New Comments : OpenInternet

Comment by usanzac

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:12:17 PST

There are several draft standards at IETF that apply to this. RFC 4474 is one. My preference would be for the industry to embrace a common standard. No one country can legislate enforcement over the entire Internet.

Comment by staff

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:07:06 PST

Really. Explicit permission to send a News Release to the press? Explicit permission to solicit donations.

Comment by usanzac

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:16:50 PST

All bulk emailers need to have explicit permission from intended recipients before being sent unsolicited email. It's then the recipient's responsibility to ensure any spam filters allow such email to come through. Not a perfect system, of course, but better than opening up the can of worms being proposed here. You do realize how easy it is to fake an email address when sending email.

Comment by bahlberg

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:16:49 PST

Really, I think that what we need is a email sender certification system in addition to a law. Email with a valid signature would be treated differently than mail without. The signature would contain a certified sender identifier, a sender class, a message class, a tracking id, a message checksum, and perhaps some keys. These values would be encrypted by the sender using a layered set of keys that allow the pedigree of the message to be verified and its real class determined. This would allow forwarders, ISPs, and users to examine the message and apply inbox rules to the message. The Law would establish this framework and a requirement to senders to support automated unsubscribe from email from that sender.

There's a lot not filled out in the description above... but its just a comment, not a tech spec.

Comment by openinternet

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 13:33:45 PST

The word "occupy" means to temporarily confiscate something. This is a seizure of private property by definition. It is "destruction" when it interferes with the lawful use of that property by its rightful owner. As an example, if I were to "occupy" your living room, I think you would have a valid complaint, even if I did not "destroy" it.

It is likewise your call as to whether the stains I leave on your rug, or the broken glass table in your living room is "wear and tear". Seeing as I had no right to be there, that would be an easy call.

The OWS protesters are explicit in their desire to do some level of disruption, and in NYC, they have occupied a private park, leaving it unusable by others who would normally enjoy it. In my book, this is "destruction" enough, even if you ignore the arrests and actual damage to property, not to mention the costs to cities in extra police and security.

It is silly to say that occupying and disrupting public spaces is the only way to fix anything. There are lots of ways to be heard, and few of them are as costly or disruptive to others as the tactics of OWS. Note: that disruption is the stated point of the OWS strategy.

As for "wanton devastation", I fail to see the connection. Please explain to me how I "devastate" you by loaning you money - especially when you later decide to walk away from the loan, and some third party "guarantees" the loan, and pays me off. The people "devastated" are the taxpayers, who pay for the bailouts, and the rapidly escalating debt.

OWS is not even trying to protect taxpayers. If anything they want more taxes paid. They just want "someone else" to pay them. ("The Rich") History should teach us that those "other" people don't actually exist, but wishful thinking on the part of those who believe they are getting the benefits tends to drown out facts and logic.

No. The OWS crowd is indeed a phalanx of irresponsible whiners throwing an incoherent tantrum. They have no leadership by design, and no agenda that they are willing to commit to writing. They are a populist, destructive, irrational mob, and richly deserve to be treated like any other rowdy group of hooligans cruising for trouble.

The police and other authorities are being cautious and restrained, and doing their jobs with the utmost professionalism (with very few exceptions).

I stand by my characterization.

Comment by fred.schwacke

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:42:00 PST

You support my point brilliantly, every group has factions with different action plans.
I certainly do not condone violence or the wanton destruction of property. But which historical faction created the rallying cry that united so many and arguably created the motivation gave birth to our nation. Are you saying that the people who created this historic act of disobedience should have been silenced? Most would agree that if they had followed your formula we would still be British subjects.
At the same time, it is not the members of Occupy that are being purposefully destructive, it is those who are surrounding them, including the police. Other than abnormal wear and tear, they have generally been respectful. Compared to the wanton devastation they have endured, it was inconsequential. Their tactics are unique, and I certainly question many of them, but in the end, we are seeing positive result from their actions.
I would wholeheartedly support them fully reimbursing any parties they damaged, provided it comes from their reimbursement checks from the banks who stole their homes and the corporations the moved their jobs off shore.

Comment by openinternet

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:15:48 PST

By the way, the unequal economic performance of citizens is not injustice. It is the natural, normal, and desirable consequence of a free society composed of people with unequal abilities and desires. Many of the "injustices" being complained about are not injustices at all.

Comment by openinternet

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:12:56 PST

It is noteworthy that many of the revolutionary leaders of the time of the "original" Tea Party did indeed object strongly to the destruction of private property and insisted that the "tea partiers" repay the cost of the destroyed tea.

I stand my my characterization. There is a moral dimension here, and it does not support those who throw tantrums.

Comment by fred.schwacke

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:42:13 PST

The answers to all of your questions reside in the history you haven't read. The protesters are not asking that someone else "do their work". They are simply asking that the injustices of others, injustices which are effecting you as well, be addressed and corrected.
Throwing other people's tea into the harbor was lawful? As to my comment being the incoherent tantrum of a 2 year old, read it again and then read your.

Comment by fred.schwacke

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:26:34 PST

You are both right and wrong. First, the anti-trust laws have been crippled by years of concerted effort by the power brokers, For them to be fully effective, we have to first look into our past and roll-back some historical mistakes. We have to reinstate the Glass Seagall Act of 1933 which identified the inherent conflict of interest between Commercial Banks and Investment Banks We have to reverse the 90's decisions on the removal of Position Limits on Futures Contracts. There are lots of other examples, but these would be a fantastic start at empowering anti-trust enforcement.
Perhaps most important is the "you gotta wanna" principle, the DOJ and Attorney Generals of the States has to be motivated to use the laws they have available today to pursue and punish the offenders. We have to vocally support their efforts to bring the big banks to justice and to accept no less than their making every person and family they destroyed whole again.