On 05/06/11 5:18 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:39:45 +0300, Gadi Evron said:
The title is misleading, as this is more about "denying" access. But this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any* operational implications, but every operator to see this was immediately worried. I figure it warrants a discussion. No discussion needed - yes, it appears to conflict with "3 strikes you're off" copyright laws, until you accept that only criminals will get hit with 3 strikes, and criminals can be required to give up some rights as punishment, so it's OK.
I will happily go along with this argument when the "3 strikes you're off" copyright laws are enforced thru a process which A) assumes you are innocent until proven guilty; B) that you are allowed to present a defense and challenge all witnesses; and C) that you are entitled to have your case heard by a jury of your peers. To the best of my knowledge, none of the "3 strikes you're off" copyright laws proposed or enacted have provided these basic human rights. jc