Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy

+ - Etsy publishes the identities of sex-toy purchaser-> 1

Submitted by ArbitraryDescriptor
ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) writes "Etsy.com sells various 'home made' knick-nacks, from knit beard warmers to over-sized glass sex toys, and your purchase of either now appears in a Google search for your name. Not that there's anything wrong with over sized glass sex toys, but they're probably not things you want popping up when prospective or current employers google you. Various blogs and forums have begun reporting on this. Privacy Concerned User writes:

Oh god. I was looking for an example to give to a reporter that asked me for one, and I just found a woman who's Etsy profile comes up on Google as the 5th link. I was expecting 6 or 7 pages down, but it's on the very first page, right after her online resumes (four of 'em — so I guess she's looking for work and this cannot be helping). She signed up a year ago, under the old privacy policy, and hasn't logged in since 2010. And now I know what dildo she uses. Right down to the curvature and coloring.

"

Link to Original Source
Privacy

+ - Etsy.com exposes buyers' real name, sexy purchases-> 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Etsy.com is transitioning from craft-focused e-commerce to "social commerce." What does that mean? Privacy violations, apparently. Etsy has retroactively published the real names and purchase history of their buyers, complete with search. Users have not been notified of the change outside a help forum post. But Etsy users are fighting mad and sellers are demanding answers.

Should users need to explain to admins why selling sex toys might be incompatible with opt-out transparency and real names?"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Sprint, too? (Score 1) 166

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#35454364) Attached to: Clearwire Sued Over WiMAX Throttling

Sprint owns 51% of Clearwire. All of the "4G" services Sprint offers use the Clearwire network. Keep in mind that this is WiMax, and not really 4G, but because they sold it before 4G was a standard, they can continue to advertise as such. Rumors are of a deal between Sprint, T-Mobile, and Clearwire regarding 4G, so I suspect something significant to come of this soon, probably for the worse (for the consumer) and for the better for the beleaguered business deal.

Is 4G a standard? Last I heard it was just a marketing term used by the telco's to describe their 'better than 3G' service. 4G could be LTE, WiMax, or HSPA+; all very different, all '4G'

Security

US Secret Service Virtualizes Tiny Town 72

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the vectors-of-voxels dept.
An anonymous reader writes "For the past 40 years, a miniature model environment called 'Tiny Town' has been one of the methods used to teach Secret Service agents and officers how to prepare a site security plan. The model includes different sites — an airport, outdoor stadium, urban rally site and a hotel interior — and uses scaled models of buildings, cars and security assets. With help from the Department of Homeland Security's Science & Technology Directorate, the Secret Service is giving training scenarios a high-tech edge: moving from static tabletop models to virtual kiosks with gaming technology and 3D modeling."

Comment: Re:Not Just Google, Suspect All Other TV Networks! (Score 1) 1276

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#35211114) Attached to: Glen Beck Warns Viewers Not To Use Google

Who are these groups? Who are they? Are they right, are they left, are they clean, are they dirty, are they front groups? I don't know.

Wait, wait, wait, so what are you accusing them of? Absolutely nothing? And if you don't know then why are you telling us to investigate them? Maybe because you know nobody will do it and instead they'll just continue listening to you? "Is Glenn Beck, good, bad, is he left, is he right, is he clean, is he dirty? I don't know. Maybe you should keep your eye on him?"

George Soros (central to Beck's favorite 'puppet master' conspiracy theory) should secretly wire Beck $100,000, then "leak" it somewhere his fans would notice.

For science.

Comment: Re:The intent would seem to include Win7 (Score 1) 227

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34699386) Attached to: France Planning Non-Windows Tablet Tax?

Sarkozy isn't an MS shill, he's a shill for the french equivalent of the RIAA.

Sarkozy is a MS shill. Remember when MS bought the ISO standard? The French ISO members were supporting ODF, but were ordered by the French government to vote for MS. The boss of MS France and Sarkozy are old friends.

I stand corrected; I did not remember that. He's a regular bag of dicks (sac de bites?), that guy.

Comment: Re:The intent would seem to include Win7 (Score 1) 227

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34691994) Attached to: France Planning Non-Windows Tablet Tax?

Who is actually getting the payout from the "mobile OS netbook tax"? Are they applying it to non-Windows machines under the assumption that you will install an illegal copy of Windows on it? Or does it even matter?

I can't find anything about how the existing tax on media, USB sticks, and MP3 players is disbursed, but I doubt it's going to Microsoft. I think they're just trying to add 'tablets' to that list of things get a levy on behalf of whatever copyright think-tank writes their laws, because everyone is, apparently, assumed to be a criminal.

Comment: Re:The intent would seem to include Win7 (Score 1) 227

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34691720) Attached to: France Planning Non-Windows Tablet Tax?
Consider their viewpoint. They would tax every single means of data storage if they could. People would (rightfully) balk at the idea of taxing any hard drive, or their laptop, but they presently pay a bs tax on MP3 players. So there is a clear line there. So they're thinking "What if they just bought an iPad instead? We can't tax those!" and trying to move tablets and 'mobile devices' to the taxable, 'MP3 player' side of that line.

Ask yourself: Why would they intentionally exclude tablets running Win7 from their potential pool of revenue? Microsoft does not have the legislative influence in France that they do in the states, I really doubt that this is a case of MS massaging their laws and not (poor wording)/((poor/sensational) interpretation) by the press.

