Slashdot Mirror


IT Repair Installs Webcam Spying Software

Vapon writes "A lady noticed her computer was running slower after she had brought her computer in to be repaired. She took the computer to a second repair shop where they found that one of the problems was that her webcam would turn on whenever it detected her around and was taking photos and uploading it to a website. The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 women and has photos of at least one undressing."

460 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. If you've got nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you've got nothing to fear.

    1. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      5318808!

    2. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here in the UK, "bobbies" is a slang term for policemen

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    3. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Are you fucking serious? This is a joke, It has to be, no one could be so stupid and still type.

      I have lots to hide, everyone does, especially when using a PC. How about whacking it to pron? How about P2P piracy, how about copying from wikipedia for an essay? How about uploading stupid comments as an AC?

      You're a fucking idiot. If you critique every thing someone does you will find things they need to hide. You've never been in a intense personal relationship. Trust me you spend enough time observing someone very close, and you can find lots of flaws and problems. The last thing anyone needs is strangers doing it.

      This shit is illegal for that very reason you fucking tard. This guy obviously get his kicks in violating peoples personal space. Same reason for the telescreen in 1984. It wasn't to catch crime, it was to impose themselves on your very being, to violate any individual person hood you can expect. voyeurs are soft rapists who get off on knowing what you don't want them to, the same mindset goes for those who want more CCTV, fucking disgusting.

    4. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Ye've obviously nae been tae Scotland the noo...

    5. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      Bobbies sounds nothing like boobies if that's what you're implying.

    6. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by ciej · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you fucking serious? This is a joke, It has to be, no one could be so stupid and still type. I have lots to hide, everyone does, especially when using a PC. How about whacking it to pron? How about P2P piracy, how about copying from wikipedia for an essay? How about uploading stupid comments as an AC?

      Except now you've posted it on the internet that you do these things so you don't have to hide it anymore. (and yes I'm joking for you morons that can't tell)

    7. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      He was implying that the GP's "5318808!" spells "bobbies", not "boobies".

    8. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess thats why I got modded flaimbait, Once everyone knew what a deviant I am they were overcome with moral outrage! I guess most people on /. really have nothing to hide. Makes sense really.

    9. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I think you got modded flamebait because you missed the joke and started name calling. Ever heard of a meme?

    10. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by lenester · · Score: 1

      If you critique every thing someone does you will find things they need to hide. You've never been in a intense personal relationship. Trust me you spend enough time observing someone very close, and you can find lots of flaws and problems.

      Yes, you certainly can find something wrong when you're looking so very hard for something to be wrong. That you wallow in pessimism, however, does not constitute an ethical argument.

      Of course it's wrong for the technician to install spyware; it's an uninvited tresspass on the client's property. However, the idea that everyone has something to hide gains truth only because there are petty jackasses like you around to judge them for things that would otherwise be meaningless.

    11. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      Are you fucking serious? This is a joke, It has to be, no one could be so stupid and still type.

      You're a fucking idiot.

      This shit is illegal for that very reason you fucking tard.

      All this in response to an AC's joke. The subject of the article is a major issue for sure, but dude, it's an internet forum. Lighten up.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    12. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by mweather · · Score: 4, Funny

      My mother was killed by a meme, you insensitive clod!

    13. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you certainly can find something wrong when you're looking so very hard for something to be wrong. That you wallow in pessimism, however, does not constitute an ethical argument.

      Based on what you said it seems you agree that the ability to look predisposes guilt, which is an ethical rebuttal to the "nothing to hide" argument. I also agree that wallowing in pessimism doesn't constitute ethical arguments, thats like comparing apples to boots.

      Everything is meaningless to stars and rocks, people on the other hand have feelings. And most feel they don't like being judged, so protecting my right to not be judged is something I care about. It seems we agree on everything, so why the hostile tone?

    14. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by Stele · · Score: 2, Funny

      A meme bit my sister once...

    15. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by stewwy · · Score: 1

      Yes but the point is that the petty jackass'es are usually the one's with authority, real or at least real in their own eyes. this is especially true in the UK at the moment. We must have the highest number of perverts per head of population in the world. My reasoning goes like this: We have the highest number of CCTV's and we therefore need the highest number of CCTV Operators. Most people strive to be happy in their occupation, one description of a person who is happy to snoop on others all day is a voyuer, another description is pervert. QED the UK must have the highest number pf perverts per head of population

    16. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bobbies tend to be interested in people who have things that they're hiding. Boobies are something that everyone knows someone has, but for some reason they hide them... therefore, bobbies like boobies!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:If you've got nothing to hide... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  2. First question is... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this count as being a private dick?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:First question is... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      Did you prove her right?

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:First question is... by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:First question is... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Does this count as being a private dick?"

      No, but he's definitely a Major Asshole.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:First question is... by no1home · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps a General Nuisance.

      --
      I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

      Persecutors will be violated!
    5. Re:First question is... by Eil · · Score: 1

      I heard that in most states, you don't need a detective license to get a job at Peep Squad...

    6. Re:First question is... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Sigh...apparently the Spaceballs reference was too subtle.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    7. Re:First question is... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      A woman I was talking to in a bar last night who had just broken up with her boyfriend said all men have dicks.

      Although coming to such a conclusion based on limited evidence rather than first performing an exhaustive search would normally be considered premature, in her case it may have been justified because such a search would have been, well, too exhaustive.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  3. Lawsuit! by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

    I smell a lawsuit.

    Unless of course they share the photographic proof.

    Just undressing?

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    1. Re:Lawsuit! by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      not just lawsuit.. It is criminal offense that the technician will go to jail.

    2. Re:Lawsuit! by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Do we have the legislation to make that happen? "Violating my privacy" is not something I'd like to happen and what the technician did was wrong, but "privacy" is never explicitly stated as a right in any law or amendment, so what law did he break? It looks like her recourse is the Better Business Bureau.

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    3. Re:Lawsuit! by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "not just lawsuit.. It is criminal offense that the technician will go to jail."

      Depends on the state and its laws.

      A few years ago...in L.A. we had a guy that was sneaking video cameras into peoples' homes, and video taping them doing pretty much everything.

      Turns out, they could not prosecute him since there was no law on the books against it. He got off scott free, but, they did pass a law down here making it a crime.

      I dunno what the exact wording of the law was, but, if it specifically mentioned video taping equipment...the computer trick might be legal?

      Anyway...it depends on the states laws as to if this will be illegal or not. Unless the Feds try to get in on it...if they try to argue that the signal over the internet might cross state lines or something....hmm.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Lawsuit! by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the actual laws applicable but I can imagine that this could amount to cases of hacking (Most places define it as "unauthorised access" and being allowed to repair it doesn't make him allowed to install spy software) and/or stalking.

    5. Re:Lawsuit! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Oops...didn't mean to put the '.' in the state abbreviation. It should be just LA = Louisiana.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Lawsuit! by Apatharch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speaking as someone who actually RTFA...

      Craig Feigin was arrested and held on $20,000 bail after he admitted to rigging Marisel Garcia's computer, and other women's computers, with Webcam Spy Hacker. Under Florida law, he could be charged with a felony and face jail time.

    7. Re:Lawsuit! by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes (reasonable expectation of privacy). If you install a little camera in your neighbor's ceiling, you can bet you'll end up in jail. This is the same.

      On top of that, there is the computer hacking, not performing the correct service (after all, by "fixing" the computer he made it slower)

      And while there is no "right to privacy" explicitly state in American law, the Supreme court essentially created it in rulings during the later half of the 20th century (I want to say this was Roe v. Wade, but it may have been before).

      Even if there is no criminal case (which, as I stated above, I'd be quite sure there is) she could always go civil. After all bugging someone else's computer and posting pictures of them undressing on the internet without their knowledge is definitely something you could get a civil judgment for. If that isn't intentional infliction of emotional distress, I'd be pretty surprised.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    8. Re:Lawsuit! by MoHaG · · Score: 2

      Around here it would probably have been Crimen Injuria

      And in some countries it is mentioned in law.

    9. Re:Lawsuit! by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right to privacy, as a conjectured right, dates back to the 1890s. The Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965) established the idea that a "right to privacy" did exist. But (and this is true for Roe vs. Wade as well) the privacy spoken of there (however you feel about the rulings) has to do with the right of a citizen to have privacy from the government. The only laws which may have been violated may have been anti-stalking laws (enacted in the early 1990's) and (to cite California's) this does not seem to fit, "alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose" as "two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." As to civil suit, well, they have to prove damages. As far as I can tell, that could be solely dependent on what happened with the images. Those who had their computers trespassed upon would be lucky to get even a small amount of compensation.

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    10. Re:Lawsuit! by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A little offtopic but I don't understand why people say there is no explicit "right to privacy" in American law. I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point that filtered out into the mass consciousness somehow.

      Anyway, Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      The word "privacy" is not used but this is a right to privacy in a large sense, isn't it? That the government can't search you, can't search your house, can't go through your papers, without a warrant?

      This particular case is more of a civil action since the government didn't do it, but I find it a little unreasonable to say there is "no" right to privacy or that the Supreme Court "created" all our privacy rights, when there is clearly at least some privacy explicitly written in the Constitution.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    11. Re:Lawsuit! by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      The constitution doesn't grant anything. It enjoins the government from taking certain actions.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Lawsuit! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they charge him with tresspassing? What about breaking and entering? If he was doing neither of these, how did he get the cameras installed?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    13. Re:Lawsuit! by rjhubs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps what I say next will end this 'privacy' argument once and for all, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

      First you are combining two separate ideas, the common argument that the word 'privacy' is not in the constitution is true. HOWEVER, you say that privacy is never explicitly stated in any law, this is wrong. There are certainly many privacy laws that various states have that use the word privacy. Such as privacy laws to protect your medical records, financial records, some court records, etc.

      Yes it is true that privacy is never explicitly stated as a right. But there is a reason for this. Privacy was not part of the venacular in 1700's colonies. Most writings during that time do not contain the word 'privacy'.

      However, idea of privacy is certainly prevalent. Wouldn't you consider the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" very similar to the idea of privacy?

      And I also must add, the Bill of Rights is only a list of some rights that we have, not the ONLY ones we have. Plus the ninth ammendment also states we have rights to things not specifically numerated in the constitution.

    14. Re:Lawsuit! by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 1

      But the three women mentioned live in Florida.

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    15. Re:Lawsuit! by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Informative

      Absolutely backwards. The Constitution grants powers to the government. Anything that's not in there, they can't do.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    16. Re:Lawsuit! by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point

      The reason is that the Roe v Wade decision rested on the idea that we have a right to privacy and anti-abortion laws violate it.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    17. Re:Lawsuit! by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is true. The founders believed that we have inalienable rights, which means that they are granted by God, not the government. The government is not allowed to try to take them away.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    18. Re:Lawsuit! by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Fourth Amendment provides for security in persons, papers, effects and so forth from the government. Even if you construe it to be a privacy provision, it's not binding on Joe Sleazeball's Krazy Komputer Krepair Kshop.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    19. Re:Lawsuit! by dougmc · · Score: 1

      `Right to privacy' isn't explicitly in the Constitution, true, (I'll skip over where the right does come from, it's more complicated than that), but to claim it's never `explicitly stated as a right in any law' is downright nuts.

      There are *so* many laws out there it's not even funny. I doubt that any one person could even read them all, let alone remember and understand even a significant fraction of them.

    20. Re:Lawsuit! by hansraj · · Score: 5, Funny

      Speaking as someone who actually RTFA...

      Pfft.. party pooper! Way to end the discussion of slashdot lawyers with your "facts"!!

    21. Re:Lawsuit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      not performing the correct service (after all, by "fixing" the computer he made it slower)

      I always figured it would be a federal offense to install Norton software.

    22. Re:Lawsuit! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      And while there is no "right to privacy" explicitly state in American law

      The tenth amendment says it your rights don't have to be explicitly stated in law; they are inherent. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

      In Illinois doing this would be a felony.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    23. Re:Lawsuit! by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.

    24. Re:Lawsuit! by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Poorly worded, but not absolutely backwards. In the context of personal rights, the constitution doesn't grant anything, it simply makes statements about things that the government cannot do (just read the bill of rights if that still sounds stupid, it says stuff like 'the right of blah shall not be infringed' not stuff like 'the government can give money to religious groups but only in the context of community blah').

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    25. Re:Lawsuit! by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I am speaking in ignorance, but my experience is that most of the laws have to do with government and (occasionally) economic institutions. There are few (to no) laws governing whether I may use a telescope to peer into my neighbor's living room. To wit: Apparently, even the right to privacy from the government is suspect (and our Congress is alright with that). I seem to recall agents of the Federal government tapping phone lines of late...

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    26. Re:Lawsuit! by stewbacca · · Score: 2

      Not to mention the Constitution isn't the ONLY document that governs our lives.

    27. Re:Lawsuit! by dougmc · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd go so far to say the Constitution doesn't grant anything, but in this case it's an important distinction, because the Bill of Rights limits what the Federal Government can do (and in many cases the courts have said it applies to the state governments too -- but it generally doesn't apply to individuals.)

      So, to read the 4th Amendment in a way that's useful to this discussion ...

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, BY THE GOVERNMENT, shall not be violated ...

      It doesn't mean that individuals can't do these things. (But there are generally other laws against that.)

    28. Re:Lawsuit! by buravirgil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes (reasonable expectation of privacy)."

      This falls apart with leasor/ee agreements and what fraction of a population owns the property of another.

      "No laws on the books," is what i've heard repeated through the years-- citing technology as the specific without enforcement

      --
      Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
    29. Re:Lawsuit! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a much more serious offense than being a peeping tom.

      Peeping tom laws really only kick in when all your behavior is otherwise legal, but you're violating someone's privacy, like climbing a tree on public property to see in a window. (And people don't realize how vague trespassing can be, so even if they're on that person's property it can be hard to prove 'trespassing'.)

      Installing spying software, and causing recordings to be made, is just outright illegal in the first place, even if he didn't use it for the purpose he used it for.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    30. Re:Lawsuit! by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 1

      Perhaps what I say next will end this 'privacy' argument once and for all, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

      Probably a good idea. A lot of us are stubborn as oxes.

      HOWEVER, you say that privacy is never explicitly stated in any law, this is wrong.

      I will admit. This was a gloss and therefore an over-simplification.

      There are certainly many privacy laws that various states have that use the word privacy. Such as privacy laws to protect your medical records, financial records, some court records, etc.

      Yes, but do they refer to one person's privacy from another?

      Yes it is true that privacy is never explicitly stated as a right. But there is a reason for this. Privacy was not part of the venacular in 1700's colonies. Most writings during that time do not contain the word 'privacy'.

      Neither was Habeus Corpus, but that is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not written by laymen, but by people with an education, so the word "privacy" may very well have been in their vocabulary. (Granted, because of the evolution of concepts, one has absolutely no idea if the concept even resembled the current version).

      However, idea of privacy is certainly prevalent. Wouldn't you consider the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" very similar to the idea of privacy?

      Similar? Yes. Same? No. There is a remarkable inconsistency in how the above is applied, and when there are violations of the principle, it is often ignored.

      And I also must add, the Bill of Rights is only a list of some rights that we have, not the ONLY ones we have. Plus the ninth ammendment[sic] also states we have rights to things not specifically numerated in the constitution.

      Would that only the 9th Amendment were used consistently (or at all)...

