Comments on: Boing Boing: House introduces mandatory radio-crippling law

By: “You do not enumerate the freedoms you want” at fulminate // Architectures of Control

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:45:16 +0000

[...] Whatever the political and legal comparisons might be, the principle is certainly pertinent to the rise of architectures of control in technology. Up until just a few years ago, most technology was effectively ‘open’, assuming you could get hold of it. All of us had freedom to do what we wanted with it – take it apart, modify it, repurpose it, improve it, break it, even if the originators had never expressly intended anything like this, and even if it were ‘illegal’. Now, though, we have (some) technology into which intentions can be codified. We have products with hyper-restrictive End-User Licence Agreements which we must accept before we use them, and which can report back if we don’t abide by them. We have products which are intended to provide one-function-and-nothing-but-that-function, and are designed to frustrate or punish users who try anything different. We have politicians seeking to specify exactly what technology can and can’t do. How do I know what freedoms I want until I’ve experimented? How can I even explain them until I’ve experienced them? Should the progress of tomorrow really be shackled by registering as law the prejudices and errors of today? [...]

By: Sungki Hong

Sungki Hong — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:19:54 +0000

It now seems almost impossible for people to create new products without having to limit its potential.

By: John G Bell’s Blog » Beware the future. It’s coming fast.

John G Bell’s Blog » Beware the future. It’s coming fast. — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:24:19 +0000

[...] It’s an interesting dialectic between meeting current needs and balancing the necessary generality in the law with future specificity. That future specificity comes from the process of the law in finding and defining the boundaries, exploring implications. [...]

By: Pandora’s jar of mixed nuts » More exciting than a do it yourself abortion!

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:50:48 +0000

[...] Awesome quote from 1847 decrying technology regulation Dan Lockton, writing on the Architecture of Control blog, quotes Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who responded to an 1847 proposal to regulate the design of bridges with this quote: In other words, embarrass and shackle the progress of improvements of tomorrow by recording and registering as law the prejudices and errors of today. Link [...]

By: Tracy Eckels

Tracy Eckels — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 06:44:42 +0000

Tonight I watched a program on the Science Channel about the space shuttle Columbia explosion. Its incredible that the final report of the presidental investigation simply blames the “O” rings, the exact thing that the engineers at Morton-Thiecal were screaming about months before the launch. Yet before the launch, the engineers were heard, and then overruled by managers more concerned about schedules and upcoming contracts.

The problem with technology isn’t the engineers, it’s the managers, the politicans, the idiots that have no idea how it works, and therefore choose to strangle it rather than let it flourish.
Technology needs to be taken out of the hands of the managers. Managment decisions should be made by engineers. If the engineers had been listened to back in 1985, those seven Astronaughts might not have died.

By: NAR

NAR — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 02:16:02 +0000

If you want to help defeat Mike Ferguson in the election this fall, please visit Dump Mike to learn more about his votes, issues and out-of-the-mainstream positions. We're a grassroots organization working to change the United States Congress through local community action and education.

By: Duckncover

Duckncover — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:59:25 +0000

It’s pathetic!

Most of the shows on radio you can’t get any other way than to record them. Just what you expect of US.

Following this methodology may be they should ban guns instead of just the use of them.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:56:26 +0000

Well yeah. That's what I've often thought about the TV licence we have in Britain (enforced mainly by intimidation and FUD tactics). A TV works fine without one, so why get one? But the issue here is that the future design and technology directions of a consumer product are being arbitrarily dictated by expressly anti-competitive legislation which offers no value to consumers, and threatens to restrict opportunities for future innovation. It will mean is that there's yet another product which requires hacking to open up features which the users desire, and would pay for, but are denied by a system which panders to the influence of a few important groups.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:45:19 +0000

Odd. I turn my radio on. I listen to it. I turn it off when I’m done. Works for me.

By: Oracle

Oracle — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:18:40 +0000

Yet another excelent Anti-RIAA article… now if only someone would write an anti-house-appropriations comittee article.