Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:This is why Britain left the EU (Score 1) 579

The United States treasury has already called foul on the retroactive money grab. And it's incredibly ironic you came in with brazen insults and then want to act surprised when someone points out your ignorance. You're living under a rock, this is clearly a money grab, and completely blind to reality and obvious regional facts. What's especially ridiculous is you're the one running contrary to blatant facts, and want to point the finger this way. You're a hypocrite and blind to causal reality. Don't like it? Tough.

Comment Re:This is why Britain left the EU (Score 0) 579

You've given no facts to support any of your claims. I've plenty well cited regional EU history and decades of non-action. It's absurd to bury your head in the sand and ignore the clear facts the EU is looking for a quick buck. The only one who is post factual - and post sound reason - is you.

Comment Re:This is why Britain left the EU (Score 0) 579

"You're just uninformed" is the typical battle drum of socialist plutocrats. I'm plenty informed: The EU's economy isn't looking hot, and they're looking for an excuse to get a quick handout. Even the US government is crying foul on this one. It's incredibly arrogant for you to swoop in with your "ah, uninformed masses!" bullcrap. The only one who's ignorant is you, because you've bought hook-line-and-sinker into the promise of being "enlightened" by plutcratic propaganda. As if the largest refugee crises in history coupled with the Greek and British fiasco are just happy financial coincidences.

What's absurd is to act like this is just tax business as usual.

Comment This is why Britain left the EU (Score 0) 579

The EU has turned into a parasitic leech that wants to fund irresponsible socialist programs with outside money, because they've spent the last three decades trying to eat their own tail. The Irish tax system has been in place for literally decades, it's a joke that the EU is trying to retroactively change tax laws of a sovereign nation state for a quick pay day. The EU is quickly going to find itself a land no one wants to touch because of the arrogant plutocrats who will magically decide you owe back taxes anytime their irresponsible financial management lands them in a pinch.

Comment Re:Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

Comcast doesn't need an excuse to extort you, they have a monopoly on the market.

I am curious if an ad-analyzer could detect statistical anomalies in display ads which would indicate a privacy violation. Some companies will throw in random ads to make things feel less creepy, but I imagine a well trained computer could skirt the red herrings. Eitherway we want to slice it, unless we have a wholesale ban on data-tracking (-including- opt-in/out schemes) I doubt privacy issues will be going anywhere soon. I'm more hopeful in Comcast ultimately fueling a new market that ultimately overcomes the privacy issues they created, than a big government intervention. Comcast may not hold true to their privacy product, but the me-too's may eventually succeed.

Ultimately we're arguing a hypothetical of what the outcome "may" be, so I think this may just be an agree to disagree situation (unless you can cite some solid research on the subject, I may be willing to budge with that.)

Comment Re:Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

Right, but the modern progressive narrative is that it's a person's choice to participate in sex work. I entirely and fully agree that underhanded privacy violations without clear consent are wrong, especially when most people simply assume privacy since it has been an assumption for thousands of years. We can both lock arms and definitely agree that's wrong and needs to be stopped.

Our deviation of view is in individual choice to participate in such schemes, and whether or not to frame it as a positive-or-negative event. If Amazon started offering free Prime Shipping for permission to open my packages and advertise to me based on it, my rather vanilla cis-gender male interests would make me more than happy to do so. Now I understand people from other demographics may not feel safe doing that, and I'm plenty well ensuring they have access to privacy in a reasonable, easy fashion at their discretion. But in the same fashion, I am -not- interested in participating in porno, but that does not mean no one can participate in sex-work who might like to. And I'm sure people who would participate likewise agree I personally have a right to be free from such.

The same goes for food. Many poor people skip out on side dishes to meals, etc, and end up eating unhealthy, incomplete meals because they're too poor to afford the full dish. They also may decide to engage in fasting because of their poverty. But that does not mean I think fasting is wrong for someone who chooses it, nor does it mean we should ban the sale of food and replace it with government issued rations.

The thing is, I'm more confident that if Comcast is paid to have a privacy package, that they'll probably find clever ways to keep -others- from spying to boot. Now they have a vested interest in not only violating the tubes you have access to, but making sure others on the other end don't spy on your tubes as well. More than that, it makes it into a tangible product, which creates a market for competition, etc. Of course this is the same as the food industry: food as a service means "going without eating" is an assumed thing that must be bought out of by money. As is, children do without food by default, and food must be acquired via money. In those cases, we have food programs (which still need work, IMHO.)

Still, I can respect your point of view, but personally I think Comcast will do more for privacy trying to sell it as a product than a government mandate will. We can take care of our poor who can't afford such a service the same way we do those who can't afford food. Of course, in your defense, education and housing have yet to be properly tackled via government support, despite free market innovation. So I can definitely understand your concerns are legitimate.

Comment Re:Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

"Storage thingies can consolidate duplicate files without inspecting them."

