Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:SJW (Score 4, Insightful) 229

If you stand on someone's private property (including their online property) and spout hatred toward them there is nothing in the law to keep them from kicking you out.

Unfortunately in your example, invoking the use of verbally spouting hatred is a red hearing. If you are standing on THEIR PROPERTY, they can kick you out no matter what you are doing or saying, or not doing or saying.

The issues do however get more complex if the property is intended to be publicly accessible, like a store or restaurant, and the reason for kicking the person out is their inclusion in a legally protected group (race, ethnicity, religion, gender, handicapped, etc), but what they are saying isn't in any of those categories (though people often try to spin it into such a claim, like saying they were denouncing police harassment of [pick some group] and their being ejected is because they are part of that group, not because they were being loud, annoying, harassing, blocking aisles, not buying anything, etc).

Comment Re:"Few"? (Score 1) 188

Oh, and don't forget:

5. The way the DMCA is written it doesn't matter how pathetic or useless the lock is, merely that someone tried to digitally protect it.

So, don't forget that defeating this flimsy javascript, is (according to a law bought and paid for by the copyright cartel) just the same as defeating crypto or breaking a physical lock.

Nope. You installed NoScript, or had javascript turned off due to annoying pop-ups, either done for legitimate reasons, then when you visited the site in question saw something you liked and copy/pasted it. No warning appeared. The fact that a "protection mechanism" was applied, but it only did anything when a subset (even if majority) of people went there, means they would have no valid recourse against you. Unless, perhaps, you were stupid enough to brag about how you got around their protections, but probably not even then.

It would be like putting a loud and irritating noise-maker outside your door and therefore believe anyone who ignored it, covered their ears, or wore earplugs were actively defeating it, but then crying foul and suing when deaf people still came by since they didn't know it was there, or people did cover their ears since they thought the noise was an error by you. The judge would chuckle a little, look at you, and say dismissed.

Just because you can defeat it won't protect you from copyright claims.

As the saying goes, you can sue for anything, so you can't protect yourself from someone making a claim. But in this case, their claim would fall flat and be dismissed in about one legal step.

Comment Re:Micro grids offer resilience (Score 1) 129

A big advantage of decentralization is that mass disruption is hard to pull off. http://www.rmi.org/reinventing...

And on August 10, 1996, a failure of one high-voltage power line caused a cascade failure that took out power to seven western US states, two Canadian provinces, and parts of Baja California. People think that to have a big effect an attacker would need to take out a lot of points, but a small number of strategic hits, perhaps as small as one, can do a very disproportionate amount of damage.

Comment Re:Tied with Canada, Saudi, Australia, and Kazakhs (Score 1) 339

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

People will pick the statistic that works best for their situation, including placing restrictions to limit the numbers to a hand-picked subset which they will then toss freely (without clarification of the applied caveats), and make it seem their numbers apply to the general case even though they don't.

This is actually the exact same thing advertisers do all the time. Try watching a commercial and then ask yourself what they really said versus what they wanted you to think they said. ("None proven better" = we're all the same, often used for medicines; "Most powerful engine in its class" = what is "its class? Who are they comparing it against"; "Best fuel economy in its class" - did you know a PT Cruiser used to be considered an SUV by its manufacturer so it was being compared against Ford Expeditions and Chevy Suburbans for fuel economy?; etc.)

Comment Re:Snitching devices (Score 3, Insightful) 423

Also, you seem to be unaware of this, but there is no "Right to hit and run without consequence."

Blatant strawman. I never said that, nor do I believe it.

No. It's the old "Don't be a shitbag who hits and runs, and you've got nothing to fear" mentality.

If you never do hit-and-run, you have nothing to fear? No worries about your car constantly reporting its location to the cell provider which can be accessed by law enforcement, or lawyers in lawsuits, or hackers, or sold ("anonymized" of course) to others, or be intercepted and tracked, or ...? No innocent person has ever suffered negative consequences due to information being misconstrued, or misrepresented, or just wrong? So "you've got nothing to fear"?

Most people don't have a problem with technology that catches people who committed actual crimes, that have actual victims

So I assume you will be the first one to volunteer for government cameras to be installed in every room of your house? And be proud to be always wearing a GPS tracker for Mr. Gov? And to install software for the government to monitor all communications from your devices before they get encrypted? I am sure if people did that, the technology would be very effective at catching people that commit actual crimes against actual victims. Am I missing something?

especially when it was the result of a system performing as advertised when a person chose to have that system installed.

