Since the only tool they have is a hammer,
they see everything as a nail. And, as
legislators, judges, prosecutors, and
litigators, they like to see 'problems'
everywhere; like some English major,
and many lawyers were, who looks at formula
fiction and sees good against evil, white
hats against black hats, where the point
of the story is for good to defeat evil
and get the girl.
Here as often elsewhere in our society, the
lawyers should just go drink something
sickening and just get the hack out of
our lives, out of our way, and quit being
dangerous, destructive leaches on the
work of good and productive people.
Time for a lawyer joke:
Q.
On the highway
is a dead skunk and a dead lawyer. What
is the difference?
A. There are tire tracks ahead of the
dead skunk.
No one wants to run over a skunk; they
are cute, sweet, harmless little animals
and fun until threatened and turn and
raise their tails. Lawyers, however,
....
Lawyers, just quit causing trouble
for normal, harmless people. Stop
it. Please, just stop it. Go do
something else. I'm putting this
nicely. However, if I win a big
bundle in the lottery, maybe I'll
fund the ACLU, EFF, and even more
aggressive legal organizations to go
after any lawyers making trouble for
harmless people, e.g., Aaron Swartz.
Lawyers need some insight into people.
Well, here's one: From grade school,
high school, and college, it's not good
to have everyone else in school think
of you as worse than a rabid dog. And
if people think of you this way, then
there's nothing the school principal,
teachers, and rules can do really to protect you.
Instead, you can get hit in the back on the
playground, on the way home
find some tough, angry kids who don't
like you, never get invited
to parties, lose your homework and find
it in the toilet, etc. Adults don't
do such things, but the feelings can be the same and
still you can
be ostracized, rejected, hated,
pushed out, scorned, avoided, friendless,
etc. Really, you can be alone and learn
what essentially every baby mammal knows
from birth -- it's not good to be alone.
Net, again, once again, either
be hated or just quit, stop it,
hurting harmless people. Dutch
uncle advice. Word to the wise.
I know; I know; in law school you
were proud to be taught how to "think
like a lawyer". Now, out in the
real world with normal humans, you need
to learn again how to think like a
human. Again, yet again, just for you,
quit hurting harmless people;
this advice is good for both the
harmless people and you.
Are you getting this? Got it?
Right, you noticed that this is not
a legal issue. Right; in strong
contradiction to what you learned
in law school,
not everything
in life is a legal issue. Beginning
to understand now?
> if I win a big bundle in the lottery, maybe I'll fund the ACLU, EFF, and even more aggressive legal organizations to go after any lawyers making trouble for harmless people
By saying this, you're tacitly admitting that some lawyers are fighting the good fight. And above, there's plenty of non-lawyers proposing broken analogies with trespassing, even though one can't prevent access to their house with certainty nor easily mitigate damages.
So "lawyers" aren't the root problem, but the general dislike of them certainly points to it - legal complexity that grows without bounds. And while this is fueled by lawyers (and others) tending to want the world to work the way they already understand, channeling rage at them only obscures the actual problems.
I believe that the situation of the Internet and
what I mentioned are simpler than
your remarks.
First, for my remarks, I concentrated on
asking lawyers -- legislators, prosecutors,
judges, and litigators -- to quit hurting
harmless people. Simple. Nothing about legal
"complexity" can argue against this.
Second, for the Internet, lawyers should mostly
just f'get about it. Just ignore it. Don't
make or prosecute laws about it. Don't have
civil suits about it. F'get about computer
industry patents. Just go do something else.
In particular, again, no problems with
legal "complexity".
For "private property" and what's on Web sites,
just f'get about it. It's simple, dirt simple:
(A) The Internet is new and different and nothing
like much of anything before. It's not like
a house, storefront, bookstore, front yard,
newspaper, etc., and trying to force the Internet
onto some such Procrustean bed is just destructive
nonsense.
(B) If an owner of a Web site has some
data they don't want spread around, then they should
not put it on their Web site. Just don't do it.
If they do, then their ability to 'protect' their
data is zip, zilch, and zero. Both technically,
for reasons simple to deep and profound,
and legally, in practice, they can't protect such
data and likely never will be able to. So,
don't put the data out there. If they do,
then f'get about the lawyers and protecting that
data.
Sorry 'bout that, but copyright
laws were not designed for the Internet and
digital data.
A Web site owner
can try to be like the MPAA
and RIAA and try to hold on to the past, but,
for many reasons lawyers can't effectively
stop, it
won't work. That's just the way it is, no
matter what laws get passed, no matter how
many wacko, paranoid, OCD, Boston federal
prosecutors grit their teeth and think that
they see
monsters in closets, how many confused,
ill-informed SCOTUS decisions there are,
etc. It's tilting against windmills.
In the meantime, lots of lawyers will be
causing lots of damage and doing nearly
no good, all for no good reason.
The Internet was just fine before the
CFAA. And we don't need SOPA
or PIPA.
Sure, a citizen should make his
views known to Congress. Alas,
Congress is full of lawyers, and
it's tough to break through
to them; could use 1000 board-feed
of 2 x 4's to break over their
heads to see if they are just resting
or deep into some profound legal
thinking. Gotta wake them up and
have them get their hands off
the Internet, and keep the NSA off
the Internet.
I can't turn Congress, but I can
guarantee Congress that via technical
means
the Internet
can circumvent nearly any laws they
pass. So, f'get about the Internet.
> I concentrated on asking lawyers -- legislators, prosecutors, judges, and litigators -- to quit hurting harmless people.
