Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
For my congresional 'representatives'. S.314 is not a moral bill. Making the owner of a computer (or computer network) responsible for what its users store (or transmit) is like making the owners of a parking lot responsible for what is stored in the cars parked there. It just isn't moraly reasonable. S.314 is un-American. America has always been a place where speach is freeest. We have consistently held the expression of ideas to be one of the very most important rights. To hold the owner of a buliten board responsible for the illegal messages posted to it, is to force the buliten board owner to become a government censor in all but name (and wages). It effectively ends the bulliten board's use as a venue of free speach. S.314 is harmfull to America. The kind of 'chilling effect' this bill wil place on the computer (networking) industry would put american companies at a serious disadvantage. Could I really operate an airline reservtion system for a large airline if I could be held liable for illegal information transmitted using my equipment? No. Could I operate the masive software and hardware networks that the phone system requires? No. But, I bet the company I own in Mexico, or in Canada could. They aren't burdened with such (artificially created) liabilities. Or perhaps I could get a special waiver from my friends in Washington. Hmmm. How much will these sorts of 'work arounds' cost american bussiness? S.314 is not enforceable. There is no certain way to tell if a file of data is an illegal one. Stegnography and cryptography, along with the fact that what a bit means depends on which programs are used to interpret it, mean that even this message could be porno, terrorist threats, or arangements for drug trafficing. Imagin searching all the cars in your parking lot for drugs. Very expensive, and not very reliable. Tons of drugs travel past just such inspection sites each year. Now imagine how tough it would be if the drugs could be turned into perfectly normal steal in the body panels of the vehicles! That is what stegnography and cryptography do to data. Turn perfectly 'awfull' data into data perfectly indistinguishable from noise, and then hide the noise as indistinguishable-from-inocent 'errors' in other data. Concider the spelling in this message -- convert each word into a bit -- 1 if it is speled right, 0 if not. Or how about spacing, or, punctuation -- Hmmm. Now supose we add otras idiomas, aux eble muchos languages en cxiu mesagxon. Will computer (network) owners be responsible for the spelling, punctuation, language, word choice, and grammer of all the electronic mail sent, received, and stored? S.314 is bad for *your* career. If you vote to support it, I will vote against you in upcoming elections. I will work to impeach you. I will never employ you, I will not read your memoirs, I will not do business with you in any way what so ever. I urge you to think twice, and then vote no on S.314. j'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, THIS IS A GRAMMAR FLAME. Delete now if you don't like that sort of thing. Recently, several folks on this list have posted `letters to the editor' or `letters to their representatives' that they had already sent or intended to send. While most stated their case clearly and dramatically, much of their impact was lost due to grammar and spelling errors. If your purpose is to persuade, don't shoot yourself in the foot by writing like an illiterate. I know, I know, Net dwellers fancy themselves `above' such pedestrian nit picking. The truth is, though, those who you intend to persuade will judge your intellect by these standards as much as by your content. And in a way, they are right. If you are too sloppy or lazy to write correct English, how unlikely is it that your thinking is equally sloppy and lazy? In previous postings I have kept my comments to private e-mail. I apologize to J Prime for going off on him publicly, but (a) it had to be someone, and (b) his posting is particularly egregious in this regard. (I did like *what* he said, just now *how* he said it.) Among ourselves, we can be less formal, but when we go public, I think we would be a lot more effective if we had more respect for the technical aspects of our prose. S a n d y P.S. I hope I didn't misplace any modifiers or misspell anything in this post. But if I did, please do as I say, not as I do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy, and other C'punks, THIS IS A RESPONSE TO A GRAMMAR FLAME. But not, I hope, a flame itself. I respect your opinion, Sandy, and am glad you like what I wrote. And I certainly don't take your grammar 'flame' personally. In fact, I _agree_ with what you have said. But for one thing -- one of my points was to rub their noses in a particularly stinky example of stegnography. What secret messages are concealed in my letter? Can anyone know? That was an essential point to my letter. In retrospect I would change the analogy from parking lots to mail carriers. (Does it make sense for a mail carrier to be held liable for the 'bad' mail they happen to deliver?) I would also probably point out that the internet community standard for what is obscene is awfully loose, and seems to focus mainly on a brand of pork meat product. ;) I just got off the phone with my 'representatives.' Perhaps calling them doesn't have the same impact that a letter does, but it is very immediately gratifying. j(who _can_ drive a spelling checker)' P.S. Yes, you made an error in your post :). If you will proof my letters to my reps I will proof yours. Deal?
participants (2)
-
jpp＠markv.com -
Sandy Sandfort