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    31. Re:Lawsuit! by Moof123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes (reasonable expectation of privacy). If you install a little camera in your neighbor's ceiling, you can bet you'll end up in jail. This is the same. "

      Actually, it varies state to state. I've seen accounts multiple cases wherein people found out that indeed their neighbor had hidden a camera in the attic of their house to spy on their bedroom. In one case they ended up only being able to charge the dude with theft of the electricity, as the recording itself was not illegal in that state. Additionally since the guy was given a key to keep an eye on the place when they were out of town, trespassing was unlikely to stick.

    32. Re:Lawsuit! by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      Looks like Joe's is a KDE shop... where would I go for Gnome support?

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    33. Re:Lawsuit! by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      To further clarify an idea several other posters have been trying to make, the Constitution itself does grant powers to the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights on the other hand is concerned with marking out areas where the government CANNOT go, i.e. it is entirely negative.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    34. Re:Lawsuit! by inviolet · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is true. The founders believed that we have inalienable rights, which means that they are granted by God, not the government. The government is not allowed to try to take them away.

      Some of them were xtian and thus believed as much... but many were freemasons who rejected all the invisible-guy-in-the-sky crapola. To the latter, 'inalienable' means "anyone who interferes with you is wrong, and the state ought to protect you".

      In any case, it is perilous to base your rights on the assertion that some god granted them to you, because anyone else might just claim you're wrong, and how could the matter ever be settled? In other words, if you take a shortcut to certainty ("God said so"), you are building your house upon the sand.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    35. Re:Lawsuit! by iztehsux · · Score: 1

      As long as we still have the right to bear arms, I'll be happy. Lock and load.

    36. Re:Lawsuit! by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > The reason is that the Roe v Wade decision rested on the idea that
      > we have a right to privacy and anti-abortion laws violate it.

      Except that almost every serious scholar now admits the Supreme Court was simply finding a justification for a decision they had already made. Roe is horrible Constitutional law and nobody uses it as an anchor for an argument anymore since it is only a matter of time before a future court revisits it, the outcome of which revisit is totally unknown.

      Note that I'm not trying to open up an abortion thread here, even well respected pro abortion scholars admit the weakness of the reasoning in Roe. When it falls abortion itself will simply get tossed into the political arena where it should have been decided thirty years ago and nothing much will change.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    37. Re:Lawsuit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      For those who don't believe in either, there is His Noodly Appendage.

    38. Re:Lawsuit! by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, a while back, when video recording equipment first got small and cheap enough for people to purchase, scum started using it to spy on women. This was back in the 80s and 90s, and it turned out while there were laws against recording conversations, which could be legally used to nail some of them, if they recorded just video (Which all of them immediately started doing.), there was actually no law against it.

      But that was back in the 80s and 90s, and there were enough well-publicized cases of this happening that they changed the law.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    39. Re:Lawsuit! by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some of them were xtian and thus believed as much... but many were freemasons who rejected all the invisible-guy-in-the-sky crapola.

      Freemasonry traditionally requires belief in a deity. In fact, its religious syncretism (a member of any religion can join as long as they see their god as the same Great Architect of the Universe) is one of the reasons that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been very critical of it. However, a few of the founding fathers were Deists, so they certainly believed in an invisible guy in the sky who granted rights as part of the natural order he created, but they simply didn't think he intervened.

    40. Re:Lawsuit! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Let me fix this for you:

      "there is no "right to privacy" explicitly stated in federal law

    41. Re:Lawsuit! by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut"

      I'm having trouble remembering ... which Vacation movie was that one again?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    42. Re:Lawsuit! by Apatharch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Way to end the discussion of slashdot lawyers with your "facts"!!

      Since when have facts ever stopped Slashdot lawyers?

    43. Re:Lawsuit! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Craig Feigin was arrested and held on $20,000 bail after he admitted to rigging Marisel Garcia's computer, and other women's computers, with Webcam Spy Hacker."

      Just curious...why the fuck does anyone EVER confess to the police about anything? I mean, even if you're guilty, why the fuck ruin any chance you have to get off....or get a plea bargain in court???

      I mean, how fucking stupid do you have to be to admit anything or talk to the police at all? This guy is probably somewhat intelligent...he should have lawyered up and not said a thing to the cops, even if he is guilty as sin.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    44. Re:Lawsuit! by genner · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they charge him with tresspassing? What about breaking and entering? If he was doing neither of these, how did he get the cameras installed?

      Most laptops come with them preinstalled. He just hacked the software to use it without their knowledge..

    45. Re:Lawsuit! by philspear · · Score: 1

      A little offtopic but I don't understand why people say there is no explicit "right to privacy" in American law. I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point that filtered out into the mass consciousness somehow.

      Armchair lawyering aside, I do think most people here say that in the same way that others say stuff about how there's no difference between republican or democrat, or how government just wants to take your rights away, or how anyone who doesn't know XYZ about computers is asking to have their life savings stolen.

      Nonsense like that gets repeated enough, eventually people take that as it's own justification. Plus they want to fit in. So an article about privacy comes up, you make a sarcastic comment about how we don't have privacy to begin with and people think you're funny and it's true because they've heard it so often from other people here.

    46. Re:Lawsuit! by tilandal · · Score: 2, Informative

      He could very well fall under federal wiretapping laws. (Although in this case all he has to do is bribe enough Congressmen to grant himself retroactive immunity.)

    47. Re:Lawsuit! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I was refering to my original parent post where it seems that in some other completely unrelated case, the perpetrator actually installed cameras inside people's houses.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    48. Re:Lawsuit! by tthomas48 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The no explicit "right to privacy" crowd are the anti-Roe v. Wade crowd. They've done a very good job of inserting that meme into the public consciousness, and it has certainly helped them in the "war on terror".

    49. Re:Lawsuit! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is false. Explain how logic can explain the right to free speech, to pick an example. Without proof, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that such rights are anything other than axioms.

    50. Re:Lawsuit! by superdave80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who the hell modded this insightful?

      Amendment I: The government CAN NOT restrict religion or speech
      Amendment II: The government CAN NOT restrict citizens from keeping arms
      Amendment III: The government CAN NOT quarter soldiers in your house
      Amendment IV: The government CAN NOT search and seize your affects without a warrent
      etc.

    51. Re:Lawsuit! by Facegarden · · Score: 5, Funny

      Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut"

      I'm having trouble remembering ... which Vacation movie was that one again?

      I think it was "The National Lampoons Right to Marital Privacy Regarding Illegal Restriction on the Use of Contraceptives in Connecticut Vacation"

      You didn't see that one? ;)
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    52. Re:Lawsuit! by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.

      I'm going to need a derivation before I believe that. If we set up a set of goals (happy populace, efficient society, etc.) then we can derive a set of rights that we should have in order to achieve those goals. But a set of unalienable rights that all humans do have derived through logic? That seems a little tough.

      We can infer a lot of rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans based on documentation that they left behind. We can define rights that we believe that we deserve and should defend (or possibly fight to acquire or take back). But I defy you to illustrate how simple logic can spell out a set of rights that all humans do have without invoking some kind of divine standard. And, assuming that these rights are not divinely inspired, did these rights also belong to all societies in the past? What about foreign societies? Or can you logically derive what set of unalienable rights that modern Americans have that would not apply to Europeans/Chinese/cavemen?

      I'm all for logic over superstition any day. But the idea that the rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans could be exactly replicated through simple logic while supporting the notion of why they are unalienable as opposed to why they should be unalienable just seems nonsensical.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    53. Re:Lawsuit! by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      The man was identified as Craig Matthew Feigin, 23, who was charged with modifying computer data and disrupting or denying computer system services

      So actually turning on the webcam and capturing the pictures wasn't illegal. Using the woman's internet access to send them, or hard drive to store them, was illegal. Although if its a crime to "modify computer data", wouldn't hist standard repair contract include a waiver against that? Otherwise, you could turn your computer over to a repair service (not recommended, but that's another story) and then charge them if they did anything.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    54. Re:Lawsuit! by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      Even if you construe it to be a privacy provision, it's not binding on Joe Sleazeball's Krazy Komputer Krepair Kshop. Dammit, I have been trying to turn this into a joke for 20 minutes. Top three attempts: Did Joe Sleazeball buy the company from Matthias Ettrich? I know that place! I went there to get gnome installed on my system! Leave KDE alone!! They released 4.1, what more do you want?!? They just want to develop their desktop environment you jackals!! I'm sorry I am usually funnier than this. :(

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    55. Re:Lawsuit! by Tangent128 · · Score: 1

      By what means? How can one logically determine what one "should" do without an objective goal?

    56. Re:Lawsuit! by Zordak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As you correctly noted, the word "privacy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. What you are talking about is what is sometimes called a "reasonable expectation of privacy," and is largely non-controversial (at least it's not controversial that it exists; the extent to which it exists sometimes is). It means that the government can't do certain things without sufficient cause.

      The controversial "right to privacy" (which I'll tell you up front I'm not a fan of) is something the Court found in the "penumbras" of the fourth, ninth and fourteenth amendments in Griswold v. Connecticut. And it has nothing to do with the government searching your home. It has to do with whether, and to what extent, the Supreme Court can import into the Constitution, via the 14th Amendment due process clause, certain rights that existed in English and American common law (including a vague, ill-defined "right to privacy") in order to overturn state and federal statutes. The current jurisprudence has basically devolved into "if you can convince 5 judges that the law is not fair, it violates the common law right to privacy, and is therefore unconstitutional." This has led to very inconsistent, unprincipled jurisprudence that depends more on the judges' personal whims than what the Constitution actually says.

      The way it should be is the Court should leave states alone to make laws---even stupid ones---regardless of whether they personally agree with them. For example, the law in Griswold was a law passed by the Roman Catholic majority nearly 100 years earlier that forbade use of contraceptives. In his dissent, Justice Potter Steward (correctly) called it an "uncommonly silly" law, but (correctly) concluded that it was nevertheless constitutional. Justice Hugo Black, my favorite judge of all time, in his dissent commented, "I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional."

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    57. Re:Lawsuit! by k_187 · · Score: 1

      how do you know his admission is not in conjunction w/ a plea bargain?

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    58. Re:Lawsuit! by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Although in this case all he has to do is bribe enough Congressmen to grant himself retroactive immunity.

      Hope they like pictures, because that's about all this fucker's got.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    59. Re:Lawsuit! by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      I am not a lawyer but I drink like one.

    60. Re:Lawsuit! by kesuki · · Score: 1

      first off, the constitution affects laws passed by the government, as to if they're constitutional, privacy laws are not unconstitutional, but the constitution clearly leaves these 'other powers' to state or local legislation.

      that's why there isn't a national anti-voyeurism law, there are plenty of cities, and a few states where voyeurism is plainly illegal and can put you behind bars. he has 'undressing' photos, he's violated the most common voyeurism laws that ban 'sensual' voyeurism images. some anti voyeurism laws want to ban non sensual cases as well, but that's a legal minefield i'm not going to get into.

      so now the question arises does he live in a city or state where this is illegal? if not, they've still got him on vanilla computer hacking, he installed or modified software on 10 computers to illegally gain voyeurism photos by uploading to a server. computer hacking is a federal law, so he can go to a federal prison for computer hacking. there is no way around this, the software he put on there doesn't benefit the end user at all, he'd need more than the chewbacca defense, to avoid federal hacking charges.

      too bad there were no images of minors mentioned, if he did store images of minors he'd be susceptible under anti-pedophile laws which would put him an a criminal sex offender list.

      so he's a criminal under three counts, there may be additional civil lawsuits that the 'victims' can sue him for, depending on local laws. but the criminal offenses are there, and the victims as such can sue him for damages (costs related to repairing their computer systems, via his hacking conviction) they might get 'emotional' or punitive damages if anti voyeurism laws exist. so civil litigation is a possibility. most likely it's small claims court stuff where you don't need a lawyer, though.

    61. Re:Lawsuit! by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Guess you've never heard of Thomas Paine?

    62. Re:Lawsuit! by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      The Fourth Amendment provides for security in persons, papers, effects and so forth from the government. Even if you construe it to be a privacy provision, it's not binding on Joe Sleazeball's Krazy Komputer Krepair Kshop.

      Are you by chance a KDE developer?

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    63. Re:Lawsuit! by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      Same thing happened in WA with up-skirt pix.

    64. Re:Lawsuit! by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Okay.... prove that I have the right to bear arms.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    65. Re:Lawsuit! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Freemasonry traditionally requires belief in a deity.

      It's expressed as 'belief in a Supreme Being', at least in my area. And the reason given is because otherwise no oath would be binding upon the person. (I don't fully agree with this, FWIW)

    66. Re:Lawsuit! by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      That's not the main body, that's amendments. And theoretically speaking, they are redundant. They only spell out what is already implied in the main body of the document. Many founders were opposed to passing them in the first place because of this.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    67. Re:Lawsuit! by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE/

      A cop explains how he gets people to confess

    68. Re:Lawsuit! by PlasticArmyMan · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure where in the bible you're guaranteed free speech...

    69. Re:Lawsuit! by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      That is false. Explain how logic can explain the right to free speech, to pick an example. Without proof, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that such rights are anything other than axioms.

      Agreed. Neither God, logic nor His Noodly Appendage provides basic rights in any empirically demonstrable way. Your question applies just as well to all three. Rights are simply ideas that make convenient sense to us. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly provide a right, the Libertarian view is that it exists by default. But this is a legal opinion, and while it is one that I like, it doesn't come from any particular authority that I have seen.

    70. Re:Lawsuit! by whopub · · Score: 1

      Truth is this guy should be put away. He did this to 10 women and was only able to catch one naked! A couple of days locked up should be enough for him to figure out what went wrong, and fix it. I mean, c'mon, 1 in 10 is a poor result.

    71. Re:Lawsuit! by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      I believe he was confessing to the facts that he *was* getting off. If you know what I mean. Eh? Get it? Eh?

    72. Re:Lawsuit! by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is way, way off topic, but logic is basically valueless without premises. The point of logic is to establish a framework of reasoning, which you then apply to a set of known true premises (or at least, assumed true premises). The original poster's argument, that logic alone can prove the existence of rights, is a non sequitur (in fact, it's a non sequitur that describes another non sequitur, since both the statement and the principle it's pushing do not follow). Logic alone doesn't do anything. It's like a computer without electricity.

    73. Re:Lawsuit! by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      That is false. Explain how logic can explain the right to free speech, to pick an example. Without proof, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that such rights are anything other than axioms.

      I get right on that, as soon as you explain how logic can explain whatever it is you just said.

      Oh hell, lets give it a try.

        1) No one has been able to shut me up yet, therefore I may have a right to free speech.

      2) All the other kids are doing it, and given #1 above, I assume I have a right to free speech

      Where was it said someone needed proof to apply logic or that we could not derive something logically without proof. I say I can. Can you prove me wrong? Logically?
      I just do not think what he said was false, though I may be a little biased since privately, I do tend to believe in God when he gives me stuff.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    74. Re:Lawsuit! by felipekk · · Score: 1

      Is this case still on? I remember killing Griswold, more than once...

      And what's up with Connecticut. I thought Griswold was from Tristram...

    75. Re:Lawsuit! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      As soon as the government decides to shut you up, and shut all the other kids up too, both your points are invalid.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    76. Re:Lawsuit! by gambino21 · · Score: 1

      I think the grandparent meant that the constitution doesn't grant any rights to individuals. Each individual is assumed to have the right to do whatever they want. The government can then take away some of these rights in order to prevent people from taking away freedoms from each other. The first ten amendments do not actually grant any new rights to the people, they just prevent the government from taking away certain inalienable rights of the people.

