Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment The likelihood that this result occurred according (Score 1) 469

2 problems.

1) statistical likelihood of an event , while being good enough to reasonably prompt an investigation and perhaps require defense against an accusation, is not proof. So the chances are 1 in a billion, that that doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen. I bet I could find at least 1 lottery winner who bought only a few tickets in there lifetime.
2) More likely though there is a problem with selection criteria. How about , 'no family members who are members of the communist party'? Or no immediate family members who are citizens in foreign country? while not being normally reasonable criteria, those kinds of requirements might be perfectly reasonable if you are talking about wanting greater security than normal Top secret clearance.

Comment Re:it's pretty simple (Score 1) 178

This whole argument basically comes down to:
Do you believe humans have intrinsic value ( if so where what cause that value, historically deity ( aka images of the Living God loved by Him) , is there another source?)
From a materialist standpoint, human beings are just resources to be consumed and destroyed by whatever processes happen to be of no more particularly value then there interchangeability in the process. Survival of the fittest, might makes right.

Comment Re:Sure, it can be hacked (Score 1) 178

unauthorized access , or tampering with a computer equipment is a crime in the united states, against the law, of coarse depends on your jurisdiction. But basically unless you are talking about some kind of 'social hack' anything that accessed Uber's software without their prior written consent and did anything they didn't like to it could land you with huge fines or in jail.

Comment Re: I think it's fair (Score 1) 178

hmm... what is fair?
Do human beings have a right to eat? Do they have a right to be able to feed families? Is it ok for employers to try and create situations where employees don't have the resources to educate themselves and their children so they cannot move to other area's or develop better skills that might make them able to demand more for their pay? How safe should work be? After all, if I can find people to work someone for just enough money to eat and a there are lots of others who starve , aren't I doing them a favor, even if a few hundred of them die from dangerous equipment a year?

The deeper problem is really a factor of worldview.
Are human beings unique images of the eternal God , each of inestimable worth and in need of an opportunity to freely seek the expression of the good within themselves?
Are human beings piles of chemicals, nothing more then an interesting happenstance of chance evolution, of no more value then dolphin a cat? Why or is slavery, sex slavery, prostitution and all the other crimes against humanity wrong? Is there such a thing as wrong or is a persons ability to do something the only factor that is important regardless of who and how we exploit each other as Darwinian theory would suggest.

Of coarse there is some room for spectrum in-between.

Any attempt to talk about minimum wage, or Just wage, or equality of persons, or 'rights' of any person has it's foundations in the first worldview. In the idea that there is such a thing as 'justice' and 'fairness' that exists exterior to and can be reasonably required of all people, can only be sustained as reasonable if human beings are something greater than the some total of their parts.

Once you have settles some of the larger issues then you can start to work out a definition of 'fair and just'. If you subscribe to the materialist world view any and everything is fair and just, so long as those in power can get away with it.

Comment Re:RTFA - photos were illegally posted (Score 1) 282

Yes, but I suspect part of what is currently working it's way to the court is an 'adding and abetting' kind of problem.

It is vey different from a legal prospective to pass out a card with an advertisement and address for a library then it is to pass out the address for a brothel ( assuming that is illegal in your country).
It makes perfect sense copyright isn't lost if permission to make the copy was never given, the question is however, how much responsibility does the guy with cork board in the public bar have to keep business cards of the local pimps off of it?

Comment Re:wait, i am sure i am missing something here.. (Score 1) 282

Even in the case of an embedded link. It is the providing server that is serving the document. Not my server. Your client, request someone else's document from someone else's computer because I pointed to someone else's computer, and said, look over there.

Unless there are a lot more details then in the OP, this is basically the court misunderstanding the nature of the tech and will need to be corrected, because it is equivalent to claiming that 'If I post a copywriter image on a billboard and you take a picture of the city skyline that copyright has been violated if you publish your original photo'. Or even more accurately , 'IF I post a copyrighted image on a billboard and you show a video picture of the city skyline on a closed circuit television for profit , you are violating copyright'.

Putting content on a non-encrypted public http address without some kind of access control, is no different then publishing it on a billboard for everyone to see. If you don't understand why that is you don't belong dealing with web content as a lawyer or an author.

Now , things do get more complicated in cases like search engines that cache images or in the case of content saved and then loaded elsewhere, in part because if the image, or content was put on the web by mistake it becomes difficult or impossible to regain control of it. I suspect this case has something to do with cached images like the ones in Google search. Which could remain for months or year depending on the code.
How difficult is it to remove your copyrighted material from these sites. I think this ruling is basically, just because I once made the image public doesn't mean I loose my right to remove it from the public, but that is because it is the only reasonable interpretation I can make. It may be a false assumption that the court is reasonable.

