The big question is whether the formal parties to a lawsuit can reach an agreement that has the effect of silencing other individuals from speaking and communicating on the Internet.
"David Sobel" is an education writer who has helped in developing the philosophy of place-based education. He has written extensively on the topic in books and numerous articles. He is currently a Core Faculty member and Director of Certificate Programs at Antioch University New England.
More David Sobel on Wikipedia.If you attempt to impose ... a credit card and registration model ... there will be a substantial loss of readership.
We're now at a critical point in this debate, ... and the balance could really go either way.
The plaintiff asked for a permanent injunction to affect individuals other than the two defendants who have agreed to this.
Everyone involved really needs to look at the proposal and debate what makes sense, ... We need to look closely at all of these issues and understand what the impact would be on these servers.
But AOL does not in writing guarantee they'll provide notice.
Where the basis of the request comes from is that the government itself has revealed nothing about these initiatives. The objective here is to move beyond unnamed DOT sources to really make public on an official basis some of the details.
We will end up in a fight over what of this information can be made public. We welcome that fight because at least it won't be the unilateral decision of the agency; it will be up to a federal judge.
Why wasn't some moratorium on Carnivore announced? ... How can the administration on one hand say they are trying to improve online privacy and also, at the same time, approve the use of technology that appears to be inherently invasive?
Copyright © 2024 Electric Goat Media. All Rights Reserved.