Online banking, social media, email, etc, have a growing body of personal data, which perform a plethora of services and intercommunicate. Those industries are evolving at a rapid, ever changing pace. Law, on the otherhand, is historically bad at keeping up with change. If we want to make a happy compromise, it would be much better to have a government program to ensure the poor have access to privacy-products. Free market is clearly good at creating solid technologies, and there is much more space for privacy innovation when it's framed as a product to be marketed and promoted. Food is also a fundamental human right, and free market has done plenty well in creating it - but to supplement, we create programs to provide food assistance to families when needed. We may as well attack General Mills for having the audacity to charge for the fundamental human right to eat, or sue Barnes & Nobel for charging for books.

Comment Re:Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

"The public does not properly value their privacy, because in aggregate humans are idiots, and civics is no longer taught in schools."

I have to argue that it's better to have privacy as a clear-cut service, as opposed to an implied "I hope for." Companies will always find ways to skirt government mandates via the fuzzy holes of logic inherit in online communications. "I want you to host all my files, BUT NO PEEKING." Google Music may have ten million copies of a hit song in ten million different drive accounts - logic would dictate Google just holds a few redundant copies at various encodings, and everyone points to the same bits. Can Google do that legally and privately? Privacy as a service as opposed to a hidden discount makes it a product people can view and think of concretely, as opposed to a lack of something that's slightly more esoteric reserved for enlightened social progressives.

Also let me give you a privacy tip:don't share online what you don't want online. Computer systems are inherently insecure, there will always be a hacker or something to violate your privacy. ALWAYS. I don't mind if Google tracks me in exchange for good services and way too many Hugo Boss ads, although they may have noticed I thought I had a hernia a while back (the doctor said it was just a strain, thankfully.) Deary me! A hernia! Did you know men get them near their groin? It's a bad place, your intestines can actually enter the nether zone through the herniated spot, via where the testicles descend. Always use proper lifting technique Google spies, ALWAYS.

Comment Re:Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

I don't think you're entitled, I've just worked in business for way too long to buy into the usual spin. If Comcast charges you $5 for privacy, that's the same as a $5 discount for allowing them to use your aggregate data for marketing. If someone wants to sell aggregate Internet data to their ISP for a credit on their monthly bill, that's their business. But that's the same case as "paying for privacy," it's just that we've traded the $5 credit with a $5 charge, with the base-product price shifted $5 accordingly.

ISP: "Your bill is $105, would you like to sell us aggregate surfing data for a $5 credit per month? With selling your private data: $100, without: $105."
ISP: "Your bill is $100, would you like to buy privacy for $5 per month? Without buying privacy: $100, with buying privacy: $105."

If I want to sell my aggregate data for $5, that's my own business. But because of base-cost shifts, that's the same as saying I have to pay for privacy (i.e. not get the $5 from selling my data.) If we're worried about the poor, we'd be better off addressing the systematic causes of poverty in the first place, or at least issuing a credit for low-income house holds to have their privacy fee covered.

Comment Re:Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

You definitely aren't entitled to free social media, free email, free photo hosting, 15gb of free cloud storage, free video hosting, etc; Those services operate under the predicate that you permit (see: give up) your right to "privacy."

The abstraction is relative: we can charge $5 for shipping, or markup the product $5 and claim shipping is "free."

Eitherway, if the company who creates the products you use free of charge is unable to monetize personal data, then the income differential ultimately will come from the consumer, in the form of higher product costs. "Privacy" will be free, your free-email will not be.

If you want to enforce it as a right, then it will need to be outright illegal to transfer private information - even your own - for monetary gain, but that happens to be another restriction on the supposed personal freedoms that were supposed to be protected. And if we do allow individuals to trade personal information for goods and services, that's the situation we already have but with rearranged wording.

Comcast can "charge" you $5 for privacy, or it can mark up your goods $5 and offer to "buy" aggregate information from you for $5 per month. If we want to ban such a practice, likewise we have to ban individuals from selling aggregate data about themselves, since they're just clever re-wordings of the exact same practice. A company -charging- for privacy is the same as a company -buying- personal information.

Comment Re:Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

Pop-up ads aren't so simple, they serve the useful function of making a product more familiar, and thus more desirable. This is a phenomenon documented by reputable psychology research. It has also been demonstrated that nasty behavior - especially online - is generally used to shut down people's critical faculties, which probably tells us something about the intellectual integrity of your position.


Familiarity and desirability as it related to marketing:

The nasty effect:

Comment Comcast is right for once. (Score 1) 182

From what we've seen, companies have a massive incentive to violate consumer privacy in the form of free-market competition for advertising. The better the ad-platform, the higher the market value, etc. With this model, businesses who fail to deliver on explicitly purchased privacy are immediately guilty of false advertising. More than that, Comcast may have a vested interest in keeping -others- from snooping, too. It's good advertising to say your broadband connection actively combats to prevent unauthorized cross-site scripting. It creates a lucrative consumer market -for- privacy protection. Like it or not, money usually gets more done than government mandates.

Slashdot Top Deals

fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.