Comment Re:Cash... (Score 1) 212

As noted in the Original article. Cash is not very anonymous. I'm not sure how anonymous, but every bill has a unique serial number that can be used to track it if it is involved in a crime. Does anyone have any familiarity with how often the numbers are logged or looked at? If the government wanted to they could require that all bills from cash transactions be logged out and in of banks so that the only way to anonymize cash would be through some 3rd party scheme ( which would probably be made illegal).

The perhaps sad reality is, most people are much more worried about money laundering and preventing sex slavery , organized crime and terrorism then they are about personal freedom. For better or worse the consensus seems to be more and better monitoring of everyone is acceptable so long as it helps to stop crime, if you don't agree I'd suggest looking up the Patriot Act and BSL. There is little or no concern that one day a totalitarian or authoritarian state could rise up and use all that infrastructure to coerce people into well, whatever they think is 'right' regardless of their particular leaning.

I suppose it is in the end a example of the breakdown of American society as a whole though. We don't trust each other or other people like we used to, because we have become philosophically more diverse and divisive. That and from what I can tell 80% of people on both sides of the isle cannot articulate a coherent philosophy of what they believe, which makes it easier to get them to just tow the party line because they are neither thinking things through or asking questions. I'm not sure if that % is modern day phenomena or a normal constant in human history.

Comment Re:Gee.. I wonder why. (Score 1) 61

oh sorry. Most of the people I run with assume if anyone says "let me put on my tinfoil hat" they are making a joke about something. Usually a conspiracy theory because in the movies the stock 'wacko conspiracy theorist often wears a tinfoil hat to protect his mind from being read by THEM'

Comment Re:Gee.. I wonder why. (Score 1) 61

ok, why was this moded as troll? Was it not obvious from the tinfoil hat comment that the first part was meant as humor? Although I was wondering how the target was picked and have heard from time to time of copywriter holders interfering with or hacking networks they didn't like. The Madonna hack of Napster comes to mind off the top of my head.

Comment Re:This should be ILLEGAL. (Score 1) 75

>>You're voluntarily entering into a agreement with a private company. YOU are giving them that right when you sign the agreement.
True, however it is not possible to get needed services from any company that doesn't snoop on your data because of a combination of anti-competitive monopolistic collusion shored up by government bureaucracy. You could say the same thing about your bank, by having a bank account you agree to having all your personal business monitored and if you look suspicious your records turns over to police for further investigation, but that doesn't mean it is an end round of privacy laws, especially if there is no other choice for a sufficiently needed product.

>>> if they want to meter the amount of data fine, make it clear in the contract >>> response They do:
That's only about half true, you and I know what the contracts mean, but do you really think the average non technical user on the street realize what type of monitoring of their data is done to accomplish the goals in the contract. On top of that if you ask someone in the store to clarify what they do you usually get an incorrect answer "I've tried it out".
There law should require the contract to have large print say "WE RESERVER THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE,INSPECT AND USE FOR ANY INTERNAL PURPOUSES WE SEE FIT EVERTHING YOU TRANSMIT ACROSS OUR NETWORK, YOU HAVE NO EXPECTED OR IMPLIED RIGHT TO PRIVACY FROM US". ( because that is the reality and most people have no idea about it).

>>> In T-mobile's case, if you don't want to get the "SD" streaming feed from a Binge On enabled streaming provider, you just disable Binge On. You get to eat through your data at the rate that you have full control over and get to pay as such. And AFAIK no one is is claiming that they block any traffic.

which in no way mitigates the fact they are looking at my DNS queries and evaluating and logging them in such a way that if the any entity issue a search warrant ( or breaks in) they can go through months of data.

>> Or it's a case of you not actually understanding how it works.
No, I've written fire walls for a living and understand networking pretty deeply, not quite a professional network engineer but
I have worked in security of one form or another all my life. I know what is needed to set up these kinds of features and object to their existence
on principle and would happily pay a more ( assuming it was something I could afford) for an unlimited connections with guaranteed zero monitoring and active/ regular purge of all non billing related data. More to the point if you stop tracking people billing becomes really easy.

( (Cost of network operations + Cost of network maintenance) + %new expansion and development wanted + %profit you want to make)/ total number of network users.

Every network company has the same costs, and all of them are fixed except for amount for new investment and profit, so all these 'marketing strategies' are really nothing more then a complicated smoke screen to maximize profit, usually by disadvantaging and taking advantage of customer while at the same time compromising their security. If anyone knows of a company that doesn't do that and provides service in the most of the metro United States let me know who my new cell provider is please.

Comment Gee.. I wonder why. (Score 3) 61

Why would a platform which is hated by many multibillion dollar corporations for being used to violates their legal rights be a target for malware.
( ok.... I think I will go put on my tinfoil hat now :) but then again it does make you kind of wonder. Does anyone else know who or why people target this kind of system with malware. I suppose it is also a good target because the machines may already be using large amounts of bandwidth so there is less chance of detection. Seriously though, anybody out there know why malware makers pick specific targets, what makes some easier ect.

Slashdot Top Deals

<< WAIT >>