      So the government starts out with nothing, and gets only the powers listed in the constitution (like you said). And the people start out with everything, and rights are gradually taken away by the legal system.

    77. Re:Lawsuit! by superdave80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Amendments are still part of the constitution, so you can't just magically exclude them. Also, the 'main body' has limits listed in them as well:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9

      "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
      "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
      And so on. Please stop acting like an expert on things that you are completely wrong on.

    78. Re:Lawsuit! by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Not according to them.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    79. Re:Lawsuit! by db32 · · Score: 1

      STOP! Please please please STOP repeating that nonsense lie. There absolutely IS a right to privacy. That part of the Constitution that mentions how all rights not explicitely enumerated here belong to the people. So right to privacy really does exist because invading our privacy is not a power granted the government without warrant. So the fact that a judge has to stamp a piece of paper for the government to invade my privacy absolutely means that I have a normal right to privacy.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    80. Re:Lawsuit! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I sincerely believe that Monica Lewinsky could debate that on point. And all because of a simple recording that her "friend" had made...

    81. Re:Lawsuit! by Puffy+Director+Pants · · Score: 2, Informative

      And while there is no "right to privacy" explicitly state in American law,

      Actually, there is in Florida Law, which does provide for invasion of privacy like this. See 810.14 Florida Statutes.

      A person commits the offense of voyeurism when he or she, with lewd, lascivious, or indecent intent, secretly observes another person when the other person is located in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance and such location provides a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      Now someone in another part of the state DID get charges dropped under this law by being in a public places, but this is a bit of a different set of circumstances.

    82. Re:Lawsuit! by Zordak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Constitution told the Federal government what it could do and said it couldn't do anything else. It had very few limitations on what the States could do. In fact, it was always intended that the states would be the primary guardians of civil rights, and that they would be primarily responsible for making and enforcing laws. One of the big fears of the Anti-Federalists was that the federal government would get too powerful, and start telling the states what to do, thus infringing on their rights to govern themselves (investing the power, instead, in a large, centralized body where the people of the states would have very attenuated influence).

      You're right, the government serves the people. It doesn't serve the whims of dictatorial judges. That means that the people get to make rules that govern how they live. That means they get to make rules that shape their society. Invariably, there will be those who do not like those rules. Invariably, some of those laws will be stupid and/or unfair. Unfortunately, that is the cost of government. The beauty, especially in a republican government, is that over time, those things tend to correct themselves because people get tired of unfair, unjust, and stupid laws. All without judges sticking their noses in things.

      Also invariably, there will be times when the government will step outside those bounds. That is why the states passed their own bills of rights in their own constitutions---to limit the power of the state government. That's why we placed a Bill of Rights in the Constitution (which did not apply to the states at all until the 14th Amendment was ratified). But even today, the Bill of Rights does not wholesale apply to the states. In fact, one of the reasons I like Hugo Black was he advocated "complete incorporation," meaning that the entire Bill of Rights should apply to the states. But he also recognized that the Bill of Rights was not license for judges to substitute their own judgment for legislatures'. It had very specific limits. When governments crossed the line, Hugo Black was the first to stand up and tell them "No." But he also respected the right of the people to govern themselves within those limits. That is what is lost on most of the Court today.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    83. Re:Lawsuit! by computational+super · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, privacy wasn't a concept back then, but neither were webcams. I figure that if they had known that, in the future, it would be possible to install a camera to spy on really hot chicks undressing, Ben Franklin at the very least would have added a special constitutional amendment about how "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of nerdy guys to install cameras that spy on really hot chicks undressing", so maybe it's not illegal after all.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    84. Re:Lawsuit! by dwye · · Score: 3, Informative

      > For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.

      Which is unnecessary, as they were postulates.

      "We hold the these truths to be self-evident:"

    85. Re:Lawsuit! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      4th Amendment?
      Tell that to the TSA next time you want to fly.

    86. Re:Lawsuit! by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Just because people ignore it doesn't change what it does.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    87. Re:Lawsuit! by vtrhps · · Score: 1

      If rights are granted by "God" why don't people in other countries have these same rights?

    88. Re:Lawsuit! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That is false. Explain how logic can explain the right to free speech, to pick an example. Without proof, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that such rights are anything other than axioms.

      I'd be interested to hear where it said God gave free speech too. I seem to remember something about people talking too much, building the tower of Babel and getting a major bitchslap for it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    89. Re:Lawsuit! by asackett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've just reviewed my vest pocket copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I do not see any qualification of the Fourth Amendment to limit its scope solely to intrusions by government.

      Maybe I'm just blind?

      --

      Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    90. Re:Lawsuit! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Your puny weapons are no match for those held by the government you fear, so what's the point of you having a gun?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    91. Re:Lawsuit! by kramerd · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes .

      Not exactly. It is illegal to secretly record people in private. If you are in a public area, you have no expectation of privacy. If you see someone recording you, you can ask them to delete the footage, but they are not legally obligated to do so.

      In private, however, it is quite illegal to do so, but will only carry the term of trespassing (at least for first time offendors). It is what the recording is used for that can create other crimes.

    92. Re:Lawsuit! by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      Actually, laws against secretly recording someone are a fairly new idea (try hiding a camcorder from 1993, and what's a webcam?). Most of them have been passed in the last 10-15 years, and only about half or so of the states have these laws. I don't think that there is a federal law along these lines either.

      --
      what sig?
    93. Re:Lawsuit! by tombeard · · Score: 1

      You're looking at it backwards. Give me a single good reason why anyone should have the right to silence me.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    94. Re:Lawsuit! by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      True enough, but you can begin with the premise of mutual or greatest benefit, and extrapolate from there with logic.

      a la Plato's Republic.

    95. Re:Lawsuit! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      By what means? How can one logically determine what one "should" do without an objective goal?

      By finding goals that apply to all humans. There are some traits we all share, or else 'human' would be a nonsensical word.

    96. Re:Lawsuit! by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, freemasonry requires a belief in god. But no, the invisible-guy-in-the-sky is not a good description. That belittles the concept.

    97. Re:Lawsuit! by maxume · · Score: 1

      It's 2am and the spot you are standing in has long been called the land of his family.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    98. Re:Lawsuit! by msu320 · · Score: 1

      I remember Norton Commander. That piece of DOS software ran decently enough.. it was the transfer to windows that screwed it up.

      --
      New slashdot layout sucks.
    99. Re:Lawsuit! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      (after all, by "fixing" the computer he made it slower)

      Oh come ON.

      Desktop support people do this ALL the time!!!

      And don't get me started on Vista... 'fix' my computer by installing Vista? And make it slower? Thats *normal* in this world!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    100. Re:Lawsuit! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      It's limited in scope to the government by very nature of what it is - constitutions are binding on the entity (government) not the constituents (people). It's the same with company constitutions.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    101. Re:Lawsuit! by zobier · · Score: 1

      Looks like Joe's is a KDE shop... where would I go for Gnome support?

      Gordon Gnome's Ghoulish Graphics Gawking Gallery?

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    102. Re:Lawsuit! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Couldn't they charge him with tresspassing? What about breaking and entering? If he was doing neither of these, how did he get the cameras installed?"

      He may have been the landlord of rental housing..something like that. I know he was not breaking and entering somehow....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    103. Re:Lawsuit! by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Next we'll see a law demanding that all web cameras have a flip lid that can block the vision and a non-hackable indicator that indicates when it's on.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    104. Re:Lawsuit! by JewGold · · Score: 1

      Better tell those fancy dictionary writin' folks:

      cannot
      verb
      1. a form of can not.

      Cannot
      Cannot\ [Can to be able + -not.] Am, is, or are,
      not able; -- written either as one word or two.

      --
      Is this a news report or a trailer for a motion picture?
    105. Re:Lawsuit! by Atario · · Score: 1

      I believe the basic idea is that some rights are the natural result of how the world works (e.g. privacy comes because you live in a closed, opaque house, free speech comes because it would require someone else to devote considerable resources to prevent it, etc.) and others are created by government fiat in some attempt to improve the natural state of things (e.g., copyrights, patents, and trademarks, all of which are impossible to enforce in the absence of a whole government to back them up).

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    106. Re:Lawsuit! by albyrne5 · · Score: 1

      Interesting way of looking at things.

    107. Re:Lawsuit! by BadLittleGuy · · Score: 1

      So by that definition: do I have a right not to be annoyed?

    108. Re:Lawsuit! by QuestorTapes · · Score: 1

      NOTE: IANAL; I just play one on the internet ;>

      The fourth amendment doesn't address privacy; it addresses freedom -from- violations of property and person by the -government-.

      There's a bit of overlap, but rather than defining or even suggesting a universal right, this is a targeted restriction on the government, and based mostly on property rights, which was a big concern for the founders.

      The point is that a privacy right would apply to any entities which would interfere with the exercise of that right, not just the government.

      In most states, any privacy rights are based on property rights.

    109. Re:Lawsuit! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.

      Care to prove that? I would say that they are more like axioms or postulates, which you either have to accept or not.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    110. Re:Lawsuit! by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      The founders believed that we have inalienable rights, which means that they are granted by God, not the government. The government is not allowed to try to take them away.

      I applaud your optimism, yet must counter with:

      A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you.
      - Ramsey Clark

      If a government can take something from you, it's not a right, God-given or otherwise.

      There's a depressing thought to start the weekend.

    111. Re:Lawsuit! by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was the view of the founders that the the Bill of Rights did not actually confer rights, but rather recognized rights that already existed. So, the bill of rights ITSELF doesn't actually prevent the government from doing those things per se; they merely recognize that government shouldn't be doing those things in the first place.

      Of course, whether this is a workable viewpoint is worth debate, but the founding fathers thought it was. The GP was correct in that sense.

    112. Re:Lawsuit! by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 1

      The Constitution does not grant power to the government, it limits it. The Government had all the power they wanted before the constitution.

      I don't know what constitution you are reading, but the U.S. Constitution most certainly does.

      "Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

      --
      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
    113. Re:Lawsuit! by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about this - here in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights is not solely related to what the Government can do. Mostly notably is the recent case in the UK of Max Mosley, where a court ruled that the News of the World had violated his right to privacy by secretly filming his private sexual acts and then publishing it. The court orderd the NOTW to pay him £60,000 in compensation, and a further £450,000 in costs.

      So is the US Constitution really more restrictive than the ECHR, in that the former only applies to actions by the Government?

      Anyhow, I wonder if there aren't other laws that could apply. For starters there's installing spyware without authorisation. And are there any laws against voyeurism in the US?

    114. Re:Lawsuit! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Oh, not at all... they remained free to talk as much as they wanted. The only thing was, nobody could understand them...

      Hey, actually, that sounds like a most excellent idea. Maybe I'll start a petition to the Divine Being to that effect... there are some people who would benefit greatly from being unintelligible. Some other people are already unintelligible, so they wouldn't need much change...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    115. Re:Lawsuit! by Tangent128 · · Score: 1

      Even if some goals are in common to all, many goals conflict, and different people will prioritize them differently.

    116. Re:Lawsuit! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Because I'm the Government, and I have tanks and planes. You're a puny man with a shotgun. Argue with that logic, smarty-pants.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    117. Re:Lawsuit! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I love how four people challenged what I posted, then I replied to one of them pointing in the right direction to back up what I said, then five other people ignored that reply and posted more "me too" posts. Gotta love /.

    118. Re:Lawsuit! by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The only laws which may have been violated may have been anti-stalking laws (enacted in the early 1990's) and (to cite California's) this does not seem to fit, "alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose" as "two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose."

      What about 18 USC 1030?

      "Whoever... intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage" - 18 USC 1030(a)(5)

      And "damage" means:

      "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information" - 18 USC 1030(e)(8)

      I think an argument could be made that installing webcam spyware impairs the integrity of the system, and that it was done intentionally.

    119. Re:Lawsuit! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I don't quite think Mr. Clark was meaning to imply that rights don't exist. Then again, maybe he was just a really depressed person.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    120. Re:Lawsuit! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The right to free speech is better stated as the principle that speech alone never results in actionable harm to another person. Say whatever you want; until you actually do something you haven't caused anyone harm.

      Now enters the principle of proportional response. Basically, anything you do is (subjectively) either right or wrong. If you argue that the action was right then you cannot also argue that it is wrong for someone else to do exactly the same thing to you; if you argue that the action was wrong then you are admitting that it deserves punishment. Thus, despite the subjectiveness of the concepts of right and wrong, it is an objective fact that one cannot rationally argue against a proportional response to any action one takes.

      If one attempts to respond in a disproportionate manner, however, one is not acting objectively. The punishment is not justified on the basis of the other party's actions, and there is no logical distinction between a subjective punishment and an act of aggression. Anyone who metes out disproportionate punishment thus commits an even greater offense than the one originally on trial, and invites punishment upon oneself in turn.

      Infringement of free speech is objectively, rationally punishable for the simple reason that any response to speech other than speech would be disproportionate to the original "offense". You can say what you want, and all anyone can do -- without opening themselves up to a response in kind -- is counter your speech with their own.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    121. Re:Lawsuit! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Here you go: Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, a paper describing how proportional responses (and not disproportionate ones) are objectively and rationally justified without reference to any particular subjective system of right and wrong. Most of the things we think of as human rights (due process of law, free speech, freedom of religion, security in oneself and one's possessions, etc.) are simple corollaries of this principle.

      See also: The Ethics of Liberty.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    122. Re:Lawsuit! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision.

      That is an uncommonly misinformed opinion. The entire structure of the Constitution is based around the idea that the government has no rights or powers beyond those granted therein. There is no need to prohibit the government from invading someone's privacy; if they can't justify said invasion of privacy on the basis of a specific power granted by the Constitution then it is automatically prohibited to them.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    123. Re:Lawsuit! by xianfa · · Score: 1

      I stumbled upon a website showing all the Presidents' religious affiliations. http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html Enjoy

      --
      The greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue - Socrates
    124. Re:Lawsuit! by Zordak · · Score: 1

      I love it. Only on Slashdot can J. Random Poster (who in all probability has never even read the Constitution) call the great legal scholar and civil libertarian Hugo Black "uncommonly misinformed" on matters of civil liberties.

      I've already explained this in response to another poster, but to make it easy on you: The Constitution gives the FEDERAL government only the limited powers expressly granted it. It does not, for the most part, tell the States what they can and can't do (or at least it didn't when it was ratified; with the 14th Amendment, it does that more than it used to). Since the law at issue in Griswold was a STATE law, the only justifiable way to strike it down would be if there were some express prohibition in the Constitution. It's basically the exact reverse of the Federal situation. Federal: You can't do it unless we say you can. State: You can do it unless we say you can't.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    125. Re:Lawsuit! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      My mistake. One sees this position applied to federal law so often I suppose it's become something of an auto-response. You have my sincerest apologies. Still, any decent state constitution ought to endorse the same basic principle. Not all of them do, I know. I have no idea whether Connecticut has a default-allow or default-deny policy at a state level.

      I have, in fact, read the federal Constitution, but if you were referring to Connecticut's constitution you are correct. As for "the great legal scholar and civil libertarian Hugo Black" -- that's just an appeal to authority, and carries no weight. As it happens I was mistaken about the context, but if he had said the same on a matter of federal law his reputation would not make him right.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    126. Re:Lawsuit! by Zordak · · Score: 1

      but if he had said the same on a matter of federal law his reputation would not make him right.

