g'day,
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Peter writes:
Basically, it's a crime in Canada to use somebody
else's compute cycles without permission ...
So your e-mail to this list committed a felony, since it reached my machine
without my explicit authorization and used compute cycles thereon ... right?
If not, explain why not.
Do please pay attention, this will all be on the exam.
First, I didn't say "explicit authorization". It's generally considered
poor debating style to put words into the mouths of others so as to
appear to win a point.
Next, by subscribing to this list, you are granting implicit permission
to the list operator to connect to your machine to deliver list-related
email. If I were to take this example to the RCMP, I would fully expect
to be told that no crime was committed, because implicit authorization
was obviously granted.
Note, in signing up to a mailing list, you have *not* granted permission
to the list operator to send fragments of code intended to run your
implementation of the Distributed Halting Problem, nor are you
authorizing non-subscribers to the list to harvest your email for
unsolicited bulk commercial messaging.
The relevant concept appears to be one of property rights - you have the
right to determine what others can and cannot do with your property. You
can grant explicit or implicit rights to access your resources without
losing those rights.
Got it now?
BTW, those who think SPAM is "too cheap to meter"
need to look at the total costs involved in providing
services ...
And those who say that spam is "too costly to tolerate" need to look at the
total cost of downloading advertisements, animations, active content, and
pop-ups when visiting Web sites--none of which are normally authorized by
the person visiting the sites. Why isn't that illegal?
Because it's something you can control by, for example, choosing not to
visit the site. Nobody's obliged to operate a website for your
convenience, and if you don't like the service, or the way they finance
it, you don't have to come back. This is fundamentally difference from
logging onto someone else's machine and using it for your purposes with
such an implicit contract.
My kids' school pays a part time sysadmin who
in turn makes use of a couple of technically literate
parents to help him with various chores as he's
still learning his craft.
Gee, that's reassuring!
What's your point? Small groups with limited resources should have just
as much right to benefit from the Internet, and not be subject to Denial
of Service attacks from Taiwanese servers just because they can't afford
tens of thousands of dollars per year in staff and equipment to defend
themselves. It's in exactly such circumstances that the true cost of
such activities is most evident. Large companies may be able to eat the
added costs, but at the margins it forces folks to do without. Shame on
you for not being able to see that...
- peterd
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch pdeutsch(_at_)gydig(_dot_)com
Gydig Software
"I'm no stranger to sarcasm, Sir..."
- Red versus Blue
---------------------------------------------------------------------