So you want them to identify the bad actors prior to collecting the data to identify the bad actors.
I'm not stating that what the NSA did was right. However, there needs to be some broad level information gathering. Every cop that stands in a public place looking for shifty motion is survailing the public. The issue is how long is this data kept and how is being gathered? what level of data is being gathered and retained.
From what I can tell, the bigger issue is PRISM than the verizon leak. Phone lugs and cellphone tower pings have never required a search warrent. Universities have been using similar anonimitized data to map traffic patterns for years. What was the extent of the contact sharing that google provided is the bigger issue.
The arguement that the original upload broke the law, but since it's out there, should be allowed to continue is foolish. The takedown isn't issued to surpress the data, but to restore the standing with the law.
The DoD knows that there is spillage in this case and will take the necessary precausions associated with spillage. It is not pretending that it can put the genie back in the bottle. What it is doing however is making sure a company that is in violation of US law end's it's violation as early as possible.
This is like saying if you catch someone in the middle of a burgulary you should let them take as much as they can carry before stopping them. It's foolish. Yes the information is out there. Yes it's been reposted. But that doesn't mean that the company who never should have posted it in the first place should continue support the distribution of information that should have never been public in the first place (according to the law).
...years of getting a cut of little plastic disc sales because they had his songs on it. Musicians were never told that they were selling little plastic disks, they were told that they are selling their music. And that's the problem. They have never sold their music, it's always been plastic disks, magnetic tape, or cut vinyl. So now when the medium disappears, but the music is still moving from person to person, they fail to understand the problem because they were told all this time that they were selling music (impossible) and not goods.
It's just that demand far outstretches supply at the moment, so incremental increases don't change the status of the network being chocked because the change didn't add any surplus. Of course the network being choked probably deters a certain percent of activity, but that's just excess demand masked by the fact that technology doesn't match.
I find it ironic that a lot of Peer to Peer was initially developed to distribute bandwidth load, and take it off of the destination server. It shifts the bandwidth availability problem onto the ISPs instead of the filehost and therefore the ISP's are lashing out at the technology that enables it...
But in a much more sensible fashion couldn't they just dynamically cap individual users to guarantee everyone gets access to an equal share of the data pipe?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Matt T.
Re:
So you want them to identify the bad actors prior to collecting the data to identify the bad actors.
I'm not stating that what the NSA did was right. However, there needs to be some broad level information gathering. Every cop that stands in a public place looking for shifty motion is survailing the public. The issue is how long is this data kept and how is being gathered? what level of data is being gathered and retained.
From what I can tell, the bigger issue is PRISM than the verizon leak. Phone lugs and cellphone tower pings have never required a search warrent. Universities have been using similar anonimitized data to map traffic patterns for years. What was the extent of the contact sharing that google provided is the bigger issue.
You got away with it once...
The arguement that the original upload broke the law, but since it's out there, should be allowed to continue is foolish. The takedown isn't issued to surpress the data, but to restore the standing with the law.
The DoD knows that there is spillage in this case and will take the necessary precausions associated with spillage. It is not pretending that it can put the genie back in the bottle. What it is doing however is making sure a company that is in violation of US law end's it's violation as early as possible.
This is like saying if you catch someone in the middle of a burgulary you should let them take as much as they can carry before stopping them. It's foolish. Yes the information is out there. Yes it's been reposted. But that doesn't mean that the company who never should have posted it in the first place should continue support the distribution of information that should have never been public in the first place (according to the law).
This is coming from...
...years of getting a cut of little plastic disc sales because they had his songs on it. Musicians were never told that they were selling little plastic disks, they were told that they are selling their music. And that's the problem. They have never sold their music, it's always been plastic disks, magnetic tape, or cut vinyl. So now when the medium disappears, but the music is still moving from person to person, they fail to understand the problem because they were told all this time that they were selling music (impossible) and not goods.
It's not that it grows to match...
It's just that demand far outstretches supply at the moment, so incremental increases don't change the status of the network being chocked because the change didn't add any surplus. Of course the network being choked probably deters a certain percent of activity, but that's just excess demand masked by the fact that technology doesn't match.
I find it ironic that a lot of Peer to Peer was initially developed to distribute bandwidth load, and take it off of the destination server. It shifts the bandwidth availability problem onto the ISPs instead of the filehost and therefore the ISP's are lashing out at the technology that enables it...
But in a much more sensible fashion couldn't they just dynamically cap individual users to guarantee everyone gets access to an equal share of the data pipe?