      Quite true. But I promise you, Hugo Black would not have said this about federal law. He was adamant about prohibiting the federal government from doing things the Constitution didn't expressly permit it to do.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    127. Re:Lawsuit! by db32 · · Score: 1

      No, that right is clearly reserved for the government.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  4. WTF by neokushan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why on earth would he go to all this trouble when there's any number of friendly Filipino women out there willing to do the same at a low-low cost?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:WTF by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because people like him get off on their victims being unknowing and unwilling. I pray that I catch somebody installing a hidden cam in my house, as I have a bullet with their name on it.

    2. Re:WTF by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So let me get this straight.... you *WANT* to catch somebody installing a hidden cam in your house? Wouldn't you rather nobody ever tried?

    3. Re:WTF by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Catching them would be impossible if they didn't try. GP's statement therefore cannot be interpreted as a response to the situation where someone doesn't break in. If they do, and he wants to catch them.

      In other words, your response is about as logical as assuming "I hope to die peacefully in my bed" means I'd like to be poisoned in in my sleep tonight.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:WTF by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      Not a fan of Pulp Fiction? "It'd been worth him doing it just so I could've caught him doing it."

      --
      Your ad here.
    5. Re:WTF by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Saying you want to die peacefully is not saying anything about wanting to die in particular, since dying is a certainty, whether one wants to die or not. Unless you are suggesting that invasions of privacy such as what the previous poster wanted to catch somebody doing are inevitable for everybody on the planet at some point in time, I'm not sure I see your point.

    6. Re:WTF by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Showing how my analogy was bad doesn't prove your point or disprove mine. It just shows that I used a bad analogy.

      If you somehow missed my point, I'll just refer you back to my first paragraph, which I regrettably seem to have proofread less thoroughly than I should have. Strike the superfluous "and"... that's what I get for re-phrasing without re-proofreading.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:WTF by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 4, Funny

      Catching them would be impossible if they didn't try.

      Not true. He already has the bullet with the person's name, so he could just read that and then try to track down that person..

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    8. Re:WTF by base3 · · Score: 1

      Nice spam there. Is your commission based on referrer?

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    9. Re:WTF by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Okay.... *IF* they do, he wants to catch them. That makes more sense, and would probably go without saying anyways. But such a condition wasn't present in his wording, and would imply that he's expecting it to eventually happen whether he wants it to or not.

    10. Re:WTF by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It did go without saying, until you complained.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:WTF by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That's a plausible interpretation, but one I'd rather hope is untrue. Being fully prepared to defend oneself doesn't necessarily mean one ought to look forward to the opportunity to do so in real life.

    12. Re:WTF by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Genius. Now, the question really is where do you go to get these knowledgeable bullets?

    13. Re:WTF by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No... it was said... but it was said ambiguously enough that I queried the point he was trying to make. As it stood, it appeared to me as if the previous poster was actually looking forward to somebody trying to do that so that what the poster felt was appropriate retribution could be duly inflicted.

    14. Re:WTF by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no... you have to use analogies people can identify with. Nobody here on /. even has a girlfriend, or much less would know what to do with big boobs if they had some in a real-life situation.

      Ethanol-fueled: I want a shark with frikkin' laser beams. That would be so awesome.

      mark-t: So let me get this straight... you *WANT* a shark with frikkin' laser beams? Wouldn't you rather not have a shark?

      close53421: Having a shark with frikkin' laser beams would be impossible if he had no shark. GP's statement therefore cannot be interpreted as a response to the situation where there was no shark. If he does have a shark, he wants it to have frikkin' laser beams. That would be so awesome.

      There, that should do it...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:WTF by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and my nick isn't close53421 you insensitive clod!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    16. Re:WTF by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That looked confusing enough that I'm not going to read it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:WTF by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I read it over one last time after hitting submit, spotted that mistake, and then thought "crap".

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    18. Re:WTF by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, I read it more like:

      Ethanol-fuel: I want to have an accident caused by somebody else so I can sue them into oblivion, because of my über legal knowledge, they wouldn't have a prayer.

      mark-t: So let me get this straight, you *WANT* to have an accident that's caused by somebody else? Wouldn't you rather just not have an accident?

      clone53421: Having an accident caused by somebody else is impossible if one doesn't have an accident, so GP's statement cannot be interpreted as a response to the situation where there was no accident. If he does have an accident, he wants it to be caused by somebody else.

      Of course my initial point remains the same... because the initial statement seems to imply that the end goal is not merely a planned response to a plausible hypothetical situation, but indicative of an actual and specific agenda of a person who desires to cause suffering, and is simply waiting for an excuse (because it is not an implausible situation, and it is missing any sort of conditional clause that would otherwise indicate that it is hypothetical). That, at least to me, sounds just a little bit sick and twisted, and is why I responded as I did.

    19. Re:WTF by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Well, I heard on the radio this morning: (Pardon but I'll have to paraphrase, I don't have as precise a memory as I'd like sometimes. Uh oh, now I have to parse that sentence too... I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression.)

      ...obviously not an outcome that we'd have liked, rescuers found the body of a hiker who fell to his death while climbing a mountain...

      Finding him wasn't an outcome we like? We're glad he died, but we'd have preferred not to find him? Ahh, my brain is melting!

      ...or I could just go with the obvious interpretation. Which is (since some of us apparently have trouble with this sort of thing):

      ...obviously not an outcome we liked, a hiker fell to his death yesterday while climbing a mountain. Rescuers found him this morning...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    20. Re:WTF by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the previous poster's intent was obvious to you... it wasn't to me. Of course, I tend to take things very literally in the absence of adequate contextual information, which the poster to whom I responded did not supply.

  5. Oh for the love of Pete . . . by arizwebfoot · · Score: 1

    Next up,

    repaired tv's that can see you.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Oh for the love of Pete . . . by curmudgeous · · Score: 3, Informative
  6. Link to video? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not that I would watch it, of course.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Link to video? by mattwarden · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am concerned about the validity of this story, and I agree that seeing the video would help lend credibility.

    2. Re:Link to video? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Tits or GTFO

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Link to video? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Do CowboyNeal's count?

      (runs off to pour bleach in eyes)

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Link to video? by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      At least read the summary properly, folks. It was taking photos, not videos.

    5. Re:Link to video? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Pics or it didn't happen.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  7. undressing? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

    I need to see a naked girl to shit in a cup, eat vomit, or get double stuffed to get hard thes days.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:undressing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Replace "or" with "then".

    2. Re:undressing? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      I need to see a naked girl to shit in a cup/i>

      You can't shit in a cup without seeing a naked girl? Not to mention the other two items.

      You have issues.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:undressing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      larry bagina's issue is adding "to" between girl and shit.
      MyLongNickName's issue is forgetting "<" when closing a tag.
      Now be friends.

    4. Re:undressing? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I'm eating lunch, you insensitive disgusting clod.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  8. Speaking of technicians doing things.... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    a friend of mine is real paranoid. So when he took his computer into a large Office Supply Store Chain for optimization, he wrote the serial number down. When he got his machine back the serial numbers didn't match. But it did match for the "new" display model. The techs swapped his machine for the display model. He got his money back. I had egg on my face and now I wear tin foil hats too.

    Lesson. Whenever taking your machine into those places, write down the serial numbers. Unfortunately, if you buy a new machine, repairing it yourself is not an option if you want it done under warranty.

    Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions.

    1. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by CapnStank · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did the swapout comp at least work? I knew a guy that took his PC into "BigBoxStoreA" for repair becuase the thing 'squealed' and then stopped. They returned it a few days later stating they couldn't find the issue and ultimately determined the mobo had fried. He took it to a different repairshop for a second opinion. Turns out a mouse wiggled his way ontop of the HDD and chewed through the IDE cable; squeek; crash. BigBoxStoreA didn't even open the case, LAME.

      Heck for ranting on terrible repair shops, someone else I knew bought a computer from BigBoxStoreA (Yes, same company) which bust in a week. He took it back, they neglected to repair it for two weeks and ultimately voided the warranty on the HP machine because they were not licensed to repair those PCs.

      I got more, and I'm sure everyone else does. Computer repairmen are becoming the new age Mechanics. Yes, they can do it, some are sketchy, and a lot will rip you off. The simple answer is to learn on your own and know exactly what to look for.

    2. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions.

      so are "optimizations"

      Whenever taking your machine into those places

      Never take your machine to one of those places, no exceptions.

      Unfortunately, if you buy a new machine, repairing it yourself is not an option if you want it done under warranty.

      That all depends on where you bought it in the first place. If you built it yourself, you have nothing to worry about.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    3. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The problem with cars is that they have gotten so complicated, and so proprietary, and require so many specialized tools, that it makes it almost impossible for the owner to diagnose and fix problems. Computers seem to be the exact opposite. A small (1 week of evenings) course in computer repair and maintenance, along with a couple good books could give most people all the knowledge they need. And things don't change much over the years. The connectors change and what not, but the basics still remain the same.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

      ahh. recently I've bought a new PC, and over the course of two weeks, have had some parts upgraded and now a new problem is being diagnosed; throughout the whole process, I'd notice the BIOS settings changing every time, and once a CD-ROM (disc) of mine never came back, when there was no reason to even take it out of the drive!

      I decided to disregard my impulsive imagination trying to convince me that I wasn't getting the same parts back with each visit; I'd simply check the specs and figured that as long as I got what I'd paid for, the potential rotations were best ignored.

      I guess I simply haven't been a "customer" in a long time.

    5. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

          Cars, like computers, require a certain level of knowledge, and the required tools.

          PC's have come to the point where they don't even require tools. I always bring my phillips screwdriver with me to fix a computer, and have realized that I rarely use it any more. The tools required are more likely anti-virus and anti-spyware cleanups, followed in popularity by hard drive replacements (and data recovery tools), and CPU fan cleaning.

          For a car, there are more tools required, but the parts on different cars do the same thing. They may not be interchangable, but they look similar, and act identically.

          Despite the "complexity" of the computer system, that's usually the rarer of parts to fail. If you can just follow a simple flow chart, you can repair a car. Does it start? No. Does it get air? Fuel? Spark? No. Repair the source for this component.

          People have mystified the working of an automobile so much that it seems like black magic, but as we work on computers, others see our work as black magic too. Oh my gosh, you type on the keyboard, and stuff happens? Wow. It's not that dissimilar to turning a wrench and making a car work again. You just have to understand the underlying technology, and the rest falls into place.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    6. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Katmando911 · · Score: 1

      If I bought a new computer "which bust in a week" then I'd be taking it back for a refund or exchange instead of a repair.

    7. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by ckthorp · · Score: 1

      Even better -- modern cars can often tell you what is wrong. A manufacturer-proprietary-compatible scan tool is worth it's weight in gold (not a generic OBDII one, but a full-on scan tool).

    8. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great idea! Can you tell me how I can build my own laptop?

    9. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      The problem with cars is that they have gotten so complicated, and so proprietary, and require so many specialized tools, that it makes it almost impossible for the owner to diagnose and fix problems. Computers seem to be the exact opposite.

      Ironically, what most people find complicated about a modern car is the computer.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    10. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "a friend of mine is real paranoid."
      Really?
      "So when he took his computer into a large Office Supply Store Chain for optimization, "
      Not paranoid enough I would say.
      1. optimization? What the heck is that?
      Run a virus scan, run adaware, remove any crapletts, run chkdsk /f, and disk defragmentor?
      Oh and empty the recycle bin.. And get charged $50 or more for it.

      Sorry but those PC Tuneups just tick me off. I guess it is better than just trashing the system but good grief it is just evil.
      Maybe I should cut a deal with Adaware and create a Linux boot CD that has a linux version of adaware and Clam AV. Call it Computer Draino and sell it for $29.95 and offer free updates.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by jockeys · · Score: 1

      this is by far the most down-to-earth, common sense post I have EVER seen on /. ever. I thank you for writing what will no doubt be the best thing I'll read all week.

      --

      In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    12. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Great idea! Can you tell me how I can build my own laptop?

      Sure, here are some instructions. I realize building your own computer isn't the best option for everyone, but buying your computer from a reputable retailer in the first place can pay off if you have problems. In other words, don't buy from "large Office Supply Store Chain" and do your homework before you buy any high cost items.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    13. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      However, I've never seen a computer where you had to do the equivalent of removing the engine to change an oil filter. I've seen motherboards that required the CPU or video card to be removed in order to remove/insert RAM, but that's about as far as it goes. Also, I don't think I've seen a computer in more than 5 years that requires anything more than a standard screwdriver to completely disassemble/assemble.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    14. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I needed to get the intake manifold gasket on my car replaced. I knew exactly what the problem was (the car even blinked the codes out to me, I didn't have to buy or borrow a scan tool; I did have to diagnose what was causing the code, but the high idle shortened the list quite a bit), but properly taking the manifold off(and all the stuff that bolts to it...), properly seating the gasket and torquing the manifold back down without warping it seemed pretty involved to me, so I took it to a mechanic.

      I'm not sure I'm prepared to compare that process to plugging in a piece into the only spot it will fit, oriented the only way it will fit. I see your point, I'm just not sure that the procedural knowledge required to work on each type of equipment is comparable.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, taking a bunch of modular components and sticking them into a laptop chassis (10 minutes work, 15 if you're clumsy) doesn't count as "building".

      Your "what I really meant" followup doesn't change the fact that your previous post was glib nonsense. Less lip, more thought.

    16. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Trashman · · Score: 1

      There's thing called Google you should try it sometime, type in the words: build a laptop and it shows you a list of websites on the topic.

      See: http://computershopper.com/feature/build-your-own-laptop-200804

      Amazing stuff.

      --
      Do not read this .sig
    17. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Modern cars tell tell you what they think is wrong. The ecu is giving strange data, it must be wrong. Replace ecu. $$$ Oh, looks like a cable insulator rubbed off. Replace wire. $ Hmm, a bracket broke, replace bracket, hey everything is working! Ok, where is my money back for replacing a computer that most likely was working correctly? Oh, we can't do that... bitter? Me?

    18. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, what sort of non-modular pieces would you like to use when you build your computer? Transistors? Atoms?

      Last time I checked, power supplies, motherboards, video cards, CPUs, RAM, hard drives, modems and network cards, etc. used to build a desktop computer are relatively modular as well...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    19. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by symes · · Score: 1

      Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions

      I got an extended warranty (3 years) with drop cover for my new machine, I once dropped a laptop and broke it's screen and didn't have cover. I did have a spare monitor... but it was hard work getting anything done on a plane/train, those fold down tables just don't accomodate 20" crts.

    20. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by snoig · · Score: 1

      I get 3 year extended warranties for all the Dell laptops that I order. I think it's a great deal. Since I support several offices around the country, the cost of the extended warranties are about the same as round trip shipping charges that it takes for that laptop to get sent to me so I can fix it. Instead, I get next day on site repair service from Dell. And the warranty covers accidental breakage also. So, instead of paying almost a couple of hundred dollars in shipping plus my time for labor and additional cost for parts, the Dell tech shows up at the remote office the next day and fixes the computer. I end up saving at least a days worth of my time and users get their computers back in one day instead of at least three. Plus, I know that I can plan on that laptop being useful and in inventory for at least three years. What's not a good deal about that?

