of restriction will stop them from scoping out schools and nabbing a young girl.
The best thing to do would be to keep a good eye on your children, and if you don't want paedos using their Nintendo as a way of getting at them, take it away. For the record, no child has been molested as a result of using his Nintendo (I assume it would have hit the MSM, or at least gaming news sites), and only a few gullible (read: stupid) teenage girls have been roped in by predators on MySpace.
No Subject Given
Hopefully we can keep this terrible 100% retention idea out of America.
It's sad that it's now required in europe. This just makes the bigger, wealthier ISPs more powerful, so they can stamp on their customers even more.
Re: No Subject Given
Scott - I'm not going to make a judgement call or anything and I hope you'll afford me the same, but no, I don't believe that local governments should provide any services at all. I believe in total privitization, so that money is spent and taken in by consent, rather than gunpoint, and the way it is spent is dictated by consumers, not panels or boards or councils.
The government needs to be more of a societal skeleton than the meat and organs of society, let the private sector handle that. The gov doesn't exist to serve every whim of the people. That'd be terribly dangerous, as 51% can sure ask for a lot, when it suits them. A 50+% tax to pay for all that doesn't sound appealing to me.
Re: No Subject Given
Mike - As a part of deregulation, Earthlink, and whoever else came along, would basically be free to setup their own wifi network for the city. As deregulating things like this is unlikely, I do think that it's a good idea for cities to clear the way for private wifi providers. I'm all for city-wide wifi (if only I were in a city), so long as I'm not the one paying for it - I already pay for my own line and my own wireless router, and, forgive me if I sound miserly here, I don't want to pay for everyone elses.
And as for natural monopolies - I think the first step to curing this is eliminating the legal definition of a corporation, that "single entity" legal definition of a company. And again, in a truly free market, if you don't like the monopoly, you can always try starting up some competition yourself. When a company becomes so saturated into society that living becomes impossible outside of its realm, then there is a true societal problem, and societal problems are certainly within the government's role to take a hand in solving.
No Subject Given
It is not the governments role, nor its place to be taking taxpayer dollars and spending them on frivilous things such as free internet for people. Tax money is collected from everybody, that does not mean that it ought to be used for services like this, if anything, return everything that doesn't NEED to be spent, rather than wasting it on things like municipal internet. The entire concept of "public money" is socialist by nature, anyway.
Deregulation is more likely to foster growth and new options in this area. If more companies were free to lay lines and compete with the big providers, prices would go down (as always happens when there is adequeate competition), and people would be happier with the freedom to say to their provider "stop raising rates or I'll SWITCH."
Full disclosure here: I am a very politically active libertarian, and pre-law.
They caught google!
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:_9ApwAeRB-sJ:www.grokster.com/+grokster&hl=en&client=opera
Looks like a subpoena is on its way to the googleplex...