|
Posted by on December 23, 2007, 7:26 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Sure there was. She could have simply _not_ read
> the msgs, turned off the computer, logged into
> different locations, etc., etc.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. To function today, people MUST read
their emails and participate in certain forums; school assignments and
the like are often communicated in that manner. One just can't walk
away from their computer.
Nasty insults are often sent in the SUBJECT line of emails and forum
posts. That means the victim cannot escape from seeing them, even if
they don't bother opening the detail; the subject line has it all.
In addition, it's very unfair to expect the victim to change their
lifestyle and give up something. Shouldn't the bully be the one
compelled to modify behavior?
|
|
Posted by mc on December 24, 2007, 9:57 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> In addition, it's very unfair to expect the victim to change their
> lifestyle and give up something. Shouldn't the bully be the one
> compelled to modify behavior?
WELL SAID! And we've been through the same thing regarding computer
breakins ("you deserve to be broken into if you don't have the latest and
greatest security measures"), spam ("you should sign up with a spam
filter"), and to some extent even the Do-Not-Call List shows this
misconception, since it requires a special action on the part of people who
want to avoid being victims.
In a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. On a "frontier," only
the strong are safe. On this particular frontier, we seem to have too many
locksmiths and no sheriffs.
|
|
Posted by Mark Crispin on December 25, 2007, 10:03 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> In a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. On a "frontier," only
> the strong are safe. On this particular frontier, we seem to have too many
> locksmiths and no sheriffs.
Interestingly, the historicial frontiers were actually quite peaceable
places.
When the Washington Post defended Washington DC's gun ban by stating that
Washington DC "is not Dodge City in the 1800s", firearms enthusiasts
gleefully pointed out that during Dodge City's "wild west" heyday of
1876-1885, Dodge City had a total of 15 homicides, with the worst year
being 1878 when 5 people were murdered. Washington DC, by contrast, had
169 homicides in 2006.
The reason is simple. Life on the frontier was dangerous, and required a
great deal of cooperation. Far from being the mythical "rugged
individualists" who survived alone, settlers on the frontiers were
completely interdependent, not only on each other, but also on the local
indigenous people.
What we have on the Internet today is not a frontier but rather anarchy.
Some of us are once bitterly resented DARPA's (and later DCA's) control of
the network during the 1970s and 1980s have come to rue the fact that we
got exactly what we demanded: anarchy.
Sadly, when law and order is ultimately re-established on the Internet,
the military dictatorship of the past will look like a model of
benevolence by comparison. All we have to do is look at the players
screaming the loudest about "Internet governance" to see what horrors the
future will bring.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
|
|
Posted by on December 25, 2007, 10:56 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> When the Washington Post defended Washington DC's gun ban by stating that
> Washington DC "is not Dodge City in the 1800s", firearms enthusiasts
> gleefully pointed out that during Dodge City's "wild west" heyday of
> 1876-1885, Dodge City had a total of 15 homicides, with the worst year
> being 1878 when 5 people were murdered. =A0
I would question such statistics of the "wild west" in that I suspect
many shootings were not classified as "homicide", but perhaps self-
defense or not classified at all. I also can't help that some
homicides, perhaps grudge satisfactions, were written off as self-
defense depending on the influence of the shooter.
When someone pulls a gun on you, it's pretty hard to pull your own gun
because the bandit will shoot you before you get it out. There's a
reason they say and expect "hands up!". Accordingly, I'm not sure how
owning guns helped defend a home that much. As you put it,
organization helped defend people, not individual action.
Further, Dodge City was an organized city. Some of the problems of
the "wild west" occured in smaller communities where there was limited
law enforcement and outlaws could overpower locals.
> What we have on the Internet today is not a frontier but rather anarchy.
> Some of us are once bitterly resented DARPA's (and later DCA's) control of=
> the network during the 1970s and 1980s have come to rue the fact that we
> got exactly what we demanded: anarchy.
Very true.
> Sadly, when law and order is ultimately re-established on the Internet,
> the military dictatorship of the past will look like a model of
> benevolence by comparison. =A0All we have to do is look at the players
> screaming the loudest about "Internet governance" to see what horrors the
> future will bring.
Exactly who are those "players" ? What military dictatorship?
I, as a private individual, want to see an end of the anarchy so I
could freely surf the net without worrying that some innocent looking
site is actually host of a malicious virus or spyware, or do business
on the 'net without worrying that the site is a fraud.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: [Telecom] When the Bullies Turned Faceless | December 19, 2007, 7:30 pm |
| Re: [Telecom] When the Bullies Turned Faceless | December 21, 2007, 11:09 pm |
| Re: [Telecom] When the Bullies Turned Faceless | December 21, 2007, 11:10 pm |
| Re: [Telecom] When the Bullies Turned Faceless | December 27, 2007, 8:11 pm |
| Re: [Telecom] When the Bullies Turned Faceless | December 27, 2007, 8:08 pm |
| When the Bullies Turned Faceless | December 17, 2007, 10:09 am |
| Inscription: Surveillance Turned Inside Out | June 18, 2005, 4:58 pm |
| [telecom] Need some guidance on telecom easements [Telecom] | August 16, 2008, 9:08 pm |
| Re: [telecom] Radio Shark and Laff-At-It (was Calling Features and LATAs) [Telecom] | July 10, 2008, 11:28 pm |
| Re: [telecom] Road Runner pulls USENET access [TELECOM] | June 27, 2008, 5:50 pm |
|
|
![Re: [Telecom] When the Bullies Turned Faceless](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map