    21. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by revlayle · · Score: 1

      Building a desktop these days isn't much different - the last computer I built took 20 minutes to do - everything just plugs into a few spots and i had to screw in maybe 12-16 screws altogether. In fact that laptoplogic website looks pretty damn cool.

    22. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      Turns out a mouse wiggled his way ontop of the HDD and chewed through the IDE cable; squeek; crash. WTF!! What kind of filth hole is this guy living in that a mouse is wandering into laptops?

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    23. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      Computer repairmen are becoming the new age Mechanics. For a second I pictured a guy place a handful of crystals over my laptop while burning incense to remove the ad spirits and increase the flow of my network chi...

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    24. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Is voiding warranties for self service common? I've not had any experience with that, and I've spent the last year and a half working warranty support. (Though for the same company the whole time, they may be unique).

      Of course, the same company likes to use proprietary parts, and charge ridiculous amounts for replacements if you're out of warranty.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    25. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Extended service plans are great for laptops as they will fail. I got a new ibook out of apple since it failed under the 3 year contract I had. They offered to upgrade me at no cost to the current version of the same so nearly 3 years later I got a new unit. They also let me new service plan and transferred over the remaining time from the old unit.

      Desktops generally don't need this it's a rare component that fails unless it's getting lugged around from apartment to apartment etc.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    26. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      It's not the computer that has problems it's the sensors the computer relies upon that go bad. Is it an air flow problem or a sensor thinking there is? Auto mechanics has become a black art where things may not be as they seem.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    27. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No problem.

      MSI has a lot of build your own laptop options.

      Check out their website. I built a friend a killer one, bought the processor seperate as well as the pcie video card, ram, hard drive. I also founf a bluray drive on ebay that I installed. It has a black bezel instead of white but he dont care.

      It's really easy to "build" your own laptop if you know where to look.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    28. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by NaDrew · · Score: 1

      However, I've never seen a computer where you had to do the equivalent of removing the engine to change an oil filter. I've seen motherboards that required the CPU or video card to be removed in order to remove/insert RAM, but that's about as far as it goes. Also, I don't think I've seen a computer in more than 5 years that requires anything more than a standard screwdriver to completely disassemble/assemble.

      Never disassembled a Dell laptop, eh? In order to reach the CPU fan (to clean out years of accumulated lint) you have to remove the battery, keyboard, RAM cover panel, internal HD, 802.11 adapter cover panel, palm rest and CPU cover.

      To Dell's credit, the teardown instructions are posted on their Web site, are very clear and only require a small Philips screwdriver.

      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
    29. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions.

      Trust me on this: not buying the extended warranty on an Apple product is a good way to get it to break after 91 days.

    30. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      So you assemble your regular pc's by soldering chips?

      Every desktop PC I have built over the past 12 years was built by "taking a bunch of modular components and sticking them into a chassis"

      Only incredibly few go out and bend up metal to make the case, buy all the chips and design their own motherboard, assemble their own video card, and assemble a hard drive. Everything I see at newegg and other stores are modules that plug into a chassis.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    31. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you censor the name of the store chain that did this? It's only reports like this that make them honest. I'm certain that I don't want to give such an outfit my business, but I have no idea who to avoid. (Well, I have an idea of who to avoid already, namely Best Buy, but I'd like to know who *else* to avoid.)

    32. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Pjerky · · Score: 1

      Ok bub, you obviously don't know squat about computer repair. I am a computer tech and a programmer (tech first). I have had clean up the messes that so called "professionals", whom actually do have several years of experience, before.

      Yes the basic of turning screwdrivers and inserting connection A into mirror connection B still applies. And replacing parts is physically easy. But that is where the easy part ends and some people struggle with that part.

      What about troubleshooting it? Yeah, some things are fairly simple, ex. fan squeaks you replace it. But what about video issues? Video card could be bad, if it is not integrated it could just need to be reseated, might be caked with dust, causing it to overheat, drivers might be corrupt, Windows might be corrupt, then there are cables and monitors, many points of failure.

      You ever tried troubleshooting a power up issue? It could be everything from a loose power connection to a disk drive causing a short to a power button issue.

      The point is many people don't have the right mindset to analyze and determine the source of any problem, no matter how simple (and this doesn't just apply to computers). Even if they do or manage to get past that hurdle somehow, without knowledge of what does what (which piece of hardware effects what, how software impacts that, etc) then that skill doesn't do you much good.

      Then add simple experience that can teach you that this error means this, that lockups in this situation could be caused by this, or even that sound means the HDD, not a fan or CDROM drive. You just don't learn all of that with a week long course and reading a few articles online.

      So next time get your facts straight and don't talk about something which you have little experience and try to pass it off as fact or knowledge.

      --
      The Mind Is Speculative and Interpretive. So speculate all you want and interpret this 00101101 01001110!
    33. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are all sorts of things that people should do that take a week-long class, and yet never seem to do them.

      I wish we'd spend a semester in high school having classes on this. A week on computer maintenance, a week on car maintenance, a week on house maintenance, a week on money management, a week covering the dozen or so different scams con artists use and how to spot them, a week on cooking, etc.

      Yes, some of those rightly fall under optional entire classes that people can take. And I'm sure people who've taken those classes can coast through that week, or, hell, we could even let them just skip that week.

      The point is that everyone should have basic knowledge of a wide range of things they are going to need to be able to do. At least enough knowledge to recognize that they don't have knowledge about something. Where people end up thinking 'Hey, this car requires maintenance, and I've forgotten what they told in me in HS that I need to do.I should check the manual.' instead of just blithely traveling along until their car explodes because their oil is entirely make of grit.

      I'm sure most slashdot readers have read that 'incompetent people cannot just their own competence' paper. We need to at least raise people to the level that they recognize that a) something is wrong, b) they should try looking that thing up to see if there's some obvious solution, and c) if not, ask for help.

      Way too many people never notice 'a' on their computer until much too late, and then just immediately to 'c'. Same with cars, and other stuff.

      Of course, as long as we judge entirely by 'standardized testing', school don't have time to spend on that stuff.

      But anyway, barring a class, there are some very nice simple computer reference and troubleshooting books out there. People should buy them, just like they should buy one of the 'disassemble and reassemble' book of their car. Yeah, they'll need it exactly five time in the life of the car...but they will need it.

      It saves them money the very first time they discover that their monitor won't turn on, and they read they not only need to check the power connection at the wall (Which they should already know), but that they also need to check the power connection at the monitor, as sometimes those can be unplugged, and the connection to the computer because it will go into power-save mode if that's disconnected....instead of calling some tech guy to do it for them.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    34. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Laptops are kind of a different beast altogether. In order to fit the pieces into the smallest space possible, they often make it hard/impossible to fix a lot of common problems. If your CPU dies, in most desktops, this is an easy replacement. However, in a laptop, it's sometimes soldered in, so replacing the CPU is a no-go. I'm not aware how common this is with more modern laptops, but I know it has been a problem in the past.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    35. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      Auto mechanics has become a black art where things may not be as they seem.

      I'll second that. Over a month ago, my car was hit by lightning while on a camping trip. This pretty much fried every electrical component on the car. Battery was killed, 5 control modules were killed, various wires melted. The mechanic has put $4500 of parts and labor into the car and it still won't start. Luckily my insurance is covering it, but it's frustrating that the problems aren't as clear cut as you would think. Especially now that cars have so many computers and electronics in them, you're not just a mechanic, you're a computer technician as well. You'd think it would be easy to go through the process and narrow down the problem areas, but it just isn't always that simple. Plus, considering that my tent poles were welded together from the lightning (yes I was in the tent, yes I am fine, and no sign of super powers yet), there's no telling what kind of mechanical problems have been caused.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    36. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by limaxray · · Score: 1

      A quality generic OBDII scan tool with a listing of all of the manufacturer specific trouble codes is all you need for most engine repair. The whole engine OBD system is pretty much standardized as required by law. The only reason I could see you needing the manufacturer's scan tool [software] is if you want to either diagnose issues with other, non-standardized modules (ie ABS, SRS, etc) or tweak various ECU settings.

      But yeah, I agree, OBD and such 'scary tech' on cars these days do make your life a bit easier if you know what you're doing. It still requires you to have 2 braincells to rub together to figure out what the trouble codes actually mean.

    37. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they all point to overpriced "kits" that take five minutes to assemble. Which isn't exactly going to turn you into a skilled technician who can fix everything themselves.

    38. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 1

      The fuel filter on my car requires a $70 tool in order to remove it. The tool does absolutely nothing else, but if you try to remove it without the tool, you will most assuredly damage the metallic fuel line witch can cost upwards of $400 to replace.

      But, as you stated, with modern cars the computer runs most of the systems in the car, from the accelerator to the blinker, so diagnosis is virtualy impossible without a proper scanner.

      Luckily, my dad is a mechanic.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    39. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by sisina · · Score: 1

      a mouse wiggled his way ontop of the HDD and chewed through the IDE cable

      This is why I use a trackball.

    40. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The fuel filter on my car requires a $70 tool in order to remove it.

      If it's a Ford, the tool is supposed to be included with the car. That's nothing, to change the battery in a Chrysler Seabring, you have to remove the front driver's side wheel. That's just bad engineering.

      Some computer manufacturers are guilty of that too. I remember in the 90's it was almost impossible to get the cover off of my computer. A friend of mine told me to buy a Dell because they are easier to take apart, and the parts are more standardized. Eventually the whole market went that way.

      Most people don't work on their own cars, so why should they care about how difficult it is to repair? People who do work on their own cars, tend to lean towards the ones that are easy to work on. Ever wonder why so many kids modify Honda Civics? They tend to be easy to work on. (that's just my personal observation)

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    41. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Lesson. Whenever taking your machine into those places, write down the serial numbers. "

      Take and print digital photos of the whole unit including the service tag. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    42. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by ckthorp · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the OBDII scanner will only scan the engine. What if your temp mixing flap in your HVAC system has worn a spot through its servo potentiometer and is getting intermittently lost? What if you want to program new immobilizer keys into your dash computer? Or what if you want to adjust the shift timing patterns in your automatic transmission? These operations, and many more, are only within the realm of an OEM-emulating interface.

    43. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by ckthorp · · Score: 1

      Right. Brain fart. I'm agreeing with you in a round-about argumentative fashion. Cheers.

    44. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Please, just name (and shame) the company ... what's with "BigBoxStoreA"?! You're "CapnStank" on slashdot, think they're gonna sue ya or something?

    45. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      You know, I think it's relatively safe to name the actual store.

    46. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The one problem that I see with this comparison is this:

      If I monkey around with my PC and wreck it, it costs under $1,000 to replace.
      If I monkey around with my car and wreck it, it can cost me over $15,000 to replace.

      Plus, worst case scenario, I monkey with my PC and wreck it, but not in an obvious "won't even boot" sort of way. Two weeks later it crashes. Data might be lost, but no one's hurt. Same thing happens with my car and people (including me and anyone in my car at the time) can be killed.

      I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I know that a lot of people can fix cars themselves. I'm just saying that it takes more skill (and willingness to pay replacement costs while you learn) to fix a car than it does to fix a computer.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    47. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by gubers33 · · Score: 1

      You called Steve Jobbs King Jobbs? I thought Bill Gates was the King with his software monopoly? Or is he just the Guy with the top hat and cane on the monopoly box.

      --
      Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    48. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't "Able to survive being struck by lightning" a super power. Perhaps you could try it again just to test it out.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    49. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      That's just low

      Nuking your hardware just so you can get a free replacement? What a slimey scummy thing to do. What ever happend to just being honest and where's your integrity?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    50. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I know the macbooks have the CPU soldered down, I suspect most other thin light laptops do as well.

      a couple of milimeters of socket is significant when the whole machine is only a couple of centimeters thick.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    51. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure a few parts of laptops are standardised or semi-standardised.

      But there is this huge group of parts (case, motherboard, graphics*, keyboard, pointing device, monitor) that are seperate and standardised in a desktop but must be bought as a group from one manufacturer in a laptop. It is that group of parts that defines most of the vital characteristics of the laptop.

      *Graphics is sometimes integrated on the motherboard in desktops but you can almost always disable the onboard graphics and use a seperate graphics card and almost anyone wanting decent graphics performance will do so.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    52. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I've never had to remove the engine to change an oil filter. :) Changing the filter in my wife's Honda CR-V is a trick though, where I basically balance with one hand on the ground, and one hand half way up the back of the engine, and can barely get it removed.

          There are always oddball vehicles, but they don't last long. I worked on an older computer recently that required removing the power supply and half the cables, just to reach the memory. Some of the older Compaq machines (like, way back) were just as obnoxious.

          There are various things for various reasons though. In my car (4th Gen F-body), to change the cam shaft, you'd unbolt the front crossmember, and then raise the car to access the engine. That's because they pushed the motor back partly under the windshield and cowl to make for more equal weight distribution (50/50), and the nose is more integrated, so it can't be as easily removed. How often do you change the cam? Usually never. How often do you change the memory or CPU? Usually once, if ever.

       

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    53. Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It's just different procedures. :) Automobiles are well documented, so the procedures can be easily followed. Computers aren't as well documented, since every piece comes from a different source, with varying levels of documentation.

          Any decent size shop will have the large repair manuals, and the parts&labor manual. They can tell you, based on a repair, how long it will take, and how much it will cost. Most shops bill based on this also. If the book says 4 hours, it's a 4 hour job, and you will pay 4 hours. If the mechanic is real good, he may bang it out in 2 hours. If he hasn't done it before, or encounters problems, it may take 5 hours.

          I wish PC's were so easy. Like, when I diagnose a virus problem, it may take 5 minutes, or 3 hours, depending on the severity of the problem.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  9. FBI and DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    FBI Agent: Why didn't we think of this?

    DHS Agent: Because we already did.

    1. Re:FBI and DHS by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY! That is all the reason I need to continue building my own machines. meh

    2. Re:FBI and DHS by maxume · · Score: 1

      Intel puts microphones in Pentiums and AMD puts them in their video cards. Texas Instruments puts them in transistors.

      Monsanto puts them in corn!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:FBI and DHS by mitgib · · Score: 1

      FBI Agent: Why didn't we think of this?

      DHS Agent: Because we already did.

      EXACTLY! That is all the reason I need to continue building my own machines. meh

      Going to make all the chips, boards, drives and peripherals yourself too?

      No, just keep using Linux so it can be coded to ignore nefarious crap like that

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
  10. Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions. by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unless you own an iMac, mine is in the shop (AGAIN!) for yet another circuit board and possibly new video card.

    So that was the best $169 I ever spent.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  11. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by joshtheitguy · · Score: 1

    I got an extended warranty on my the last monitor I bought, had it repaired three times and replaced once at no cost, sounds like an exception to me.

  12. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Extended Applecare saved my butt twice in the past six years. I suppose whether or not the warantee is worthless would depend upon your vendor though.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  13. 9 people brought their own computers? by catbertscousin · · Score: 1

    I wonder if he made sure it was her personal computer. She could have been bringing her husband's computer in instead of her own. Now that would have been amusingly ironic.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
    1. Re:9 people brought their own computers? by AnalogyShark · · Score: 1

      Can I get a link to that video?

    2. Re:9 people brought their own computers? by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not really.There are people out there who will pay for any sort of lewd photos (it's a corollary of rule 34), and where Feign's going he's probably going to develop a taste for that sort of thing anyway.

  14. Oblig. South Park by MarkovianChained · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other's mouths, you can't exactly go back to Playboy!

