Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Laws Without Borders (Score 1) 62

Her motive for taking the job was very likely to steal medications from the elderly.

In the US now, there is an entire segment of the population who believes you should have no right to judge her based on her life history now.

You would be considered a "bigot", "racist", "xenophobe", "misogynist" for wishing to discriminate based on such factors as life history.

This is what's driving the right to be forgotten..... also, before too long, it will also be illegal to discriminate in hiring/retaining employees based on criminal conviction history, DUI, past driving record, etc.

Comment Re:Let them lease, but not screw with sales (Score 1) 231

because it's no longer possible to determine whether you have tampered with it

Sorry, NO. It is not legal to deny your customer warranty, because you can't determine they did not tamper with it.

If they claim they didn't touch it, then you actually have to be able to prove that specific device was abused by the consumer to deny warranty.

They can still claim damages against the CPU, even if they broke a sticker and opened the case.

The consumer has a legitimate right to inspect the unit, and the system not booting gives them a perfect excuse, by the way.

Comment Re:Let them lease, but not screw with sales (Score 1) 231

Wrong. Only failures as a direct result of any modification should be denied. See: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Yes, unfortunately Magnuson-Moss is not strong enough.

What we really need is a law that says if the manufacturer creates an electronic device that is not readily- accessible to repair shops for economically available fully-functional replacement of every physical component and electronic component or module, then the manufacturer is required to warrant the device against defects in the device and all non-serviceable components for no less than 5 years after sale, that transfers with change of ownership with no requirement of registration, and provide repair or replacement for equipment service for no less than 20 years after sale, at a cost no more than the cost of raw materials for replacement modules.

Comment Re:Because the question is stupid! (Score 1) 192

I think the biggest change happened when they decided to use their ability to regulate commerce between the States to stomp on a farmer and SCOTUS decided to uphold it

There was a progression -- from Marshal, to the meatpackers, to the New Deal

Gibbons v. Ogden -- 1824, 22US

The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments....

; But the end affect is the commerce clause barely exists, most certainly not implemented as it was intended. The commerce clause evolved from allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce to allowing Congress to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, thanks to the "Necessary and Proper clause"; for example, congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, congress may regulate anything that threatens interstate commerce, even if it's only intrastate activities, and congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce.

Then we got this whacky idea called rational basis review, where the judiciary must show deference to current elected representatives, if there are reasons that support congressional judgement, the justices are supposed to support the current elected, even if the judges would come to different conclusions. Increasing deference towards current politicians is also deference away from slamming their laws by declaring things "unconstitutional" when they are unconstitutional. US vs Lopez.

Comment Re: Micropayments? (Score 2) 214

Well, part of it is that even a small payment can still incur a psychologically large cost. If each user post here on /. cost one cent to read, would you want to have them load automatically? Probably not, many of them are not worth that much, and you could quickly run up a bill of a few hundred dollars a year on that sort of thing from this site alone. So instead you'd have to take more time to think about what was worth spending even a little on, because it adds up and the price doesn't really match the value to you of the thing you'd be paying for.

Something similar happens when people have metered or capped Internet usage compared to at least nominally unlimited usage.

You really can't avoid this problem unless the micropayment is so small that it is likely not worth the cost to implement. I suppose if I knew that a year's worth of micro payments for me, for everything I use, was no more than about a dollar a year in total, it wouldn't be so much that it would feel like I was wasting money on the Internet. But because the average user doesn't want to spend a noticeable amount ever, and there really aren't that many users in comparison to sites, the resulting pie of money wouldn't be much to split up. (Especially once you reduce the amount to account for lower average incomes elsewhere in the world)

Comment Re:Because the question is stupid! (Score 1) 192

Congress authority is set out in the constitution. Congress can pass resolutions which become law when signed by the president

Congress can pass laws, But congress cannot transfer any of their own lawmaking authority to an outside entity.

For example, it is not within congress' power to pass a law stating "Whatever Young billy says is the law, is the law."

You can replace 'Young Billy' with any corporation or government department you want, and it's still true --- congress literally does not have the power to say "Whatever foobar says," as that would be a transfer of lawmaking authority contrary to the constitution's requirements for passing laws.

Comment Re:I'm careful about using the term "Evil" (Score 1) 108

I assume the criminals who would do this have risen to a new level of evil, and there's a measurably higher reward to offset the high likelihood they'll get caught eventually.

