On Feb 23, 4:44 pm, Victor S <[email protected]> wrote: > To be honest, the language sounds quite ambiguous... > > Things like "knowing" may not be as easy to define as you think... > your example of Xerox 'knowing' that their machines are being used for > copyright infringement doesn't cut it. To know is, in some manner, to > be witness, if you have not seen it happen you can't know. You can > "believe" that copyright infringement happens at Kinkos, but you don't > necessarily "know". > > I haven't read the whole things, but it sound like political speak so > far: "intentionally ambiguous" to leave a lot of wiggle room...
Exactly - the "fascism" rhetoric is a little overblown, but there's still a concern. Especially since, unlike the Xerox example, it's *technically* possible for an ISP to "know" quite a bit more about what users are doing. For example, would the treaty mandate deep- packet inspection to catch filesharers? Maybe backdoors in encrypted communications channels? Nobody knows, but the fact that even the *text* of the treaty has (apart from leaks) been secret doesn't help people feel comfortable about it... --Matt Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
