Rights
Telecommunications and censorship…
If you are a regular at this here blog, you probably already know my opinion of censorship in general. To me, it makes no sense. Especially here in America. We, as a country, claim to value our personal freedoms, and as a result, pretty much any possible position on any given issue can be heard, especially if you have your ear to the right part of the ground.
So it seems paradoxical to me to see any large telecommunications companies like AT&T engaged in censorship:
While AT&T claimed to be just as outraged as we were over their censoring of Pearl Jam’s anti-Bush lyrics during their Lollapallooza stream, they might not be being all that honest. They claim that it was a one-time mistake made by an outsourced company. Really? According to Wired’s Listening Post, concerts streamed on the Blue Room by The Flaming Lips and the John Butler Trio have also been censored for political reasons. If true, this action coupled with past allegations aimed at AT&T suggests an unnerving pro-Bush political agenda from one of America’s biggest telecoms. – [Gizmodo]
This is, as the article stated, a somewhat “unnerving” discovery. While they are not a news agency and are therefore not required to be “fair and objective”, companies with far reaching influence, like the major telecoms, that have political agendas that can affect their users would be avoided like the plague by most freedom loving Americans.
As privately owned entities, they certainly have a right to their opinion. But they should be careful not to allow their opinions to infringe upon the rights of their customers. Of course that is just my opinion. But I daresay a lot of consumers would agree with me…
AT&T May Have Censored Bands’ Political Speech in the Past – [Gizmodo]
Constitutional violation solves nothing…
Today I came across an article about a California judge who appears to be able to recognize when an unconstitutional law is being passed, and has the foresight to veto them. This is an unusual development from The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, where local police, activists and Lawmakers seem to have an impressive track record of passing unreasonably draconian, even unconstitutional laws in the name of “The Public Interest”:
A federal judge ruled on Monday a California law to label violent video games and bar their sale to minors was unconstitutional, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to say he would appeal the ruling.
Of course you will.
California passed a law in 2005 regulating video games with strong support from Schwarzenegger, the former star of many violent action films. Legislators argued violent video games could bring psychological harm and spark aggressive behavior in minors.
Can anyone say “Anecdotal Evidence”?
The Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association promptly sued to block the law, arguing their games were protected under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Uh Huh. “Free speech”? That’s your reason? It would probably be mine, but the ESA and VSDA? Yeah… I don’t think so. Now cash flow… That I’d buy…
Judge Ronald Whyte, who had previously granted a preliminary injunction against the law, issued a permanent order that also cited conclusions from judges facing similar laws in other states.
“At this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children,” he wrote in his decision. “In addition, the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, Internet sites or other speech-related exposures.” – [Reuters]
Thank you. Sanity at last. Now I’m not saying the law didn’t have any value to it. The part where developers are required to label them is just common sense. We need to know what kind of content is in the games we give to our kids. But banning them? Who are they kidding? So it’s OK to let my kids watch “Saw” on video, but heaven forbid they play “ManHunt“? Come on!
OK Look. I understand that as a parent, you may be willing to do anything and everything in your power to keep your kids safe. And I agree. Anyone who doesn’t feel this way can’t really be called a parent. The problem arises when you decide that it is OK to violate the rights of others in order to achieve this.
That is a double standard don’t you think? Nobody should violate your (and, by extension, your childrens’) rights, but it’s OK to violate others? Sounds like a double standard to me. If you, as a parent, decide raise your kids on video games, you also have to take the responsibility of talking to them about what exactly they are looking at. The same applies to movies, and even music.
It seems like some parents will bend over backwards to get a movie, album, video game, etc. Off the shelves. The outrage is always fierce and unrelenting. But here’s my question. Why can’t you just talk to your kids about these things? When they leave the house they see these things everywhere. Our culture is permeated with them. We, as adults, have become so desensitized that sometimes we don’t even see it, but it is there.
If your kids don’t learn, early on, about what they are see everyday, and what is right and what is wrong, then how do you expect them to tell the difference? Banning games won’t help you one whit. Denying them TV, radios, computers and video games for the entire tenure of your custody of them won’t save you either. Unless you live in a very, very, isolated community. Instead I see people embark on epic but fruitless crusades against violence in the media, gun control, school practices, regulation, etc. As I have stated in a previous post, I think these are little more than very poor crutches.
The gang member running around with the gun in their waistband was/is someones kid. Just like yours. What kind of lessons do you think he/she learned growing up? Do you think they would be in the gang if they learned from childhood that doing so could easily reduce your life expectancy by 50%? Do you think they would even pick up a gun if they thought there were other, better solutions? It’s hardly the gun we should be worried about. It’s the fact that the kid doesn’t know any better. Why is that?