    1. Re:Oblig. South Park by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Once I read this I don't think I can go back to my lunch.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  15. Second question is... by XanC · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will anyone dare to click on a link labeled "dick"?

    1. Re:Second question is... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      yes, with the [slashdot.org] proving that it is from ... well ... slashdot.

    2. Re:Second question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Which one?

    3. Re:Second question is... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Giant Vagina!

      Click on it you pasty white virgins.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:Second question is... by RabidMoose · · Score: 3, Funny

      You should be careful going to this "Slashdot" site. There's some seedy stuff around that place. Trust me, I went there once myself.

    5. Re:Second question is... by encoderer · · Score: 1

      yes?

    6. Re:Second question is... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      You have to turn on the [domain.org] tag under Preferences - Discussion - Viewing.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  16. It's a valid question by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see it got modded off-topic, but it seems to me like a valid question. What the heck was this guy thinking? Or the recent story on The Register, where a 47 year old techie got jailed for a similar stunt, except he also tried to blackmail a 17 year old girl into underessing in front of the camera. (Which is how he got caught.)

    I mean, seriously. What. The. Fuck.

    Didn't these guys find enough photos of naked women on the internet? I mean, seriously, how did that train of thought go? "Man, if only I could see some photos of women at least partially undressed... Nah, surely nobody publishes something like that. I guess I'll just have to bug someone's web-cam." Or what?

    Or was it just a psychopath's power game?

    Since the story is about him, it doesn't seem to me offtopic at all. No, seriously, I want to know. What goes in the head of that kind of idiot? How do you recognize one?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It's a valid question by HappySmileMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the time in cases like this it makes them feel much better knowing that they have some kind of power over the victim. He could have of course found regular porn, but maybe in his mind regular porn is too boring?

    2. Re:It's a valid question by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really that. And it's not totally a power trip thing, either. It's different seeing someone naked when you've had some personal interaction with them. While I've never done anything like this, I know there's quite a few slashdotters out there who watch porn, half-hoping they find some girl they knew in high school, or find out the woman down the street has her own website. This is the same kind of thing.

    3. Re:It's a valid question by phio+gistic · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Watching porn is the same as hacking someone's computer and installing spy software on it? Sounds like a power trip to me. The excitement of looking for porn of someone you know sounds like it's based on the porn-conditioned sexual response to watching someone be hurt and humiliated. It's even more "exciting" to see someone you have personally met be humiliated than to see the humiliation of a complete stranger.

    4. Re:It's a valid question by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Well, I think it comes down to a classic application of Angst_Ridden_Hipster's 37th Law of Fetishes:

      "Other people's fetishes are weird."

       

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    5. Re:It's a valid question by deets101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am sure this was a power trip for him more than the porn side. It could also be an ego trip as well (probably both). You know, "Wow, I am so leet, look what I can do!" Just another perverted script kiddie fantasy.

      --

      --
      My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
    6. Re:It's a valid question by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Garuuu? I watch porn as much or more than the next guy how is porn consumption a power game I like the appearance of women both clothed and unclothed. And yet I find no feeling of power and find stunts like this guy's disgusting.

      Yeah, but just look what it's done to your typing!

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    7. Re:It's a valid question by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      Except the victim would not have been humiliated unless he was caught, and I don't think that is/was his goal. In fact it could have been the reverse of that; watching them made him feel humiliated about himself as he didn't think he was worthy of being with these girls in real life? Your crusade against porn aside; not all sex is about power, although it can be warped out of context through trauma or abuse. Unless you are using the word power in place of the word attention? BTW- I think the troll mods you have been given were out of line in this instance.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    8. Re:It's a valid question by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Project much?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:It's a valid question by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 2, Funny

      What do you expect from a blind man?

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    10. Re:It's a valid question by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe all that porn watching addled his tiny mind. Maybe he believes he is allowed to do anything he wants to any woman he wants. That's what porn teaches you, isn't it? Porn consumption is all about a power game.

      Horseshit.

      Many happy, well adjusted couples watch porn together, and it's not even remotely about a power game. Therapists recommend porn to people -- it's a perfectly normal part of sexuality.

      There is lots of porn which is very much about a bad power dynamic or doing whatever you wish to a woman (convicted Max Hardcore for example), and I personally won't watch stuff which involves choking or other things which are getting into the abusive realm, because it's something I find offensive and it defeats the purpose of porn.

      Not all porn depicts imbalanced power dynamics or treats women like things to be abused. Much of it shows people who are very enthusiastically engaging in something that most everyone does at some point.

      In this case, the guy installing the software either had some really uncontrollable fetish which he indulged himself in (no excuse), or just did it because he could and thought he could get away with it.

      I'm not defending all porn as good, but it's also invalid to say all porn is bad. Tarring all consumers of porn with the same brush is as bad as doing it to any other group.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:It's a valid question by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, I think it comes down to a classic application of Angst_Ridden_Hipster's 37th Law of Fetishes:

      "Other people's fetishes are weird."

       

      How could that possibly be number 37? :-P I should think after "my fetish is OK and should be accepted", would come that one.

      Everything else is just a corollary to #'s 1 and 2.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:It's a valid question by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      You knew Brooke Banner!!!! Holy crap awesome!!!!oneeleven!!

      heh heh..

    13. Re:It's a valid question by eggz128 · · Score: 1

      In both cases you give the women have given their consent. In this case they haven't.

    14. Re:It's a valid question by wembley67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      George Carlin summed it up nicely: The girl next door "seems more possible" than a complete stranger.

    15. Re:It's a valid question by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      How could that possibly be number 37?

      Well, they get pretty technical, and the order seems somewhat arbitrary.

      For example, Laws 5-9 are all very specific to fetishes simultaneously involving badgers, restraints, and jam.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    16. Re:It's a valid question by onion2k · · Score: 1

      Hey, you already called my fetish "weird", there's no need to rub it in.

      That's what the badgers are for.

    17. Re:It's a valid question by goarilla · · Score: 1

      i guess you should pay close attention to the size of a programmers webcam collection
      most programmers hold dear to the beta-testing-production routine :D

    18. Re:It's a valid question by Urkki · · Score: 1

      What the heck was this guy thinking?

      I don't know that, but I bet we both know what he was thinking with...

    19. Re:It's a valid question by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Maybe all that porn watching addled his tiny mind. Maybe he believes he is allowed to do anything he wants to any woman he wants. That's what porn teaches you, isn't it? Porn consumption is all about a power game. This is a natural progression, taking what you learn out into your neighborhood.

      You must be a Catholic priest, or an Irish nun, to have such a flawless understanding of the World.

      Porn is not a power game, it's a power fantasy. Most comic books, movies, romantic comedies, novels, video games, celebrity shows, are power fantasies of one kind -- or another. Power fantasies are like empty calories. They do not give us real power, they only give us the illusion of power, and by giving us that illusion of power -- they make us passive and keep us from exercising real power in real life.

      In my opinion, if porn has any effect, it probably has increased the number of male virgins and decreased the number of male rapists. Do not think that because moral repression was so much higher in the olden days, that there was less violence, or that there were less sexual crimes, or that those crimes were less extreme in nature. My personal theory is that the more repression you have, whether you're a Japanese office man, an Irish nun, a Catholic priest, or a Muslim Mullah, the more deviant and absolute the sexual violence of that group is going to be.

      That being said, I won't mind if you do not subscribe to my view. I'm certainly sure it's also flawed in its own way, and not even half as simple as I describe.

    20. Re:It's a valid question by stormhair · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but just look what it's done to your typing!

      He's obviously doing it one-handed.

  17. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, well, Macs are special...

    --
    http://www.allen-poole.com/
  18. In Soviet Florida... by AnalogyShark · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...laptop watches you!

  19. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Dekortage · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple's warranties are absolutely worth it. The three year extended warranty is dirt frickin cheap compared to any repair you might need down the line. Hard drive failed? Replaced. Keys fell of your keyboard? Replaced. Little rubber feet come off the bottom of the laptop? Here's a sheet of extras, just in case they come off again in three years.

    Seriously, if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  20. Woman? by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 woman and has photos of at least one undressing."

    I believe the correct word is womans, duh it's plural.

    --
    Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
    1. Re:Woman? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, Taco posted the story, so it should have been "tens wimman's".

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Woman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 woman and has photos of at least one undressing."

      I believe the correct word is womans, duh it's plural.

      If you want to nit-pick, it's "WOMEN" you dumbass.

    3. Re:Woman? by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      whoosh....

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    4. Re:Woman? by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 1

      Don't make me call some police mans to come beat your ass...

      --
      Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
    5. Re:Woman? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how it was posted on Slashdot, I'm shocked it wasn't "Potentially BILLIONS of victims who didn't even know they had a computer" (complete with "idtheft" and "MAFIAA" tags from the 80% of posters who didn't RTFA).

  21. Credit where credit is due... by DenaliPrime · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    I! Tego Arcana Dei.
    1. Re:Credit where credit is due... by InvisiBill · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      Source: Ars Technica

      Perhaps they recently added that, but the article itself does list Ars as the source now.

    2. Re:Credit where credit is due... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      Source: Ars Technica

      Perhaps they recently added that, but the article itself does list Ars as the source now.

      Yeah, right, it just said "from Ars Technica", with no links, and no hints about how to find it. I has to go to Ars and type the woman's name into their search box to find the article.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  22. Re:Shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Death for a PC? If you take my parking space can I shoot you?

  23. Re:Shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I have deemed you cruft. Get on your knees.

  24. Re:Shoot him by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We can't keep wasting tax dollars on court cases for stupidity, which is exactly where this case will go. Just shoot him and be done with it.

    Hmm it seems I landed in a pub. Have you ever driven beyond the speed limit? I suggest you be shot as well.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  25. what a dirty bastard by polyp2000 · · Score: 1, Funny

    the sheer cheek of it!

    N.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  26. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    I have found that the cost of the extended warranty is roughly equal to the cost of any repairs that would have been needed over the same time. One exception was a Dell machine that kept eating power supplies. The cost of the 3 year warranty was about 3/4 what the cost of power supplies would have been. Of course, I had to deal with Dell support, so there was a non-monetary cost, too.

    Where they are worth it to me is when a computer is being taken to college by the kids. I would rather be able to call Dell or Apple and say "Fix it" than have the kids trying to get it repaired. Its a peace of mind thing.

    But, when Radio Shack wants an extra $10 to extend the warranty on a $30 item, yeah, that is a ripoff - no exception.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  27. Re:Shoot him by fm6 · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's an unfriendly comment. You are so dead. I mean literally.

  28. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    I got an extended warranty on my the last monitor I bought, had it repaired three times and replaced once at no cost, sounds like an exception to me.

    I got the same services on a Samsung CRT monitor without buying the extended warranty. They replaced it - free shipping and all - 30 months after I bought it.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  29. pedant alert by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    She took the computer to a second repair shop where they found that one of the problems was that her webcam would turn on whenever it detected her around and was taking photo's and uploading it to a website.

    Vapon and Taco, meet Bob.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  30. I got nothing to fear by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Funny

    A webcamera is one of the things that I will never again attach to my computer. I rigged up a webcam to my computer once so while I chatted with some chicks they could see me. My sister used my computer while I was away for a week. Looks like she would just invite some random lusers to use the webcam.

    Well a message popped up one afternoon and it was from some luser telling me I was cute. I ask him how he know he said my webcam was on. Then he ask me if I would get naked for him. And it was a guy.

    Camera in box.. box back to store. Now when some chick wants a picture I just direct her to a website where I have a picture of J. Random. Hunk.

    Works for me.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    1. Re:I got nothing to fear by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I guess it was too tough to unplug it or cover it when not in use, or to clean out whatever evil software was transmitting your picture without your consent.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:I got nothing to fear by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Nope I unplugged it, put it in a box and deleted all the software that came with it. A few months later I "scrapped" (sold it) the machine that it was on.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:I got nothing to fear by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an overreaction. Hell, it might not have even been on, and he was just saying that to play with you. Perhaps he even thought you were her.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:I got nothing to fear by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should have asked him for a credit card number. Might have been able to pull down a little $$$ on the side.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    5. Re:I got nothing to fear by znerk · · Score: 1

      It's pretty typical behavior of someone in the closet.
      Someone secure in their sexuality would have just laughed and sent him a link to goatse.

      ...or just rick rolled them.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  31. What's the point? by barnyjr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bow-chicka-bow-wow!

    Seriously though... unless the woman has the system in her bedroom, what are they hoping to see?

    If they did it on my system, they'd just get web-cams of me reading slashdot and playing WoW in my underwear...

    1. Re:What's the point? by Akita24 · · Score: 1

      If they did this to me the motherfcuker would need major surgery to remove my laptop from his ass.

    2. Re:What's the point? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the original article at Ars Technica:

      Unfortunately for Garcia, that included 20,000 photos of her, her friends, and her boyfriend. Since the laptop mostly resided in her bedroom, some of them were taken while she was not clothed.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    3. Re:What's the point? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      While its in there, be sure to snap some photos. His doctors might need them for a reference. You know, for the reconstructive surgery?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  32. Re:Shoot him by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then get him some therapy and get him back on the streets as soon as possible to be a constructive member of society. Killing them would waste all the taxpayers' money that has been invested in him to get as far as he did. I hope when you have psychological problems no-one calls for your death. I bet your family would rather you be helped than executed.

  33. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you think Apple is losing money on the extended warranties?

    (They could still be worth it; spending $250 now may well make a lot more sense than facing the possibility of spending $500 tomorrow; the point is that Apple sells them because they are profitable for Apple, so on the balance, they aren't profitable for Apple customers.)

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  34. And how is this possible? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To preface this: I am not a Windows (tm) user.

    After all, the Tripwire program (Kim and Spafford) was created in 1992. That would have been in the Windows 3.1 era. Windows 98 doesn't include it (My wife uses that product), but it should be a standard part (or option) in later versions. I always presumed that it (or its underlying concept) is a standard part of "anti-malware" software. I do have an instance of Windows XP SP2 running, and it complains ON EACH BOOT of missing an approved anti-malware program. Mind you, since I don't run anti-malware, or a firewall, the XP instance is run in an isolated virtual container.

    Of course she didn't trust the technician; why didn't she apply the obvious measures?

    Don't the commercial anti-malware programs or Windows incorporate this protection?

    Now, it would be difficult to defend against boot-sector attacks (I was reading an article on Microsoft Vista, and it's defense against this -- also ref. /. and its recent article on the subject), but that would take considerably more skill than the typical PC jockey has. Typical prevention of this would be (at least with the COMMERICIAL anti-malware programs), should be a boot and scan from CD-ROM. Something easily mentioned in the anti-malware instructions (Note that my Windows 98 CD doesn't boot; a boot floppy is required, making this defense difficult in THAT environment. But, like I said, I *know* Windows 98 doesn't offer this protection. Windows XP? Certainly should, but with the warning about not running anti-malware, maybe it defers this function to external software. Which is ok, after all Tripwire is external software for Unix as well).

    I have a hard time actually believing that Windows could be such a security clusterfuck, that a vendor default installation could suffer from problems like this.

    About the only thing I can say is: Class-action suit hammer time! This is SO basic -- it's like seatbelts.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    1. Re:And how is this possible? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Um, a tech had physical access to her machine and installed unpleasant software. Not much that can be done about that.