Every person generally thinks they're doing good in the world. They certainly don't think they're hurting harmless people for fun, they honestly think they're protecting other people. You need to understand this if you want to have any hope of getting to root causes.
> If an owner of a Web site has some data they don't want spread around, then they should not put it on their Web site. Just don't do it.
See, this is the exact opposite of the truth - it's quite possible to publish data online and employ access methods to control who can access it. By arguing your case this way, you are undermining yourself - the reason we have a legal system with laws etc because things like murder/robbery/etc are impossible to prevent, so the only thing we can do is punish transgressors. Computers give us the ability to implement absolute restrictions formally. The push to implement ambient-authority retributive laws comes from management types who don't devote want to spend the effort to implement formalized restrictions, and want to cry foul after the fact.
> Every person generally thinks they're doing good in the world.
I think we mostly know who's harmless. We know for
kitty cats and puppy dogs: In my neighborhood,
cats are free to wander but dogs are not.
> See, this is the exact opposite of the truth - it's quite possible to publish data online and employ access methods to control who can access it.
Wrong, fundamentally technically and practically. I told
you it can't be done, and you just didn't believe me.
Once that toothpaste is out of the tube, it
can't be put back in.
Once a secret is out, can't pull it back.
Once some data is sent over the Internet,
the person who receives it has it, all of it,
and can technically can do essentially anything
with it. E.g., when a Web site sends a Web page,
it's gone, the whole thing, HTTP header lines,
HTML mark-up 'elements', CSS 'properties' and
values, software in JavaScript,
text, files in JPG, PNG, GIF, MP3, WAV,
etc. The computer receiving this data
is free to store it on hard disk, manipulate
it many ways, back it up, send it, etc.
Net, that data's gone, out'a there, out in
the public, beyond control, with no
self destruct mechanism, no time out
clock, no string to pull it back. Can't
track it; mostly can't trace it;
in practical terms can't say where it
came from, can't claim ownership of it,
in no practical terms can enforce
copyright for it. Etc.
Sure, can embed a secret 'watermark'
in a PNG file, but that doesn't do much good,
e.g., as the file passes from person
to person. Besides, such a watermark
might get lost if the image is resized.
Yes, can put some carefully constructed
errors in text and numerical data, but
maybe only parts of the data get used
or copied, and, again, after the data
passed through many hands tough to say
who originally 'stole' it, and for the
rest they had no knowledge that the
data was stolen.
Yes, can set up strong authentication
for users and use strong encryption
when sending the data, but eventually
some user gets the data as 'plain
text', that is, not encrypted, and now
can redistribute it to friends, family,
etc. It's just bits and can be
stored, copied, transmitted, modified,
etc. So, one 'authorized' user leaks
the data and it's gone and essentially
out to the public.
For a Web site trying to block a user,
it is essentially impossible to know
if the user returned -- with a different
IP address, MAC address, ISP, Web browser
string
HTTP_USER_AGENT, etc. Searching the
user's house or office also is unpromising
since the data could be on DVD
below the insulation on the floor of the
attic, stored in the cloud, etc.
Again, yet again, as a practical matter,
now and over the horizon, if a Web site
doesn't want their data out in the
public and usable by every Tom, Dick,
and Harry for whatever, then they should
just never have their Web site send that
data. And, really, there's nothing
laws or lawyers can do about this except
cause a lot of trouble.
Again, more generally, lawyers should just
f'get about the Internet.
Since the only tool they have is a hammer, they see everything as a nail. And, as legislators, judges, prosecutors, and litigators, they like to see 'problems' everywhere; like some English major, and many lawyers were, who looks at formula fiction and sees good against evil, white hats against black hats, where the point of the story is for good to defeat evil and get the girl.
Here as often elsewhere in our society, the lawyers should just go drink something sickening and just get the hack out of our lives, out of our way, and quit being dangerous, destructive leaches on the work of good and productive people.
Time for a lawyer joke:
Q. On the highway is a dead skunk and a dead lawyer. What is the difference?
A. There are tire tracks ahead of the dead skunk.
No one wants to run over a skunk; they are cute, sweet, harmless little animals and fun until threatened and turn and raise their tails. Lawyers, however, ....
Lawyers, just quit causing trouble for normal, harmless people. Stop it. Please, just stop it. Go do something else. I'm putting this nicely. However, if I win a big bundle in the lottery, maybe I'll fund the ACLU, EFF, and even more aggressive legal organizations to go after any lawyers making trouble for harmless people, e.g., Aaron Swartz.
Lawyers need some insight into people. Well, here's one: From grade school, high school, and college, it's not good to have everyone else in school think of you as worse than a rabid dog. And if people think of you this way, then there's nothing the school principal, teachers, and rules can do really to protect you. Instead, you can get hit in the back on the playground, on the way home find some tough, angry kids who don't like you, never get invited to parties, lose your homework and find it in the toilet, etc. Adults don't do such things, but the feelings can be the same and still you can be ostracized, rejected, hated, pushed out, scorned, avoided, friendless, etc. Really, you can be alone and learn what essentially every baby mammal knows from birth -- it's not good to be alone.
Net, again, once again, either be hated or just quit, stop it, hurting harmless people. Dutch uncle advice. Word to the wise.
I know; I know; in law school you were proud to be taught how to "think like a lawyer". Now, out in the real world with normal humans, you need to learn again how to think like a human. Again, yet again, just for you, quit hurting harmless people; this advice is good for both the harmless people and you. Are you getting this? Got it?
Right, you noticed that this is not a legal issue. Right; in strong contradiction to what you learned in law school, not everything in life is a legal issue. Beginning to understand now?