What they need is education and guidance. And as parents we need to give it to them. No one else can, will, or even should do it for you. Do whatever it takes. And I don’t mean waste time protesting about pointless things. Work less hours, and spend more time with your kids. Engage in more group activities. Have one parent actually stay at home. It doesn’t matter who. Move into a smaller house/apt/condo to make ends meet if you have to. You may physically have less, but I believe the quality of your kids lives will be richer. It’s not always possible, but I submit that they are worthwhile sacrifices.
This is what I believe it means to be a parent. If you really want to protect your kids, I think this is the best place to start. It is no good to provide all of our kids materialistic needs if you fail to teach them about morals, ethics, good bad, right wrong, the light, the dark, all the gray areas in between, and about life in general. I honestly believe this is where we are failing as a country.
Forget about the TV, radio, music, video games, etc. Play with your kids. Talk to your kids. Teach them something positive. That way when you let them loose, you will hopefully be able to worry less about whatever it is they encounter on the street. Yeah. I sound like a bad public service announcement. But there it is.
Judge blocks California’s violent video game law – [Reuters]
A SLAPP in the face of a fair legal system…
I read an interesting article about the MPAA and RIAA strategy for dealing with copyright infringment and, in particular, file sharing:
Going up against big guns
For insight into how tough it is to oppose the entertainment sector, consider the conclusions of some long-shot copyright cases Rothken worked on: RecordTV and ReplayTV ran out of funds before their cases were heard, and MP3Board.com settled.There’s no telling whether the start-ups would have survived had their cases gone to trial, but Rothken argues that shouldering legal fees and bad press didn’t help.
Applying financial pressure is only part of Hollywood’s strategy, Rothken said. Another tactic is to sue founders as well as their companies. In 2000, the RIAA filed a copyright suit against MP3Board.com, a music-file search engine, as well as the company’s founders.
Instead of risking their own income, the operators of MP3Board.com settled the case and decided to stop linking to MP3 files, Rothken said.
“I can’t say what the MPAA’s strategy is,” said Gary Fung, founder of IsoHunt, a TorrentSpy rival and Rothken client who also is being sued by the MPAA for copyright infringement. “But they do know they have more time and money than we do.” – [C/Net News]
There is no doubt that file sharing technologies have contributed to the illegal piracy of music and video. I also cannot argue that the MPAA and the RIAA have a right to file suits against those who decide to share copyrighted works illegally. That being said, this is decidedly not what they are doing. They have taken the decidedly unrealistic approach of attacking the technologies rather than the people doing the file sharing.
The various entertainment associations have sued numerous torrent tracker sites, on the basis that they are helping promote illegal file sharing. Now it may just be me but this seems to me no better than suing the gun industry for the common use of firearms in the commission of crime, or automobile makers for the high incidence of drinking and driving. And as usual, those who use the technology for legitimate purposes are always the ones to suffer.
What is even more distressing to me is not simply the fact that these suits are brought at all, but rather the strategies being used to win these suits. Rather than relying on the strength of the case, the RIAA and MPAA have begun a the methodical practice of SLAPPing defendants into submission. The SLAPP or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, is designed to ensure a settlement not by virtue of any legal argument, but by wearing down the defendants financial resources until they are unable to afford to continue their defense.
This to me, is the ultimate abuse of the legal system. The fact that this type of activity is legally allowed to happen should be a cause of great concern, even for law abiding American businesses and citizens, because it means that the outcome of future suit brought against you may not be determined by the validity or legal strength of the suit, but rather by who has the most money. And that situation is fundamentally anathema to the concept of a fair and equitable legal system.
TorrentSpy lawyer battling ‘copyright extremism’ – [C/Net News]
Corporate America is breeding bad Americans…
The dog-eat-dog world of Corporate America is a typical example of what happens when you create an establishment whose only goal is to make money. This article seems to underline the problem with business employee evaluations based purely on a persons ability to make money:
How do people get ahead in the workplace? One way seems to be by making their subordinates miserable, according to a study released Friday.
In the study to be presented at a conference on management this weekend, almost two-thirds of the 240 participants in an online survey said the local workplace tyrant was either never censured or was promoted for domineering ways.
“The fact that 64.2 percent of the respondents indicated that either nothing at all or something positive happened to the bad leader is rather remarkable — remarkably disturbing,” wrote the study’s authors, Anthony Don Erickson, Ben Shaw and Zha Agabe of Bond University in Australia. -[Reuters]
It would appear that business entities appear to be held to a much looser standard of humanity that are individual human beings. As a business entity, they are often allowed to indulge in actions that would have been considered unethical, hostile, or downright violent had the same actions been taken by one person against another. All in the name of the Almighty Dollar.
