4 posts • joined Friday 1st June 2007 12:57 GMT
HughesNet Has a Very Limited Download Threshold
HughesNet only lets you download up to 200 MB during a specific time period (more or less a 24-36 hour period) before all but shutting down your connection entirely. A connection limit like this can't afford to be downloading the equivalent of ten web pages every time Google is used. I've had AVG on my parent's computer for years, but now I'm just done with it. This coupled with other problems that have made it more and more annoying to use is making me switch.
Of Common Carrier & the Fourth Amendment
So are they saying that as long as an entity is voluntarily conveying information of any type (email. phone message, letters, etc.) through some middle man, and the middle man has access to it, then the government by default has access to it as well? This does not sound like it'll fly. Whatever happened to the Common Carrier concept? Did it go out the window with all of these Terms of Service contracts we all enter into nowadays? And what of the fourth amendment here? How does utilizing a service for delivery suddenly make a piece of communication open to all? What happened to the right of people to their privacy of thei reffects against "unreasonable searches and seizures?" Would warrants even be required any more? If not, then I guess the question of reasonable would be defenestrated.
If this argument does fly and suddenly email is no longer an expected private means of communication, any important e-mail I send will be encrypted from this point on. This also leads down a dangerous slippery slope: If email is not private for this reason, then why are phone conversations private? Why is snail mail private? Let us hope that it does not get that bad.
Your Rights End When They Begin to Impede On Mine
Based on the article summary, it looks like these anonymous posters really did some damage financially to the plaintiffs (assuming what they say about the summer jobs and emotional distress is true). One has a freedom of speech, but not when it leads to libel or in some way, shape, or form tramps over someone else's rights. Now, I don't think that a suit is necessary here (everyone's solution to their problems these days is to sue, apparently), it may just do some good.
It's ironic that now not only does the Internet have a blurry picture of a window with a hint of a cat behind it, but also a clear picture of both the cat and the owner from inside the flat! Not to say she doesn't have a right to complain or anything: I know I wouldn't want a random shot of a room of my house appearing on the Internet (not a problem, really, since I live South of Nowhere).