    2. Re:And how is this possible? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      Did you read my post?

      The "anti-malware" should have built secure hashes of every program and configuration file. This should have been kept under a public crypto key, and the key to actually *update* that database should be keyed with a passphrase or key (usb, floppy, whatever) that only our erstwhile user knows/has. Or, a fingerprint (like on my T43 laptop).

      When the "tech" added, or modified ANYTHING in the system, the user should then be alerted as to what was changed and when. Also, the "tech" should have to describe WHY the change was made.

      Basic stuff. Not expensive -- after all, doesn't the anti-malware software ALREADY check file? Rather, I suspect that it doesn't work this way.

      Actually, the tech shouldn't have root access, either, but I am probably pushing things here. After all, it would be easy enough to just replace files on the hard drive directly. Still, can't regenerate the secure hashes file (without breaking public key crypto, or be really persistent at password guessing).

      Like I said, simple and basic stuff. Class action stuff, potentially (if *I* used Windows and it didn't do these things, I would be pissed. However, XP sort of excluded itself, by its "phone home" policy. I simply wasn't ALLOWED to use it for the longest time, and now I really don't know much about it).

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  35. Re:Shoot him by realsilly · · Score: 1

    I can't condone the "Just shoot him and be done with it." logic; however, this is to a blatant outright crime and these are getting to be ridiculous. I'm afraid to hear what the lawyers will use as a defensive argument.

    I wish our society would become more responsible for one's actions once again. AUGH. But until we do, we either have this legal process, which sucks, or vigilantyism (which I'm not condoning).

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  36. Why can't people understand WHY he did it? by hyperz69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The guy was trying to get off on the THRILL of forbidden fruit. You know like peeping toms. The boobies you are not SUPPOSE to see. There are many people out there like it, and it surprises me it didn't happen sooner. Not that I am saying he was right, or that he shouldn't goto jail. He should, it's just not that hard to understand WHY he did it.

  37. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

    The thing that makes AppleCare a bit different is that Apple is essentially a monopoly supplier for the repairs, which makes their cost much lower than what they actually charge.

    Look at what it costs to get a new screen installed. Do you think that it costs Apple anywhere near that much to do it? Definitely not. They're making a hefty margin.

    What this means is that Apple actually can end up charging less for the warranty than for the individual repairs, on average, over the long term. I find this to be particularly true with their portables, where the cost of AppleCare isn't all that much but the cost of repairs is completely ridiculous.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  38. Re:Shoot him by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let's say we take your advice. Death penalty! Suddenly this guy has nothing to lose. What happens when the police come for him?

    Having a gradient of ever more severe punishments for ever more severe crimes is a good thing. You never want to be in a situation where a criminal at large is already certain of getting the maximum possible punishment.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  39. It wasnt about nudity... by Schmyz · · Score: 1

    the Repair guy was just trying to see if she cracked the new level on Call of DUTY 19...geeesh...everyone always points the finger...

  40. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Drop damage of any sort? Not replaced, you pay more for repair than you would out-of-warranty, and your warranty is cancelled without any compensation.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  41. Gotta love sensationalism by Verteiron · · Score: 4, Funny

    From TFA: "Marisel Garcia is one of eight or nine women in the Gainesville, Florida who is a victim of a Webcam Spy Hacker voyeurism scandal, orchestrated by Craig Feigin."

    Not a victim of having her privacy invaded, not merely being spied upon.. but a full-fledged Webcam Spy Hacker Voyeurism Scandal. A WSHVS. Dear god, WHAT HAVE WE COME TO? I think I'll found a WSHVS victim anonymous.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
    1. Re:Gotta love sensationalism by Eil · · Score: 1

      Not a victim of having her privacy invaded, not merely being spied upon.. but a full-fledged Webcam Spy Hacker Voyeurism Scandal. A WSHVS. Dear god, WHAT HAVE WE COME TO? I think I'll found a WSHVS victim anonymous.

      Seriously. There was no hacking in this story. Not even in the overblown sense in which the media typically use it. But of course a computer was involved so they thought they might as well throw the word "hacker" into it even though there is no logical sense in doing so.

      Journalists: Can't live with 'em, can't drop 'em off a bridge onto a busy interstate.

  42. hmm... by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe all that porn watching addled his tiny mind. Maybe he believes he is allowed to do anything he wants to any woman he wants. That's what porn teaches you, isn't it? Porn consumption is all about a power game. This is a natural progression, taking what you learn out into your neighborhood.

    Given that a majority of men have watched or are watching porn, and the numbers are steadily rising for women too, I'm not so sure. Chances are half the guys at the office, the taxi driver if you use one at any point, at least one of the clerks at the supermaket you visit, maybe even one of the doctors who've treated you, etc, are into porn. If porn taught that, you'd notice it.

    Plus, I don't know... I thought porn was about _sex_. I don't get the mentality that it's all some kind of (preferrably male) plot and power game. There _are_ people of both sexes who enjoy sex, as just that. Not as some form of power game or currency, but as just, you know, two people having an intimate moment and some fun too.

    So, really, I don't get it when I hear it that porn is somehow teaching males to exert power over women. (Read your quote too, if you don't know what I'm talking about.) Or that anything that happens in there is only for the male's pleasure. Apparently regardless of whether it's one on one, two guys on one gal, two gals on one guy, or just two lesbians and no guy involved, it surely is only a depiction of something where just the guy gets any pleasure there. Apparently even if what's portrayed is one guy going down on his SO, it's still only for the guy's pleasure. And apparently demeaning, abusive or otherwise unwanted and unwelcome for the woman, if it involves sex in any way.

    Women are occasionally known to have orgasms too, you know?

    Plus, it's a depiction of an act which isn't just natural, but millions of married people are doing it right as you read this. And that's not even counting the unmarried ones. Is it really that much worse and harmful than a depiction of someone being beaten up, shot, stabbed, burned alive, or the other stapples of TV and movies? I mean, if people take what they saw in movies into the real world, wouldn't it make more sense to worry about those who watch war movies?

    But, anyway, anyone who thinks that any kind of sex is inherently demeaning or submissive for the woman, well, at least do us guys a favour and don't marry :P

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:hmm... by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, really, I don't get it when I hear it that porn is somehow teaching males to exert power over women.

      Well then, my friend, you're just not thinking it all the way through.

      Woman has spent EONS perfecting her control of the male's life via sexual gratification. Huge layers of our social structure are based around the notion that sexually-powerful women get to select the most worldly-powerful men. The very notion of monogamy is centered around a single woman being a husband's source of sexual gratification - and, as they say, if momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy.

      Porn short-circuits this. When a man wants sex and the woman would rather use it for leverage, he can say 'fine bitch - be that way' and break out the porno.

      INTERNET porn makes it an order of magnitude worse by allowing you to consume a HUGE amount of porn anonymously, and often at little to no cost. So for a lot of men there's little to no risk involved in 'betraying' their controlling woman and getting gratification from another place.

      In short it isn't about the act of looking at porn giving power to men. That part isn't true. But few are willing to state the opposite argument, that is in fact true - that sex gives power to women - so this reverse-argument gets made by proxy...

    2. Re:hmm... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Chances are half the guys at the office, the taxi driver if you use one at any point, at least one of the clerks at the supermaket you visit, maybe even one of the doctors who've treated you, etc, are into porn.

      Half? I'm not sure I can name a single male I know who isn't into porn. Even my 68-year-old father is, as well as my girlfriend, my roommate's g/f, and my friend's g/f (enough to weird him out, actually).

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    3. Re:hmm... by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's a depiction of an act which isn't just natural, but millions of married people are doing it right as you read this.

      Ahem... know many married people do you?

      --
      Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    4. Re:hmm... by neokushan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hope you understand the futility of trying to explain sexual relations to those on slashdot.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    5. Re:hmm... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Plus, I don't know... I thought porn was about _sex_.

      The thing about sex is that it's where human obsessions, phobias, repressions, all sorts of social issues come together.

      Why (for example) do you think that some men enjoy being submissive with dominatrixes, or others enjoy seeing women dressed up as nuns, or.... etc., you get the picture. People's character and mindset drives a lot of the way they go about their sexual behaviour and feel attraction towards others.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:hmm... by encoderer · · Score: 1

      Given that a majority of men have watched or are watching porn

      This is actually under-reported.

      I would bet that a majority of men are watching porn, right now .

      How do I know this? ...Let's just say that I've been repairing a lot of PCs lately.

    7. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The very notion of monogamy is centered around a single woman being a husband's source of sexual gratification - and, as they say, if momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy.

      As counter intuitive as it may sound, monogamy is better for most men, and polygamy better for most women.

      You may think this odd, as a man would prefer to have many women rather than one. But the thing is, most men wouldn't get to be in that situation - only the very top men would, who would monopolize most of the women, or at least most of the desirable ones. Leaving most men to have far fewer options, or even have no chance at a wife at all.

      And why would a woman prefer to be one of many? Because as the saying goes, "Better to be the king's mistress than a peasant's wife."

    8. Re:hmm... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. I've read that elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to track in the real world. For example, what explains the correlation between polygamist societies and women's power/rights/etc? Most, if not all, polygamist societies are male-dominated, are they not?

      "Better to be the king's mistress than a peasant's wife."

      Many women would find it better to have control over her man, any man, than to have to constantly compete for power amongst many other women. Particularly as she ages and the new wives keep getting younger and younger.

      Again, it just doesn't track with reality.

    9. Re:hmm... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      the new wives keep getting younger and younger

      Good lord, man! Where do I get one of those wives?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:hmm... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Hey, we married people still do it. Even those of us (like me) with a kid or two. We just tend to do it less often than couple who are just starting to "explore each other." We still do it a lot more than the stereotypical "living in the parents' basement" Slashdotter. ;-) Married Slashdotters unite!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:hmm... by kniLnamiJ-neB · · Score: 1

      This person speaks truth.

      --
      Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
    12. Re:hmm... by wembley67 · · Score: 1

      I see ... so by giving away sex on the internet, porn is taking something of value away from women. Wouldn't Jim Allchin call that un-American?

    13. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Right. I've read that elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to track in the real world. For example, what explains the correlation between polygamist societies and women's power/rights/etc? Most, if not all, polygamist societies are male-dominated, are they not?

      Most monogamist societies are/were dominated by (some) males as well.

      Many women would find it better to have control over her man, any man, than to have to constantly compete for power amongst many other women. Particularly as she ages and the new wives keep getting younger and younger.

      Lots of women prefer to party and sleep with many men when they are young, and try to settle down with a man who's dependable when they're older - and coincidentally, when they have a much lower value as mates.

      Besides, there has been a heavy stigma against women sleeping around and in favor of monogamy for millenia. Most people are loath to express unpopular opinions to the public, even anonymously.

      Plus, I've learned to distinguish between what women say and what women do.

    14. Re:hmm... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Porn short-circuits this. When a man wants sex and the woman would rather use it for leverage, he can say 'fine bitch - be that way' and break out the porno.

      Porn short-circuits this?

      I think you are forgetting about prostitution. It's been around a little longer than porn has.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    15. Re:hmm... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "why would the most popular pornography be all about humiliation, violence, and torture?"

      Really? Source? I mean a real academic one, not "I saw some guy choking a girl on the internets, so it must be popular."

      Yes, there is violent porn, and some people like it - I find it revolting. So I guess I'm abnormal, according to your world view.

      Oh, yeah - where does gay porn fit into your facile analysis? Or porn where the female is dominant? I'm sure that woman wearing the 10" strapon stuck in some guy's orifice is feeling really "punished".

      Maybe the world isn't so black and white?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    16. Re:hmm... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Porn has a huge number of advantages over prostitution and/or cheating, etc:

      1) No multi-party coordination required.

      2) Easier to conceal

      3) 24/7 availability

      etc, etc, etc

      More to the point, though, what again is the monogamist's typical position on prostitution? Pro, or Con?

    17. Re:hmm... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      1) No multi-party coordination required.

      So you're just gonna whack off in front of the wife and kids? Most people like some time alone for self-service--is that the same as multi-party coordination?

      2) Easier to conceal

      My office is situated in a red-light district. I could have a "nooner" and no one would know but me, my "date", and the lord our god.

      3) 24/7 availability

      "Women needing money" isn't restricted to certain times of day or days of the week. I can see a few working girls from my window right now. How do I know they're working? Non-working women don't tend to pace up and down the block--they typically are actually going somewhere.

      More to the point, though, what again is the monogamist's typical position on prostitution? Pro, or Con?

      I'm pretty sure that prostitution and monogamy are in logical conflict with each other. They don't call it "cheating" for nothing. Anyhow, there are those who would claim that watching pornography is cheating.

      Actually, once a man has determined that he will cheat on his wife, engaging a prostitute makes perfect sense (as opposed to taking on a mistress or trawling for one-off hookups). A prostitute:
      1. Is always available 24/7
      2. Is always willing
      3. Doesn't take too much of your time
      4. Is inexpensive (how much did that "free sex" cost you?)
      5. Will be attractive
      6. Will have the skills of a professional
      7. Requires no emotional investment

      etc. etc. etc.

      If I were going to cheat on my wife, it would be with a prostitute.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    18. Re:hmm... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, yes. Valid points, all. Prostitution rocks.

      The POINT, however, is that monogamous relationships empower women - specifically wives. Porn interrupts this. Prostitution also interrupts this equally as well.

      The GP didn't mention prostitution as being degrading to women, he specifically pondered over porn. Hence the topic...

    19. Re:hmm... by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Well then, my friend, you're just not thinking it all the way through.

      "Thinking it through" does not count as evidence. Contrary to what you may "think", a lot of research as gone into the questions you're speculating about.

      Woman has spent EONS perfecting her control of the male's life via sexual gratification.

      Human women do not control men through sexual gratification per se. The only artifact of this I can think of is the compulsion men feel to sleep after orgasm. This is a evolutionary adaptation to keep men closer to women after sex to encourage bonding. This is necessary because women are adapted to have sex with several partners per day.

      The very notion of monogamy is centered around a single woman being a husband's source of sexual gratification

      The purpose of MARRIAGE (humans are not monogamous) is to establish PATERNITY OF CHILDREN. If a woman is sleeping around, how can a man determine whether or not the children she bears (the MOTHER of children is rarely in question) are his? Nowadays we have DNA testing, but that's only been around for about 15-20 years. Human history is a lot longer than that.

      When a man wants sex and the woman would rather use it for leverage,

      Marriage is specifically NOT about restricting a man's sexual activity. It doesn't matter if he cheats because that doesn't affect his asset allocation, bastard children don't get any money. And money is what marriages are about. This is why, historically, the punishments for women cheating on their husbands have been MUCH worse than the punishments for men (often, death).

      Marriage is a bargain. A woman agrees to not have sex with other partners in exchange for the man agreeing to help her raise the children she bears. Without the promise not to have sex with other men, the husband has no interest in spending money on children that may or may not be his.

    20. Re:hmm... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Interesting opinion.

      How, exactly, does this relate to porn? Since there's often no significant money involved, does this mean that society accepts porn? I thought the opposite was true.

      Or perhaps you're contending the two (monogamous social norms and porn) are not related?

    21. Re:hmm... by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Where the heck did you get THAT idea?

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    22. Re:hmm... by gerardolm · · Score: 1

      Are you comparing porn to real sex? Wow.

    23. Re:hmm... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Better question: Are you claiming they're entirely dissimilar for any reason OTHER than some kind of sideways insult?

