On Mon, 14 May 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Inchoate again reveals his remarkable lack of analysis AND imagination by
> asking:
>
> > I wonder how C-A-C-L philosophy would solve this problem...
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/18950.html
>
> This a problem that arises when you have a monopoly enforced by government
> guns. In a truly free market, the aggrieved party could take his phone
> provider to arbitration for breach of contract. QED, doofus.
This is a problem that arises because people are greedy and recognize the
profit potential in a captured market. Blaiming it on the government is
simply a silly knee-jerk reaction with no reasoning or analysis behind it.
So, somebody hacks your phone and you take the phone company to court?
That's insane, very shortly you won't have a phone company. And in that
sort of society wouldn't it be reasonable for any service provider to have
exclusionary riders on any contract with respect to this sort of stuff?
Clearly they're not silly or stupid and understand the concept of an
exclusionary clause. So, you either live without a phone or accept that
you can't bring such an action against the service provider.
And how might they determine which party it was to bring the action
against? I'm shure the independent 3rd pary phone system will let
just anyone hop around their network. But wait, what if the party doing
the phreaking is involved in the phone system as well? There is clearly
nothing in C-A-C-L philosophy that would prevent a large organization like
The Mob (copyrighted I'm shure) from buying into a phone system and using
it to their own advantage. They've got a controlling interest, they've got
a contract with an exclusionary clause so the phone system won't be the
target of action, and they've got no reason to let anyone do any
investigatio in their network. Yep, there is a recipe to find the crook in
a reasonably short time (if you're geological in your time scale that is).
What if that party refuses arbitration? It clearly is not in their
financial best interest.
And considering the agrieved company is nearly broke, do you propose that
C-A-C-L arbitration will be done for free ever? If so, who pays for it?
Even if the agrieved company 'wins' the investigation they still don't
have any money. Is your proposal that the only party who might win recoup
of losses is the arbitration agency (who it's worth adding was never
wronged in the first place)? Of what motivation as a small company would
it be for me to participate in such a system when it would never bring me
any advantage or recovery?
____________________________________________________________________
God was my co-pilot, then we crashed in the Andes.
So I ate him.
Anonymous
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