The problem is that businesses are not lifeless entities. They are not run by automatons. They are run by living, breathing people. Every unethical or inhumane corporate decision is made by human beings, and allowing businesses to operate without regard for the needs of other human beings is the same as allowing the individuals running the company to operate above the laws of humanity.
It is no surprise then, that people who make money, even at the cost of others, are often rewarded and rise up in the ranks of corporate America, while those who try to act with the well being of others in mind are penalized. But we really need to consider the long term social cost of this way of thinking. If we create employees whose only goal is the acquisition of wealth, with no regard to the health and well being of their fellow man, will we not eventually end up with communities of these very same kind of people?
Is that the kind of America we really want to create?
Bad bosses get promoted, not punished? – [Reuters]
U.S. Patents “Out of Bounds” or “Sheer lunacy”?
A recent article attempted to describe the procedural war zone that the patent process has become:
The U.S. patent system has veered off course and is being abused, executives of three top technology companies said Wednesday.
The problems include damages that are too great, patents for insignificant innovations and poor quality patents that haven’t been researched enough, participants said in a panel discussion at the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit in Palo Alto, California.
“The patent system, right now, is tilting out of bounds,” said Chip Lutton, chief patent counsel at Apple Inc. He compared the situation to a bubble market, as companies buy up patents just to use them to get overinflated awards. Courts have failed to rein in these speculators, he said. – [Yahoo/PCWorld]
The patent process in the US has simply failed to keep up with the technology. More importantly, it has failed to properly address the specifics of what defines new technology, and what criteria needs to be met in order for a company to be able to patent these new technologies. As a result, the patent system has been the target of unbelievable levels of abuse.
As I pointed out in a recent post. There are some companies whose only purpose is to patent as many ideas as possible, wait for another company to invest the time, energy and funds to make the idea work, then make a healthy payday by filing patent infringement suits.
The entire patent system needs an overhaul. I believe there is a use and place for patents, but as it currently stands, the patent system no longer functions, and no longer protects the risk takers and true industry innovators. It has been turned into an easy way for those who can’t to make money of the backs of those who do.
I don’t think the phrase “tilting out of bounds” properly captures what is going on. I think the patent process is far beyond bounds. I think it as crossed over to the realm of lunacy, and been completely out of control and for at least a decade and half now…
U.S. Patent System ‘Tilting Out of Bounds’ – [Yahoo/PCWorld]
Automated plate readers: A violation of civil rights?
The Ohio State Highway Patrol and the Springdale, OH Police department has the local ACLUs panties in a twist over the use of plate scanners on police cruisers:
The Mobile Plate Hunter 900 – two cameras mounted atop a cruiser – can read up to 900 license plates an hour on vehicles driving at highway speeds. …
… “It’s unreal,” Springdale Police Chief Mike Laage said. “It’s the best technology out there.”
The State Highway Patrol has been using the plate hunter in six spots along the Ohio Turnpike, but Springdale police are the first to use it on regular patrols.
Since the patrol began using the scanners in 2004, it has recovered 95 stolen cars – valued at $740,000 – and made 111 arrests, said patrol spokesman Lt. Shawn Davis. The plate hunter has made roads safer, he said. …
… The scanner’s gaze is too wide and it’s an infringement against the innocent drivers whose plates get captured, said Jeff Gamso, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.
Using the plate hunter to scan all license plates is a civil rights violation and could lead to government abuse of the information, Gamso said.
I think they should just knock it off,” Gamso said. “Is the marginal benefit likely outweighing the danger of increased surveillance of everything we do?”
Laage finds nothing wrong with casting the wide net. – [WBNS10TV/AP]
Well I have to admit that I am on the fence on this. This system has many advantages. It is indiscriminate, and does not profile anyone based on color, creed, etc., like a regular police officer could. It is also noninvasive, i.e. traffic stop is not required to do spot checks etc. and it does it’s job while on public roads, where there should be no reasonable expectation of privacy.
But while I can clearly see the advantages of this system, as a law enforcement tool, like any tool, it can be abused. There does not seem to be much difference between this and the covert surveillance of American citizens by government agencies without probable cause or due process.
I’m sure many will agree that we don’t want an America where our every move is observed, logged and recorded by government agencies, and our every action subject to the interpretation of a paranoid. Technologies like this always seem to take us closer, one step at a time, to that scenario…
Plate reader draws objections of ACLU – [WBNS10TV/AP]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…