Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 1) 135

And when you argue that "That's a long way from it being used to deny a criminal electricy (sic)" you're overlooking the obvious - meter tampering is and of itself, as is theft of electricity.

I'm not overlooking the obvious. They cut off the electricity when the electricity use itself is either wired dangerously, or itself being stolen. There is a definite correlation between grow-ops stealing electricty, and of violating all building codes when runnign their lighting wiring.

But that is a long way from cutting off power that is wired safely to code, that is being paid for properly, simply because it is being used in support of a criminal enterprise.

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 1) 135

Both links aren't really about shutting down power to curtail illegal activity, per se. Both struck me as more safety related -- in the first they mention illegally bypassed meters (theft of electricty) as well as the status of the buildings being unsafe for human habitation etc (due to mold, humidity, and dangerous wiring etc... ) The power was NOT cut because generic illegal activity had taken place ... it was cut because the wiring situation there was a hazard.

Likewise, the 2nd article, the main reason the power was off was the wiring around the electrical box needed to corrected and repaired. The grow-up allegation was incidental -- the electricy would have been shut off even the meter replacement guy had been invited in for tea and given a tour of the place. The root issue was the unsafe wiring. He couldn't legally attach the meter and turn the power back on until the wiring was corrected.

So, thank you for the links, but I don't feel they've really demonstrated anything except that the power will be cut off if the wiring has been illegally tampered with and/or is a hazard. That's a long way from it being used to deny a criminal electricy as part of a curb on his ability to commit a crime.

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 2) 135

They are, for better or worse, more materially related to your illegal business.

And that's i guess where you are trying to 'draw the line' between peripherally or incidentally related and 'materially' related. But i don't think it's a very clear line -- perhaps snowclearing my driveway is on one side and fedex actually carrying packages for me is on the other?

But without both, my milk isn't going anywhere; so who's to say that the snow clearing isn't material?

As for the vendor selling me cows and milking isn't that like arguing the gun store is somehow responsible for what people do with them?

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 2) 135

Grow-ops have the power cut all the time.

Are you absolutely sure? Can you find a cite for that?

I know unusual power consumption is actively used to *identify* grow ups, but I don't think the power company is ever obligated to cut power. I mean... why bother? Once they know where they are they just go collect the plants.

From what I can tell grow ops losing power is usually initiated by the utility itself because the grow up was actually stealing the electricity (ie not paying for it) and the only reason the courts get involved with that is because some utilities are so regulated that they need permission to cut off the power even when it is being stolen -- because it could lead to a resident freezing in the winter for example.

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 5, Insightful) 135

Where do you draw the line, if I'm *suspected* of running, oh i dunno... an illegal unpasteurized milk business from my home, should the telephone company be obligated to cancel my service? Should the power company be obligated to turn off the power? Should the snow clearing company be obligated not to clear my driveway?

While they cannot "keep the sites offline"; pulling their service will, at least for the short term block a venue for accessing those sites.

Yes, and the power company, telephone company, and snow plow all pulling their services will all make it more difficult for my 'customers' to access my illegal services. That doesn't make them contributors to it.

If knowingly extending CDN services to any of these websites, CloudFlare can legitimately said to be aiding and abetting the distribution of their content by those websites.

And if you tell my snowplow guy you suspect I'm delivering illegal milk (remember I haven't even been charged yet, nevermind convicted... you could be a busybody for all he knows), but he's now aiding and abetting the distribution of illegal milk by clearing my driveway? Really? That's how you think the world should be?

I think CDNs should be treated as neutral in this. If a court asks them (via subpoena) for a the contact / billing information for the allegedly infringing site then they would have to turn it over. But I don't thin the CDN is aiding and abetting the illegal activity any more than the telco is for running the wires, or the power company is for providing the electricity.

Comment Re:Siri on Mac (Score 1) 61

I'm not sure that the main thrust of your argument is entirely relevant here, because the context is that its slurping your contacts into icloud, which is definitely not anonymized in anyway.

It does this so that siri on your phone knows about the contacts on your desktop, just in case you ask about them. Is this not correct?

That said, I concede that calling it the same privacy nightmare as cortana and google is overstating it too much. Siri / icloud has many, but certainly not ALL, of the same privacy issues as cortana and google; and while I'm glad to see apple taking privacy seriously -- it is definitely far and away ahead of the other two, the fact remains that the nature of icloud itself has many privacy implications that you simply can't handwave away nor solve with math.

Siri on your desktop, and siri on your phone can only do certain things if the two have shared information about you... information that is stored on icloud.

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 2) 86

Yeah, not going to do that. This is going to the police as evidence because I need to file charges against you so that I can sue you.

"+5 insightful"

The police would only be collecting it into evidence if there was a likelihood of the state pursuing a criminal prosecution. For a simple defective product, causing a mild injury the police would not be involved.

I wouldn't hand it over to the Samsung rep either unless they are standing there agreeing to accept responsibility and my medical bills at a minimum.

And Samsung would agree to accept responsibility and offer a damage settlement before verifying that the unit exploded due to a fault of the unit? As opposed to you exploding it by placing it the microwave...?

Comment Re:Siri on Mac (Score 0) 61

"Would you rather it didn't warn you? The fact is, Siri is OFF by default on macOS; so if you are that privacy-conscious, you don't HAVE to "Opt-IN".

Oh 'macs4all' your fanboi is shining through again. Nobody said Siri was on by default. And you are right, Apple did the right thing by shipping it off and making it opt in (hello Microsoft Cortana -- are you listening! I bet you are... because you're on by default!)

Nevertheless, once turned on Siri is much the same privacy sucking nightmare Cortana and Google are. The fact that it's off by default doesn't change what it is if you turn it on. Its literally the headline feature of the OS update; so talking about it in context with Sierra seems reasonable to me.

Oh, and you don't HAVE to use MacOS' Contacts list. I NEVER have. The ONLY Contact I have EVER had in my macOS Contacts/Address Book for the past 16 years is my own.

So what? You think Siri won't chase down one's contacts in outlook in the next update even if it doesn't already?

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 4, Insightful) 86

Pretty much exactly this. If I had a new anything and it 'exploded' on me then I'd expect the manufacturer to warranty the product, cover any medical costs, and cover any other damages. And if its not a shit fly by night company, I'd expect them to be volunteering a settlement without me having to sue them for one.

But I'd also expect them to want the exploded product back. That's just a given. Not only to validate my claim that it exploded due to a fault in the device... (which they should do) but also to determine whether the fault is a one off or something that will affect other devices. At this stage, like you, I think he's at best trying to scam himself a new macbook, and at worst an apple fanboi trying to create some bad press for samsung... and scam himself a new macbook. Maybe he even shorted Samsung stock as well (what prescience!)... their equivalent to the SEC ought to check.

Slashdot Top Deals

Basic unit of Laryngitis = The Hoarsepower