Slashdot Mirror

A Dell customer service rep phoned me, told me the model numbers on both my computers, described issues from my support history seven months earlier -- and then tried the exact same "infected with malware" scam.

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/20...

I think the only thing that will change this may be more news coverage of how common this is -- to the point where companies like Dell and Symantec have to reassure their customers that this will no longer be happening when you purchase their products.

The fundamental difference is about opt-in vs opt-out.

In the real world, you didn't opt-in. As far as we know, you didn't choose to be born, or where to be born, or who your parents would be. This is fundamental to the truths we hold to be self-evident; that all are created equal, and should thus be granted equal rights at birth -- that only through your own actions, after birth, can you limit your rights.

However, on the Internet, you absolutely did opt-in, in the most fundamental way -- there is no basic human necessity to use a computer, let alone place information on a publicly accessible webserver. Therefore, we can assume that when people opt-in to these communities, they've had the opportunity to learn about how ROBOTS.TXT works -- or simply to assume that Google will index everything.

I'm not sure the change is that fundamental, though. How much opportunity do we have in the real world? There is enough empty space, both in civilization and outside it. Structures are easy to build. It is therefore possible for most people to be able to hide themselves.

I would argue that, within a city (the only place "street view" has a point), people are generally citizens, who have generally chosen to play by the rules -- and one of these rules is, quite simply, that the street (and anything it can see) is public property and fair game.

Briefly:

When Google started scanning books and offering them online, it was behaving like a net company, assuming that if it went to a library, everything was available to them unless specifically prohibited, just like on a website. But the real world doesn't work like the web, and Google got sued by publishers.

Well, except the real world does work that way. I don't know about you, but my public library includes a copy machine. I don't know if I've seen scanners on their computers, but I have seen printers, and I wouldn't be surprised.

I have never, in my life, gone up and asked for permission to copy a single page. Nor have I seen anyone else ask.

In other words, it's a question of magnitude, and possibly of commercial interest. I'm not xeroxing the entire book, even once, and I'm certainly not putting ads on each copied page to make a profit.

When Google started offering news stories written by others online, it was behaving like a net company, assuming that if it's on somebody's website, they can use it unless the ROBOTS.TXT says otherwise. But in the real world, those websites were only licensed to display syndicated news stories from the big organizations (Reuters, AP, AFP,...), and Google got rightly sued.

In this case, I would argue that it's the real-world rules which are at fault -- given that it is trivial to block a particular bot from indexing your pages (or even all bots), and it is also trivial to demand that Google stop indexing your site -- there is quite possibly no human involvement from them in such a demand.

If these technical solutions are inadequate, it's certainly not because Google wishes to "pirate" news stories. A simple solution would be to talk to Google, either before or during the suit, about a technical solution -- maybe ask (kindly) that Google respect some new way of using ROBOTS.TXT to allow indexing, for search purposes only, but not syndication.

When Google stated that Gmail wouldn't necessarily delete peoples' emails even if they shut their accounts, they got in trouble. In the real world, emails are considered private by most people, and just because they use Google's service doesn't mean they want Google to keep everything.

This is, again, a case of misunderstanding on the part of people using Gmail. If these aren't in the terms of service, that would be the simple solution.

Take the case of the Craigslist troll. While I might, in good faith, expect that a kinky BDSM photo sent to a prospectiv

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/10/05/is-the-net-good-for-writers/print/

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/10/05/is-the-net-good-for-writers/print/

Fermi's blunder, indeed.

Yep, even on the basis of a 'science-based' analysis (perfectly in tune with the current overemphasis on technology - this link given only as an example) that I totally agree with.

Thinking a little ahead (along the lines of Rucker, perhaps), one might ask how relevant 'sub-gaian' species might be for more developed entities.

CC.

...he wrote back cheerily, saying that an employee "took me out to eat, gave me some YouTube shirts and told me to come back!" But when he went back to camp in YouTube's lobby, a security guard stopped him at the elevator...

...isn't from slashdot. It's the last part of this page:

"I can foresee a day when this community of nihilistic pranksters hold its first convention, and they spend a week at the Marriott sneaking up on each other, flicking each other's ears and laughing until they drool."

I think on the one hand, Gawker Media has gotten a *lot* of publicity from this - particularly after being discovered. Every news story on the incident has a link to their web page. But on the other hand, they now face a barrage of legal battles after admitting publicly that the uploader (belowtheradar) is '[their] video guy...'.

I doubt anybody will follow in their footsteps once the courts make an example of them, and that is very likely to happen.

In related news, The halfwit blowhard Amanda Congdon managed to get her little 'quote' of disdain in to the news article above ; so it's official, every worthless media-wh0&e not worth watching has gotten their 15 minutes of fame. Way to push the story.

---
speaking of 15 minutes of fame.

I believe Michael Crook did the same thing with 10zenmonkeys when they show a pic of him while he was interviewed by Fox News. He tried to pull the same DMCA crap and the EFF is suing. Hopefully the out come of the case would set a precedence and let people know that this kind of crap won't work. See: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/18/in-the-comp any-of-jerkoffs/, http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-d mca-lawsuit/

This Anshe Chung/Ailin Graef is just as bad as Michael Crook.

I believe Michael Crook did the same thing with 10zenmonkeys when they show a pic of him while he was interviewed by Fox News. He tried to pull the same DMCA crap and the EFF is suing. Hopefully the out come of the case would set a precedence and let people know that this kind of crap won't work. See: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/18/in-the-comp any-of-jerkoffs/, http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-d mca-lawsuit/

This Anshe Chung/Ailin Graef is just as bad as Michael Crook.

This tells me Nick Denton has a surprisingly limited faith in the power of openness - one that's not shared by the rest of the blog-o-sphere.