Actually, two points you are missing. ^^; 1) They are not talking about making open wifi illegal. The subject line just suggests this is a step in that direction. 2) They can already hold the owner liable for illegal activity on his network.

I do not misunderstand. I actually agree on this issue. The media industry has gotten out of control and is taking over the world (or at least giving it a darned good try). ^^;; It is kind of scary.

Have you actually been to Singapore, or studied their laws or culture?

Our forefathers did not fight and die so that you could have the right to let other people commit crime using your equipment. Getting up and arms over the right to aid and abed is not what the constitution is about. Yes, there are those who see the 2nd amendment as supreme, but they tend to think that it is the answer to all things. This is NOT a case that comes anywhere near the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Even with my stated views on the issue of open Wi-Fi, I have to agree that the current environment is not a good one when it comes to copyright issues. If someone is accusing ME of copyright violations, I want to see proof. If the only way to prove it is the existance of a file that never existed, then why should I have to show evidence that it never existed? This is one of those cases where the burden of proof being on the accused is akward at the very least.

The only solidly safe way is to require a username and login, and a verifiable way to identify them. i.e. If they do something illegal and you are not in a position to turn states evidence on them, you will be heald liable. This is the way it is with a lot of laws though, this is not unique to networks.

There are some parts of the US where you can cut overhanging branches, but you can't pick the fruit off of them. :P Go figure.

If the message is that some people are gun toting nuts with minimal actual understanding/regard for the constitution, sure I got the message. None of those really directly apply in this situation, nor would they apply even if this WAS a US situation. Plain and simple, if you let someone use your property, and they use it to commit a crime, you can be held liable. In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it, AND prove specifically WHO did it, then you MIGHT be let off. If you have any doubt about that, look at the gun law that you seem so proud of. P.S. I AM an American, and proud of it, and I actually know what the constitution says without having to use guessing and conjecture based on popular myth.

Problem is that people who provide services have long been held liable for the actions of people using those services. The precedent is here.

If someone is in your place of business, and they get hurt by another customer, you can be heald liable.

It may not be right, but it is the way that it is. There is precedent.

If you make your Wi-Fi completely open, and someone uses it for a crime, then you are liable. You should have secured your network better.

Wine/Word is just asking for a crash to begin with. It is just never quite right.

Part of the problem with people who are trying to encourage/push businesses to switch to Linux is that they are targeting the wrong audience.

I agree here, unless there is a real motivating factor involved and established business should not change their OS midstream without a great deal of thought and consideration.

The proper target audience for this kind of effort is NEW businesses. Those guys who are at the startup level and are going to have to lay down the cash for training either way.

Don't target the guys who have already blown their startup training budget and have fourty grand worth of equipment and software already devoted to one general setup.

Target the guy who is about to make that move. If you point out that training costs are going to be about the same either way, but that he could save a fortune on the software he might be motivated to go the Linux or Unix route.

You have to be able to aproach the issue with solid, practical information. If the company is already highly invested in their current system then it is not practical to switch to something totaly different unless there is a dire need to do so.

So, things that are not likely to be put on a web page require links for proof. :P I know that in this day and age it is far fetched, but there are a lot of things that will never have links that did happen.

Depends on the needs of the business and how important their information is to them. If the business is small enough that it is safe to let people install whatever they want, then it is small enough not to need an IT department. As for a software company, that is a very specific case. People need to be able to test what they are working on, which means either give them access to do so, or slow them down by requiring them to jump through hoops. Part of developing a security plan is balancing all the needs of the company.

"Public transit on the other hand focuses on being a 'vehicle replacement' so people in lower density areas can actually give up their cars." There are a lot of places in Japan where people can give up their cars. It is not perfect yet, but the system is still expanding. A good transit system would go a long ways to helping with the problems in the US. As you said, it is not the whole solution, but if it is done right, it will go a long ways.

This sounds like a great way to use the technology. You just have to take measures to make sure that is all it is used for, and that the people actually running the updates know what they are doing.