 Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
to meeeeeeeeee
Re: Of course it isn't.I think you're misunderstanding (and not sure why you have to name call?). I meant that even though you may believe the Internet should be a free and open medium, there are laws that must be followed. |
|
| |
said by Robert:I think you're misunderstanding (and not sure why you have to name call?). I meant that even though you may believe the Internet should be a free and open medium, there are laws that must be followed.
Please site them Statute and paragraph and explain how they relate to "securing" routers and putting locks on doors. Because they exist in the minds of sheeple does not make it so... sorry. |
|
Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2012-Sep-13 4:47 pm
Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws? |
|
| |
said by Robert:Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?
Of whatever law you claim requires people to "secure" routers and put locks on doors. That was your claim and WE want to know the laws (Statute and paragraph) that support that. |
|
Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2012-Sep-13 4:53 pm
said by meeeeeeeeee:said by Robert:Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?
Of whatever law you claim requires people to "secure" routers and put locks on doors. That was your claim and WE want to know the laws (Statute and paragraph) that support that. I never claimed or implied that there was a law that required people to secure their router or put locks on their door. If I did, then it was a mistake -- can you please reference me the post I made such a claim? |
|
| |
said by Robert:said by meeeeeeeeee:said by Robert:Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?
Of whatever law you claim requires people to "secure" routers and put locks on doors. That was your claim and WE want to know the laws (Statute and paragraph) that support that. I never claimed or implied that there was a law that required people to secure their router or put locks on their door. If I did, then it was a mistake -- can you please reference me the post I made such a claim? You've been implying it with every post. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW, plain and simple, no matter WHAT the sheeple bleet. |
|
 your moderator at work
 hidden : Personal attacks
|
| meeeeeeeeee |
Re: Of course it isn't.said by Robert:Are you implying that freest & open should mean that we can do whatever we want on the Internet, damn the laws? WHAT LAWS??? If YOU wish to give up your rights and freedoms, go right ahead, but the rest of us will pass on the cool aid... thanks. |
|
Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2012-Sep-13 5:03 pm
said by meeeeeeeeee:said by Robert:Are you implying that freest & open should mean that we can do whatever we want on the Internet, damn the laws? WHAT LAWS??? If YOU wish to give up your rights and freedoms, go right ahead, but the rest of us will pass on the cool aid... thanks. Sir, I think you've passed on more than just cool aid. |
|
1 edit |
said by Robert:Sir, I think you've passed on more than just cool aid. I won't take a pass on FACTS. If you state (or even imply) there are laws, be prepared to cite them. More and more courts (as this article very clearly points out) are ruling that there is nothing wrong, criminal or negligent with having an open router. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
meeeeeeeeee
1 edit
1 recommendation |
Re: Of course it isn't."damn the laws"? WHAT LAWS? Perhaps instead of bleeting and spreading misinformation you should actually read what you are commenting on BEFORE you comment. Spreading misinformation actually damages many open router initiatives and deprives people of Internet access. |
|
Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
1 edit |
Robert
Premium Member
2012-Sep-13 7:39 pm
Really? I've already explained this. I think you need to revisit the posts above. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
to Anon
said by Robert:I meant that even though you may believe the Internet should be a free and open medium, there are laws that must be followed.
The problem here is a common one. You seem to be equating 'free and open Internet' with some sense of lawlessness. If not, then you are simply stating two unrelated facts: ie, Even though the Internet should be free and open, people still have to stop at red lights. Of course, stating two unrelated facts like this would be pointless, confusing, and is not relevant to the discussion. The idea of a free and open Internet access does not in any way imply the breaking of laws. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Personal attacks
|
1 edit |
to CXM_Splicer
Re: Of course it isn't.Its pretty clear meeeeeeeeee simply doesn't understand that their are no such laws but that doesn't mean you can just leave a network unsecure. People get in trouble with the law all the time in situations where there were no specific laws covering the subject but were charged and in many cases rightfully so under a more generalized law. There's also the possibility of civil suits to think about.
Whether you choose to understand this stuff or not there's always the possibility of getting dragged into court whether you agree, disagree. You know why we know this? Because people ARE getting dragged into court over this issue and it is costing them time and money. Just secure your freaking networks. |
|
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
I am not sure what you read but I think meeeeee said quite clearly that "THERE IS NO SUCH LAW, plain and simple..."
And strangely there are unsecured WiFi connections all over the place. I am posting from a hotel's free unencrypted WiFi at the moment... the local library near me also has unencrypted WiFi as do many businesses around here. This hotel doesn't even direct you to a TOS agreement (which they should).
Simply walking down the street exposes you to the possibility of getting dragged into court whether you agree or disagree. That is not a valid reason to live as a recluse. |
|
| |
to FLATLINE
said by FLATLINE:Its pretty clear meeeeeeeeee simply doesn't understand that their are no such laws but that doesn't mean you can just leave a network unsecure. People get in trouble with the law all the time in situations where there were no specific laws covering the subject but were charged and in many cases rightfully so under a more generalized law. There's also the possibility of civil suits to think about.
Whether you choose to understand this stuff or not there's always the possibility of getting dragged into court whether you agree, disagree. You know why we know this? Because people ARE getting dragged into court over this issue and it is costing them time and money. Just secure your freaking networks.
I full well understand that some Law Enforcement Agencies do sloppy work, inconvenience many people and trample their rights. This is what law suits are for. A few big settlements and suddenly Law Enforcement Agencies learn that THEY are NOT above the law. Several members of Congress are currently investigating USDOJ and TSA for just such sloppy work and hopefully will put a stop to it. Now several Federal and State Courts are also coming to the conclusion that citizen's rights cannot be trampled by sloppy work. No, I WILL NOT give up my rights because some Law Enforcement Agencies do sloppy work. Our country was NOT founded by people who rolled over and died because it's the easy thing to do. They did what was right, as will I, even if it's not easy. Either you fight for your rights or you lose them. Things worth having are seldom easy. |
|