Comment: The intent would seem to include Win7 (Score 1) 227

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34691496) Attached to: France Planning Non-Windows Tablet Tax?
Sarkozy isn't an MS shill, he's a shill for the french equivalent of the RIAA. This seems like an extension of the tax they put on mp3 players, as it is based on the internal storage capacity of the device.

"The scale ranges from 0.09 euros for models with up to 128MB of 12 euros for those with 64 GB

Article linked from TFA

Thus I suspect 'mobile/clean operating system' is meant to refer to any operating system that can run on a mobile device, and then be used to play music that you probably stole. We all know how the copyright cartels think, why would they intentionally exclude windows users?

Comment: Re:Counterfeit watches (Score 1) 775

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34568376) Attached to: First-Sale Doctrine Lost Overseas

This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.

And these watches weren't legally imported? I bet they were

The 9th's decision is based on their interpretation that they were not. However, upon a third reading, I think I'm angry again. You are correct in that court allows that these are legit watches. Copyright language is confusing as fuck. I read it as copy cannot be sold in a region it cannot be otherwise purchased. As in, if they aren't selling it in the States yet, you can't either; but if they are: it's fair game. I then assumed that since they were available here, via Omega, all that language about 'grey market' and 'undisclosed 3rd party' was meant to infer counterfeiting.

Since the only thing protected by copyright here is the little picture on the watch, the 9th's opinion seems to be that art cannot be resold in a country that it was not originally intended for. That's ludicrous.

Comment: Counterfeit watches (Score 0) 775

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34566366) Attached to: First-Sale Doctrine Lost Overseas

Costco obtained watches bearing the copyrighted design from the "gray market"[1] in the following manner: Omega first sold the watches to authorized distributors overseas. Unidentified third parties eventually purchased the watches and sold them to ENE Limited, a New York company, which in turn sold them to Costco.

Omega claims that the copies of the design were not "lawfully made under [Title 17]" in these circumstances. 17 U.S.C. 109(a).

Costco bought the watches from a company who can't say where they got them. I believe Omega is using the US copyright on their 'Omega Globe' engraving to try and stop what they believe to be the resale of counterfeit/stolen watches. This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.

Comment: adding: (Score 1) 775

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34566136) Attached to: First-Sale Doctrine Lost Overseas
Since my view of the case hinges on the chain of custody between the rights holder and the distributor getting murky and Omega claiming they were unlawful copies; I'm curious how they would have ruled if Costco bought the watches overseas themselves, and resold them here. If I am understanding them, this should be permissible.

Comment: I see where the 9th is coming from (Score 1) 775

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34566016) Attached to: First-Sale Doctrine Lost Overseas
IANAL, but I've read the 9th circuit's opinion, and I think it's a fair argument; once you realize this is not about the watch (which I'll get to). This comes down to Omega never authorizing the importation of these copyrighted materials. 9th states that

Second, the application of 109(a) after foreign sales would "`render 602 virtually meaningless'" as a tool against the unauthorized importation of nonpiratical copies because importation is almost always preceded by at least one lawful foreign sale that will have exhausted the distribution right on which 602(a) is premised. Id. at 319-20 (quoting Scorpio, 569 F.Supp. at 49).

The watches found their way to Costco via "unidentified third parties,"

Costco obtained watches bearing the copyrighted design from the "gray market"[1] in the following manner: Omega first sold the watches to authorized distributors overseas. Unidentified third parties eventually purchased the watches and sold them to ENE Limited, a New York company, which in turn sold them to Costco.

I am inferring from this that Costco could not prove that these were authorized replications of Omega's copyrighted material. By ruling in favor of Costco they set a precident which could allow me to sell pirate CDs I bought from 'an unspecified 3rd party' wholesaler in China and claiming 'First sale doctrine, bro; I'm just a reseller.' I get that, kind of, if were were talking about CDs, books, or movies.

Here is the part that is fucking retarded: Omega isn't talking about the watch, the watch isn't copyrighted. They are claiming infringement on their logo, the "Omega Globe Design," which just happens engraved on the watch, and which they hold a US copyright on. So by my read, Costco is free to file off the logo and sell them however they want.

Comment: Re:Fix a problem, instead of managing the results (Score 1) 450

by ArbitraryDescriptor (#34504818) Attached to: Facebook's Zuckerberg To Give Away Half His Cash

I'm not talking about "socialism", but about donating money in such a way that any given cause will not need future donations. In other words solving a problem instead of helping to manage the results.

Well that is far more difficult. Consider what you are asking, rather than giving a person a service they cannot afford; provide them the means to afford it. Help build their financial infrastructure so that it become more self sufficient.

Sounds great, but how do you do that? You could expand their disposable income so they can provide for themselves. If you set up your fund, lets say it makes 50m a year. Housing is a major drain on everyone's disposable income, do you take 4,000 people and buy them a house/pay off their mortgage each year? This would help me, certainly, but what's to prevent them from taking out a second mortgage on it and winding up in debt all over again? Does the foundation retain ownership of the house? Do you have to apply to them if you really need that second mortgage (ie: medical bills)? What happens when they want to sell it? How does the foundation ensure the house is maintained to not get hit with laws against being a bad landlord? Do they have to?

I think you could work out a system like that, but I think it could wind up feeling a little invasive because to ensure that it was actually effective, you would have to ensure people were being responsible. This could turn the program into a PR nightmare as the foundation starts getting painted as a corporate fiefdom by a few unhappy recipients and a journalist trying to make a name for themselves.

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

Working...