Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
On the passing of information through our computer systems, I agree entirely that it should be lawfully difficult to retrieve information from any computer system and there should be a stringent process in obtaining authority to do so in the absence of the owner's consent. There may be times that gaining access is preferable but this should be the exception and not the norm. In short, our personal property should be ours alone unless we choose otherwise or, it can be reasonably proven that we may cause a real and urgent harm which is reflected in our data.
However, there may also be a difference between knowing that there are Government agencies with the ability to "listen in" on our conversations and view our data, as opposed to an unknown mechanism injected into the system that can access these same things. I am largely against the notion of a "Police State" and also find witch hunts deplorable, but once a threat has been identified (and not merely imagined) there should be some legal mechanism available to reduce or eliminate any harm that
could result from non-action.
With purchasing legitimate software I have the opportunity to decline that access by not purchasing it and if I do purchase the license to use it, there may be some legal remedies available should my data become damaged or stolen without my permission.
When installing hacked or otherwise circumvented software, it becomes more difficult to determine who is "listening in" and the available remedies are greatly reduced. It clearly is offensive to have law makers granted to ability to listen in at will, but it is grossly more offensive to allow law breakers this same ability to listen in. Simply, We don't know which exploits have been delivered in the payload of an errant software and there frequently is not a corporate image we can hold lawfully accountable, should we be entitled to any remedies.
Copyright, is in a different post.
However, there may also be a difference between knowing that there are Government agencies with the ability to "listen in" on our conversations and view our data, as opposed to an unknown mechanism injected into the system that can access these same things. I am largely against the notion of a "Police State" and also find witch hunts deplorable, but once a threat has been identified (and not merely imagined) there should be some legal mechanism available to reduce or eliminate any harm that
could result from non-action.
With purchasing legitimate software I have the opportunity to decline that access by not purchasing it and if I do purchase the license to use it, there may be some legal remedies available should my data become damaged or stolen without my permission.
When installing hacked or otherwise circumvented software, it becomes more difficult to determine who is "listening in" and the available remedies are greatly reduced. It clearly is offensive to have law makers granted to ability to listen in at will, but it is grossly more offensive to allow law breakers this same ability to listen in. Simply, We don't know which exploits have been delivered in the payload of an errant software and there frequently is not a corporate image we can hold lawfully accountable, should we be entitled to any remedies.
Copyright, is in a different post.
