Dear Kopimists and the People who Love Them.
For the featured Filo delicacy for Friday Filosophy, we will have potato burekas.
I propose we talk about the difference between source code, object code, and executable code in regards to 1st Amendment protection. In other words, when is code speech and when is it a speech-act subject to less legal protection?
Below is an excerpt from an essay by Lee Tien, a brilliant EFF attorney for more than a decade, on Software as Speech (2000). These two paragraphs are in the section: Viruses and other "dangerous" software.
Of course, as always, we can talk about whatever else. Such as conscience and the unconscionable, perhaps.
Lee Tien, Publishing Software as a Speech Act, Vol. 15 Berkeley Tech. Law Journal (2000)
> Let’s return to the virus hypothetical.192 The main concern lies in the fact that the software may be “diverted” toward unlawful purposes, regardless of the speaker’s intent. This concern is, however, not unique to software. It also applies to other types of information usable for mischief or harassment, whether highly technical like information about nuclear weapons, or utterly mundane like a person’s name, address or telephone number.
> Even if the virus author merely posts the source code and fails to release it in active form, the issue remains whether the posting was done with an intent to communicate. If the author claims that she intended it to communicate, we would need to examine the context to decide the plausibility of that claim. There will often be a plausible claim. There is no question that people study viruses and other dangerous software in order to prevent or relieve harm.193 One way to control a virus is to publish its source code so that systems operators can disable or protect against it. Communicating a virus’ source code as part of such an effort qualifies as a speech act because the publisher intends to communicate how the virus works in a conventional way. In fact, one could imagine entire journals or Internet sites devoted to viruses and other dangerous software.194 When such publications aim to alert the world to these dangers, their intent is clearly communicative.
sent from eddan.com
we've been having discussions around membership and access. as part of that
discussion, i volunteered to consolidate some of the various ideas for
benefits that we can tie to membership.
check out the suggestions, add your own, keep a discussion going:
Hey ! A lot of noisebridge and sudoroom folks hang out at the DNA lounge death guild event Monday nights.
I spent a good deal of time talking about projects with folks there. There's also great wifi and a 24 hour pizza place next door.
Dance is a great way to get your emotions out ! Let's connect tonight!!!
Founder of Snowyla
As my task from this past week for the Mesh group has been to do some more research on tax structure advantages and disadvantages - I wanted to share my excitement about 501(c)(7) with everyone. Social Clubs!
Check it out -- http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Clubs.
Examples of 501(c)(7) ----
College social/academic fraternities and sororities
Amateur hunting, fishing, tennis, swimming and other sport clubs
Dinner clubs that provide a meeting place library, and dining room for members
Homeowners or community associations whose primary function is to own and maintain recreational areas and facilities
There is debate about whether the NSA's PRISM program is related to
Whether they are related or not, it seems that the government's claims of
transparency and audibility of the NSA's PRISM program is related (perhaps
directly) to the claims of Palantir's. Search for "immutable auditing"
It seems that even professor Lessig has bought into their marketing.
(Palantir's product is the kind of thing that prof Lessig had always
wanted, as you can read in his book "Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspce". In
trying to strike a "balance" between copyright and privacy, prof Lessig
proposes solutions that fail to prevent blanket government surveillance.)
We need to scrutinize these technically incredible claims. I wager that for
any given system that touts immutable audibility, there is a way to hack
around it. As long as the NSA can tap the wires and record information in
vast databases for cold storage, we are absolutely in risk.
Technical/legal concepts that need to be scrutinized:
* immutable audit log (see http://www.std.com/~cme/non-repudiation.htm)
* chain of custody
hi, i live in marin and heard about the hackerspace starting. i would not only like to be involved, but would like to donate an extra office chair. its in my car and was going to go a thrift shop tomorrow. would it be welcome and can i drop it off today? if so, address?