I am imaging "Ransomware" evolves into "Racketeeringware"

Instead of "pay us this ransom ...." to infected users, they launch a campaign getting people to "Pay 400BTC in Exchange for protection"

The explanation being... the evil device hackers are killing people left and right, But if you pay this "protection charge", Your medical device will get added to a list of devices that they won't attack

A short bit later, they change into a monthly protection fee to be paid by the device manufacturer.

And a long while later, they recast themselves as an "antivirus company" that releases proof of concept malware to the public, for devices whose manufacturers are not customers.

Comment Re:Defendants screwed up (Score 1) 129

Not copyright, but trade secret misappropriation. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act is where to start. In California, its codified under Section 3426 to 3426.11 of the California Civil Code. What may trip up Blizz in this case is Misappropriation - "Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means." And that includes "Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use". The UTSA expressly defines "improper means" to include "theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy". The plain language of the statute and the Comments emphasize that both reverse engineering and independent development are not misappropriation, which means Blizz (and interestingly enough, the bot authors) are free to reverse engineer each other operationally - but trying to acquire the source code is probably breaking the law, at least on the face of things. The law plainly says that anyone who obtains by subterfuge or outright taking any information he has reason to know is confidential, is guilty of misappropriation. If a person obtains information directly or indirectly from someone who does not have authority to disseminate it, that person (or corporation in this case) may be liable for misappropriation by wrongful acquisition. The fact that the person under an obligation of nondisclosure (the bot emplouee or subcontractor) willingly or accidentally disclosed the information (source code) does not protect the recipient (Blizz). Thats the law. This paints Blizz in a pretty bad legal light *if* whats is alleged (attempts to buy or coerce source code containing trade secret information, i.e. the the protected information of the bot company whcih was derived from the legal reverse engineering of the Blizz functionality). Where this might bite Blizz is the penalties set forth in the law: At a minimum the bot company/author may recover attorneysâ(TM) fees for bad faith tactics in trade secret litigation or willful and malicious misappropriation (Cal. Civ. Code  3426.4), recover compensatory damages for loss (Cal. Civ. Code  3426.3(a)), and this is the kicker: they have the right for recovery of "exemplary" (punitive) damage award if the misappropriation is "willful and malicious" (Cal. Civ. Code  3426.3(c)). On top of that, the California Business and Professions Code  17200 prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." This statute is extremely broad in its coverage of prohibited acts and practices, and it creates a private right of action for redress of any practice forbidden by any other law (civil, criminal, federal, state, municipal, statutory, regulatory or court made). So further sources of actions may be contained there - but thats so broad that I'm not going to speculate on what creative use of that law the parties may use against each other. So that's the civil side. Here's where the real fun comes in: Criminal code. As in someone might become a felon, and/or go to state/federal prison. Federal and California laws address this - California first: Cal. Penal Code  499c "Theft of Trade Secrets". It subjects trade secret misappropriators (and persons conspiring with them) to criminal penalties if they appropriate trade secrets by wrongful or dishonest means, or if they offer anyone a bribe to do so. [emphasis added] . A violation is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.00, imprisonment of up to one year, or both. The violation can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the value of the trade secret stolen.

Comment Re:On this I side with facebook (Score 2) 147

Option 2: Active editors. These forums are cultivated, maintained, and very ban-heavy. As a side-effect, the forum can be held responsible for third-party content.

Not true in the US (other than, potentially, with copyright issues and the like).

Remember, the CDA was intended to encourage providers to engage in censorship. Since the previous state of affairs was as you suggest, the way that they were encouraged to censor was to remove liability for material posted by third parties. But since many sites don't care, and the CDA protects them fully no matter what they do or don't do, it didn't really work out. Also other parts of the CDA turned out to be unconstitutional.

Comment Re:Athiest Symbol (Score 2) 518

Is a burka -- which objectively speaking prevents identification of the wearer -- in conflict with the legitimate interest of identifying drivers for the sake of accountability?

Yes, and people should not be allowed to drive, if they will not remove the burka to have their picture taken, And remove the burka while operating a motor vehicle.

Does that conflict override the tenet of religious freedom?

No it does not, because you are free to not drive. This might limit your options and choices in other areas (For example.... taking on certain jobs and living in certain places might be out of reach without driving), however, you have the religious freedom.

Comment Re:Can you liberals please wake the fuck up? (Score 1) 965

Far from it, but as you start to be less rigorous with your distinctions between the guilty and the innocent, pretty soon someone is going to find a reason to put you in front of the firing squad. And your pleas of innocence are indistinguishable from the millions that came before.

The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income and add ten percent.