Given that this thread is about the privacy implications of such technology, and not this specific crime, this comment is off-topic. But even so, are you sure it was a separately paid option, and not part of a common package, or a standard feature of that model of car, or not on an automatic first month/quarter/year free so it is automatically on? Are you sure she knew about it before it activated, and if so, that it would send her GPS location automatically, and not perhaps just establish a phone call with a response person? The problem is people tend to know about the advantages of features since that is what the makers tout, but they normally don't know about the consequences since the makers try to hide those, and the general population doesn't have the tech background to figure it out themselves. Holding up a case of the technology causing a person to be caught breaking the law doesn't dismiss all the privacy concerns that also come with the same technology.

Comment Re:Snitching devices (Score 5, Insightful) 423

This person did something illegal, the car did was it was programmed to do, and they got caught. Show me an example, real-world, where a car calls the authorities and the person is unjustly imprisoned as a result.

It's complete hyperbole to call this "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". It's not the same thing at all.

The thread was about living "in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us", which somebody responded with "I'm happy to keep on paying whatever it costs to repair my increasingly-clanky old SUV. At least it's not spying on me; it's actually mine". They are talking about the loss of privacy such monitoring technology causes, and other such consequences, not the criminal actions of this lady. While snitch can mean to disclose criminal or immoral activity, its dictionary definition is "to snatch or steal; pilfer; to turn informer; tattle", and I think the meaning of 'spying' is self-explanatory. A car that tells Ford that I have been using a non-Ford service center for my oil changes is "snitching" on me. A car that tells the cell phone company, and therefore anyone with access to their records, where it is at all times, via cell tower logs is "snitching" on me (you do realize this feature works by having an always-on cell phone system in the car, right?) Whether what I am doing is legal, or illegal, it is still snitching, and destroying a facet of my privacy. Just because the person in this story was caught by a technology she may or may not have understood or agreed to (see article about how it is a standard feature now on Fords and the EU will make it mandatory on cars there) doesn't mean there are not other concerns about such technologies "in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us".

Having my car travel records tell my wife I went to such-and-such store the week before Christmas might ruin the surprise. Having her see the credit card charge for the honeymoon cruise I was hoping to surprise her with, oh well, too bad? Typing a website on the computer and having it suggest/autocomplete to another site about how to escape an abusive relationship, not good for the abused partner.

Now, instead of a significant other, how about a nosy government, or ISP/cell provider willing to sell you out for a few bucks from advertisers. You are suddenly getting junk mail for that little (LEGAL) problem you have, and now everyone in the house knows too. Too bad you checked the agenda for the AA meeting while at work, since now they are getting junk mail sent to you at your work address about that problem too. Oh, you were in the neighborhood where a crime occurred around the same time (according to your car), sounds like probable cause, better come down the station for a few hours while we ask you some questions. Don't worry, you will get it all settled (maybe), and lose a few hours of your life. After all, you didn't do anything illegal, did you?

But don't worry, since I can't show "an example, real-world, where a car calls the authorities and the person is unjustly imprisoned as a result", there must be nothing to worry about "in a world where our own cars, our own online history, our credit data, all snitch on us", right? No innocent person has ever gone to jail or prison on misleading circumstantial evidence, right? Or been tasered or shot, right? Right?

Still sound like hyperbole?

BTW: My vehicle is older than Mars Saxman's, and probably has five times+ as many miles as yours (assuming national averages). I actually like being able to work on my own car, and it's cool to refer to the mileage by what fraction of a million it is. Having it not snitch is a side-benefit.

Comment Re:Snitching devices (Score 1) 423

This is one of the reasons I'm happy to keep on paying whatever it costs to repair my increasingly-clanky old SUV.

Because it's such a bummer to do a hit and run and get caught.

Ah, the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" mentality.

How has that worked out for everyone who has lived under governments that have pushed that line? Or parents? Or significant-others? Or bosses? Or law-enforcement? Or any other authority figure?

Wanting privacy and doing something illegal are not the same thing. The trick is figuring out how to prevent the latter without sacrificing the former.

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 223

How does that make GP wrong?

The fact that Cox has not yet lost this case does not mean "they have lost nothing".

The judge has set a precedent that, unless overturned by an appeal, has damaged Cox's ability to conduct business as they have been, and has now opened them up to a substantial liability, so yes, they have already lost something. It also means that Cox will now have to spend more time and money to appeal this ruling. And this precedent remains valid even if Cox wins this case. What this article was about was how that same precedent can cause harm to more than just Cox since it can now be cited in other lawsuits, putting other judges in the uncomfortable position of either accepting this ruling as valid, or giving a different ruling which would require them to state why they came to a different conclusion, and judges try very hard to avoid that.

So Cox and other ISPs, and by consequence also their customers, have already lost something.

Slashdot Top Deals

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.