Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment I think I got dumber reading that... (Score 1) 142

Let's break it down...

"We need a 'trip mode' for social media sites that reduces our contact list and history to a minimal subset of what the site normally offers."

If you don't want things in public, don't put them on social media.

"Not only would such a feature protect people forced to give their passwords at the border, but it would mitigate the many additional threats to privacy they face when they use their social media accounts away from home."

No it wouldn't. The oligarchs who want the data will just get it via other means. "Giving passwords at the border" is a convenience for them, but not the only way to get the data. And what are these "additional threats to privacy"? That's just meaningless add-on to the sentence. You created the threat to your privacy when you posted the information in public.

"Both Facebook and Google make lofty claims about user safety, but they've done little to show they take the darkening political climate around the world seriously."

Facebook and Google never have and never will care as much about your privacy as you do. They MAKE MONEY off of mining your information! And another meaningless sentence add-on... "darkening political climate"... huh? When did governments stop wanting information on travelers, ever?

"A 'trip mode' would be a chance for them to demonstrate their commitment to user safety beyond press releases and anodyne letters of support."

And it would be a false sense of security. All it takes is a subpoena or a claim that you're a "terrorist" to get any social media company to quite-willingly hand over whatever law enforcement wants, without you even knowing about it.

"What's required is a small amount of engineering, a good marketing effort, and the conviction that any company that makes its fortune hoarding user data has a moral responsibility to protect its users."

Or just stop feeding them user data.

"To work effectively, a trip mode feature would need to be easy to turn on, configurable (so you can choose how long you want the protection turned on for) and irrevocable for an amount of time chosen by the user once it's set. There's no sense in having a 'trip mode' if the person demanding your password can simply switch it off, or coerce you into switching it off."

They can switch it off whenever they like... it's called a subpoena. You're fixing the wrong problem putting a "mode" in the user front-end. What's needed is encryption on the back end and even the company "hoarding" the data you willingly gave them NOT being able to read it at all, which... obviously isn't their business model...

The key thought here is, you do NOT need social media. No one NEEDS social media. Whatever you GIVE WILLINGLY to a company about yourself is easily accessed by anyone who can even hint that you are some sort of "threat" to anyone in society. No "mode" will fix that. Just STOP providing the information if you don't want it seen by everyone.

Comment Misleading - whales and the big tail (Score 2) 130

The headline (and original report) seem open to misinterpretation.

50% of mobile game revenue comes from just 0.15% of users according to this 2014 report. http://www.recode.net/2014/2/2...

70% of mobile game revenue comes from just 10% of users according to this 2016 report. http://www.adweek.com/digital/...

So while I believe the article that the average amount spent per iPhone is $40/year (mean), it's probably equally true that the "average iPhone user" (median) spends less than $5/year. (That number is just a guess because I don't have the data.) Queue all the people who will reply to this story saying "I spent ZERO over the past year".

Comment Re:Well, duh! (Score 1) 144

Okay, I was semantically incorrect, but functionally on-target. IANAL. Are you?

You weren't functionally on-target. TOS had nothing to do with this case.

They're an interesting topic in and of themselves, and your beliefs about them are reasonable. But even if there was a company with the most privacy-friendly TOS in the world, that still wouldn't have helped in this case. His was a newsworthy story, and ABC showed a short clip, so it was fair use, and the TOS between him and facebook have nothing to do with the relationship between him and ABC.

Comment Re:100% his fault (Score 1) 144

There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.

The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.

I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all.

Are you conflating legal privacy protection with legal copyright protection?

The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significance, and so when they broadcast a clip of it, that fell under fair use. This is a valid legal exception to copyright, which is why they won.

He didn't file a privacy lawsuit. He filed a copyright lawsuit. I don't think it was audacious of him to do that. He would have won, too, had it not been a newsworthy event.

Just think this through. The mere fact that you broadcast something publicly doesn't mean you lose copyright ownership of it. And it doesn't automatically give other companies like ABC the right to rebroadcast it themselves. (If it did, then everyone in the world would be legally entitled to rebroadcast any free-to-air television stations! which might be reasonable in some kind of free-property hippy utopia, but isn't allowed in our society).

Comment Re:Well, duh! (Score 1) 144

Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property. They let you use their service for free (that is, they aren't billing your credit card or waiting for your check each month), and in return you give up ownership of everything you voluntarily give to them.

Read the article. This case was decided on the basis of fair use. The question of who is the copyright-owner has no relevance to fair use.

Comment Re:Leading Indicator (Score 1) 118

The economy cycles every 8-10 years. We're 9 years into a growth phase, it's only natural another recession is coming.

That doesn't seem right. Look at the historical record this century: http://www.macrotrends.net/131...

Recessions have been in 1920, 1923, 1927, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1960, 1970, 1974, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008. That's an average of one recession every 5 years, usually plus/minus 2 years.

If you limit your view of the economy to just the last three recessions, then you do indeed get an average of one every 9 years plus or minus 3 years. But then you'll need to tell us why you think the last three recessions are a better predictor of the future than any other possible interval.

Comment Re:50 feet? (Score 1) 226

Ahem, no. 1.7 miles, 3.37 Billion as of June 2016 http://www.seattletimes.com/se....

Did you read the link I posted? It was six months more recent than yours, and from the same Seattle Times news source, and had the headline "taxpayers rejoice! Bertha progress cuts into cost overruns."

Also the $3.37b you quoted is for the entire Highway99 replacement plan: $1b of that was for non-tunnel parts of the plan.

So: cost overruns reduced $3.37b down to $3.1b, of which $1b is for non-tunnel parts, so the tunnel cost is $2.1b. For a 1.7mile tunnel that's $1.2b/mile.

Comment Re:Overkill to going to fix this? (Score 1) 115

Hell, a driver who is paying attention might very well prevent a pedestrian impact... should we now then beam "Warning! Pedestrian!" into the vehicle's stereo speakers?

Well, yes. Better still let's make it so the car's computer will automatically brake safely if there's any obstruction in front of it ("safe" meaning that braking now won't cause you to be rear-ended). This is a completely earnest reply, and indeed it seems to be where the car industry is heading.

Comment Re:An extraordinary figure... (Score 1) 123

... but what kind of doctor will attribute a particular death to air pollution? There is no question that air quality is very poor and heavy industry shits on people in certain areas but pulling a hard number like that out of it is odd.

Why are you talking about doctors? I'd expect this data to be gathered by epidemiologists. I'd expect it to come from studies like "here is one sample population with X level of pollution, here is a demographically similar sample population with Y level of pollution, and we observe the following medical difference trends between the two populations".

Comment Re:Hmm, marketing dept confusion on the value add? (Score 1) 81

I'd pay to get rid of having data from my e-mails saved to target ads to me- actual ads in my e-mail provider though is almost nothing and not worth paying to get rid of. It's not the ads I mind- it's the fact they're data-mining my e-mail in the first place.

You "would" pay? Then do so!

With Office365 for Business their advertised rate is $5/month for one user. You can use your own domain. It's their business product, so there's no data mining. What I and my family have found nice is that, being standard Exchange, it's well supported by most mail apps.

(I'm a bit confused about the price though... I'm paying $8/month/user for "Exchange Online Plan 2" to get completed unlimited email storage, and I'm paying $4/month/user for "Exchange Online Plan 1" for my parents. But the Office365 website quotes $5/month/user with a 50gb capacity limit.)

Comment Re:Why Mosquitos? (Score 1) 301

Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?

Great idea! That way we could enjoy the incessant buzzing and painful bites of mosquitos that we know and love so well, safe in the knowledge that we're not also exposing ourselves to risk of malaria.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...