    24. Re:hmm... by gerardolm · · Score: 1

      Well, jerking off to random chick having sex with random guy is far worse than having sex with a girl you like/love/whatever. It has a high psychological factor added to it, and also the fact that you're not using your own hand to... well, you know.

    25. Re:hmm... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they're still comparable.

      Steak vs Big Mac.

      In the end, both are food. If you're hungry and the former is not available, the latter will tide you over until it is, right?

    26. Re:hmm... by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Woman has spent EONS perfecting her control of the male's life via sexual gratification.

      "Woman"? What? Eons? How has she been perfecting control of the life of a single man this whole time?

      Huge layers of our social structure are based around the notion that sexually-powerful women get to select the most worldly-powerful men.

      Huge layers.. what?

      and, as they say, if momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy.

      Who says that?

      When a man wants sex and the woman would rather use it for leverage, he can say 'fine bitch - be that way' and break out the porno.

      Leverage? Is it a substitute? Weren't there prostitutes before porno anyway? Which "worldly-powerful" men being denied? What layers of society? How does --

      Forget it - This is one of those posts that avoids criticism only because practically every sentence contains false assumptions, baseless opinion, and obvious counter-examples, and it'd just be too much effort to do justice to it.

      (And beneath this is the annoying implication that women are whores who seek out rich men and only use marriage and sex as a bargaining tool for "leverage", not out of mutual enjoyment)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    27. Re:hmm... by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      "Most, if not all, polygamist societies are male-dominated, are they not?"

      Yes, but also most monogamist ones.

    28. Re:hmm... by Non-Huffable+Kitten · · Score: 1

      Lots of women prefer to party and sleep with many men when they are young

      I'm intrigued by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Medium cat is MEDIUM.
    29. Re:hmm... by Bronster · · Score: 1

      I do like how your sig sets off the rest of that post so well...

    30. Re:hmm... by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Maybe all that porn watching addled his tiny mind. Maybe he believes he is allowed to do anything he wants to any woman he wants. That's what porn teaches you, isn't it? Porn consumption is all about a power game. This is a natural progression, taking what you learn out into your neighborhood.

      ooo, I can play this game too!

      How about; "I'll bet the problem is he tried for years to avoid porn, never masterbated, told himself that thinking sexual thoughts was sinful and then didsn't realize it as his own natural human needs backed up inside him creating a devient."

      I know that if I go a few weeks blocking my sex drive I start having sexual thoughts more often... and if I'm getting regular sex I tend not to think about it. I'd be willing to bet that it's likely a person who made a habit of repressing their own sex drive would eventually start doing stupid shit.

      Fortunatly, I'm far too nice of a guy to make an alterboy joke...

      Regardless though, watching porn doesn't turn a person into a crazed sex craving monster. Being human does that.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    31. Re:hmm... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      How's that?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    32. Re:hmm... by zobier · · Score: 1

      I was going to say I resent GP's joke, but it's just as funny as the /.er stereotype. (married, 2 kids, regular hot sex =) Never stop exploring.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    33. Re:hmm... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Where some of the confusion lies is that people that write papers on this stuff like to redefine English words into something else. One of the leading authors (can't remember her name) was asked in an interview "what about porn that doesn't harm people". Her reply was "if it doesn't harm people it isn't pornography by my definition". There was stunned silence from the interviewer for a few seconds and the interview was effectively over. It is very difficult to communicate at all on this subject when people redefine English for their own convenience and you really can not be sure what they are talking about.

      IMHO it's a truly sick society that doesn't have a clue of the boundaries when women are arrested for breast feeding and you have the bizzare Janet Jackson Superbowl scandal that should never have resulted in legal action.

    34. Re:hmm... by foolAloof · · Score: 1

      perhaps he/she can do better if he/she tries to explain voyeurism instead of sexual relationships.

    35. Re:hmm... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Given that a majority of men have watched or are watching porn, and the numbers are steadily rising for women too...

      [citation needed]

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    36. Re:hmm... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Human women do not control men through sexual gratification per se. The only artifact of this I can think of is the compulsion men feel to sleep after orgasm. This is a evolutionary adaptation to keep men closer to women after sex to encourage bonding. This is necessary because women are adapted to have sex with several partners per day.

      Both men AND women have the compulsion to fall sleep after an orgasm. If the woman you've having sex with hasn't been falling asleep, then it just means she didn't get to finish.

      :(

    37. Re:hmm... by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Both men AND women have the compulsion to fall sleep after an orgasm. If the woman you've having sex with hasn't been falling asleep, then it just means she didn't get to finish.

      It's not the same. Women are just tired from exertion. For men, "make me sleep" chemicals (I forget the name, shoot me) flood the brain after orgasm.

    38. Re:hmm... by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Correct, they are not related.

      Porn restrictions are largely about religious prohibitions, not marriage per se.

    39. Re:hmm... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      It's not the same. Women are just tired from exertion. For men, "make me sleep" chemicals (I forget the name, shoot me) flood the brain after orgasm.

      That was my point exactly. It's common knowledge that men get a flood of chemicals after an orgasm (one of which is called Prolactin and is sleep-inducting). And it's uncommon knowledge that women get the same exact quantity of Prolactin going into their system and get the same exact urge to sleep than men do.

      I was just trying to correct this common knowledge myth.

  43. How to build your own laptop by InvisiBill · · Score: 1

    OCZ Barebone Gaming Notebook
    Directron's Notebook Barebone Systems

    Granted, the barebones kit is most of the laptop and you can usually buy a Dell with the same configuration for cheaper, but there are a few options out there for "building" a laptop now.

  44. I take it... by Zancarius · · Score: 1

    Killing them would waste all the taxpayers' money that has been invested in him to get as far as he did.

    I take it you've never heard of soylent green? ;)

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  45. Re:The plural of woman is women by GenP · · Score: 1

    *whoosh*

  46. In Soviet Russia by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, webcam watches you!

    Seriously, if a tech tried this on me I think I would get the last laugh. Unless 40 year old overweight men that infrequently shave and are rarely sober are the guy's thing, he's likely to tear his eyes out after looking through my cam back to me.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by genner · · Score: 1

      Unless 40 year old overweight men that infrequently shave and are rarely sober are the guy's thing,

      The law of the internet says there is already porn for this. The corollary is that somewhere some one wants to see it.

  47. Re:Shoot him by cerberusss · · Score: 1

    Yeah, let's set the death penalty for sarcasm, I'm tired of it already :-)

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  48. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by jalet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keys fell from your keyboard but you are still seriously recommending that people buy from Apple ? Are you joking ?

    I've bought an IBM PS/2 keyboard back in 1994, it had never lost any key and still works like if it was still brand new.

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  49. Re:The plural of woman is women by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Whoosh. I mean...

    Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  50. Re:The plural of woman is women by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Give the guy a break. Slashdotters have a hard enough time with the concept of "woman". Now you expect him to get the plural right?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  51. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by tenton · · Score: 1

    Thats one of the reasons I will never buy another apple product ever. They cheat you out of a real warranty (90 day warranty on a $500 ipod?!?!) and there rationelle is "oh you should have baught the extended waranty". Um NO THANKS apple... how about you provide regular standards of support? such as 3 years on a HARD DRIVE based mp3 player. At least 1 god damn year.. jeez..

    whats next apple, forcing me to pay for "service packs" to your OS?

    when your product is so crap that you NEED to buy an extended warranty because it WILL fail, you know that there is something very wrong there

    You do realize that the iPod warranties are one year...and have been for quite some time. Phone support is limited to 90 days, but actual warranty is 1 year. This was the case when I bought my first iPod back in 2003.

    Quote from the Apple website:
    Your iPod comes with single-incident telephone support for the first 90 days and a one-year limited warranty. Purchase the AppleCare Protection Plan for iPod to extend your service and support to two years from your iPod purchase date.

  52. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Just to be fair, the whole "monopoly provider of parts" is true for pretty much any portable product from any company, and really for any consumer product as well. The only place where it isn't true is for things like motherboards on desktop machines where the form factor is standardized and you can substitute off-the-shelf parts. I remember trying to do a repair on a Sony mini-DV camcorder. The power switch was flaky. It still is, though not as badly. Anyway, they wanted IIRC $250 for a small piece of plastic with a power switch and a pushbutton on it. I told them "No thanks. I can buy a new JVC mini-DV camcorder for that," and I did just that. Well, I think it was actually $300, but.... :-)

    It's basically like car parts. If you can find a third-party part manufacturer that you can get the parts from and/or a company that strips down dead cars for parts, you can get the part for a minimal expense. If you can only buy the factory part, you end up spending... IIRC $15 apiece for a bolt with a rubber sleeve from Ford. Pure comedy.

    BTW, for your laptop repair parts, there are companies that strip the things down and sell them for parts. That will usually net you a much lower price than trying to find a part from the manufacturer. If you don't have an extended warranty, shopping around can really save you some bucks. This, of course, assumes that the failure was a fluke and not due to any frequent cause of failures. As always, with "working pull" parts, YMMV.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  53. Re:Shoot him by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We can't keep wasting tax dollars on court cases for stupidity, which is exactly where this case will go.

    You should move to North Korea or China if that's the sort of country you want to live in. I prefer to live where you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and where the punishment fits the crime.

    I'm sick of you assholes trying to turn my country into MORE of a police state. Shoot yourself for treason and save the government the trouble.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  54. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Count me lucky then--20+ years of Apple products and not one cent on extended warranty garbage. I do have a dead 17" monitor that lived for about 8 years and an old Performa that had a motherboard death (replaced for free beyond its warranty period). Oooh, I forgot, about a billion dead hard drives. Man those things suck.

  55. Sue the webcam maker by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > I smell a lawsuit.

    You want to know who I'd like to sue? The idiot who designed the webcam. They all have a light that is supposed to let you know when it is on. But of course it is just software in the windows driver and can be disabled by any idiot with a hex editor. THAT is the crime here.

    You should be able to trust that light. That mofo should be hard wired to go on whenever the CCD is charged or when data is actually being sent. And it should have a delay (a simple capacitor would do) to make sure it stays lit for at least 1.0 seconds anytime it is triggered to stop single frame caps being hard to spot.

    The light's specific purpose is to notify the user and it is obviously DEFECTIVE. A mandatory recall or two would drive the point home to the hardware makers about putting vital safety functions into the driver.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Sue the webcam maker by Kozz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sheesh. Allow me to quote TFA:

      One of the new problems was that the computer's built-in camera light came on every time she was near the machine.

      The sleazeball did no such hex-editor hacking, so far as we know. The light on the camera worked just fine. This is, in fact, what clued her in.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    2. Re:Sue the webcam maker by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Not sure how not only you but a bunch of moderators all failed to read the article... The camera light DID go on, which is one of the things that drew her attention.

      One of the new problems was that the computer's built-in camera light came on every time she was near the machine.

      If the "spy" software was smart it might have been able (depending on camera hardware/firmware) to have been able to turn the light off, but seeing as it didn't the point is rather moot!

    3. Re:Sue the webcam maker by Aczlan · · Score: 1

      The article said that she "Noticed that the light on her webcam came anytime she was near it", so that part worked in this instance.

      --
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
    4. Re:Sue the webcam maker by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      Then the webcam makers will just release a patch.

      As in, a piece of sticky tape to apply over the lens whenever you don't want the camera on.
      Heck, they can even save on the software costs then! Camera is ALWAYS on whenever the patch isn't on. Solved!

    5. Re:Sue the webcam maker by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I didn't actually read the article... but I had seen a piece on the same story on TV and of course any details go right out the window when TV tries to cover ANY story.

      If the light was on, it's HER fault for being clueless and HE should be executed promptly and given his Darwin Award. He thought he could get away with such a stunt with a frickin LIGHT going on and off?

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    6. Re:Sue the webcam maker by Kryptikmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is stunning...

      Aside from the fact that you've had a wee rant about an article you didn't read, anyone who is capable of hacking a piece of software with a hex editor is more than capable of shorting a circuit board or even, y'know, damaging the light (especially if it was already in his hands for technical repairs).

      And on top of all that, why the hell should the webcam maker be sued? Did they provide any guarantees that the webcam could not be hacked? Was it sold as completely secure and unbreakable? No? Then why are you so keen to drag lawyers into it and try to punish a private enterprise for the criminal behaviour of some asshole in an unrelated transaction? How about we don't try to make every single corporation and business run around nannying people in case some idiot with an ambulance chaser tries to make a quick buck?

    7. Re:Sue the webcam maker by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I don't have the link or citation right now, but there was an article on Linux Journal several years ago about using your webcam as a motion sensor. So, yeah, I suppose the camera was equipped with a motion sensor in that you can use the camera itself as one.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    8. Re:Sue the webcam maker by downhole · · Score: 1

      You want to know who I'd like to sue? The idiot who designed the webcam. They all have a light that is supposed to let you know when it is on. But of course it is just software in the windows driver and can be disabled by any idiot with a hex editor. THAT is the crime here.

      You should be able to trust that light. That mofo should be hard wired to go on whenever the CCD is charged or when data is actually being sent. And it should have a delay (a simple capacitor would do) to make sure it stays lit for at least 1.0 seconds anytime it is triggered to stop single frame caps being hard to spot.

      And any idiot with a soldering iron can disable a hardwired LED as well.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    9. Re:Sue the webcam maker by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Umm... the repair tech had physical, unrestricted access to the laptop. If there was such wiring that the light had to go on, then a few minutes with a screwdriver and a micro-soldering gun would correct that.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    10. Re:Sue the webcam maker by mikael · · Score: 1

      Not that anyone could use a pair of wirecutters to cut one of the pins to the LED. The only workaround to this would be use the LED as a a power supply to the CCD.
      But even then, someone could always solder in a patch wire.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    11. Re:Sue the webcam maker by Scatterplot · · Score: 1

      So I gotta ask, how would you tell if your webcam is being monitored? This being slashdot I know it's like asking a mechanic how he knows if a car's engine is working, but forgive me I'm a mechanical guy. It is creepy... sometimes my webcam light is just on. I figured it was some bug, but I pointed it at the ceiling anyways. Is there a way to tell if some random guy was pokin' around at stuff? And no, nobody has been using my computer lately.

    12. Re:Sue the webcam maker by andy.ruddock · · Score: 1

      One of the new problems was that the computer's built-in camera light came on every time she was near the machine.

      RTFA. And I own a webcam which doesn't have a light.

      --
      God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
    13. Re:Sue the webcam maker by andy.ruddock · · Score: 1

      RTFA

      "One of the new problems was that the computer's built-in camera light came on every time she was near the machine."

      --
      God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
    14. Re:Sue the webcam maker by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but wouldn't that require the webcam to be on, which would mean the light would be on?

      If I had to guess, I'd say the cam turned on and took a picture every so often... she just didn't notice it when she wasn't around, obviously. When it came on, if it detected someone in the room, it took pictures more often until they left, which would explain why the light came on and stayed lit.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:Sue the webcam maker by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If you have an antivirus, it apparently hasn't caught anything. If you don't have one, you'd be hard pressed to do a scan of your system, which is the other thing I'd recommend... in that case try getting a free antivirus (AVG is a well-known one) and do a scan. I personally dislike the antiviruses that do on-access scans because they slow your computer down, but I'll admit there is a benefit to having them.

      At any rate, I'd recommend you get a utility that lets you see what's running on boot (try AutoRuns) and Google the names of the programs that it shows. That should give you a good idea of what your computer is doing without your knowledge... you'll probably be surprised how many things like to check for updates when your computer starts up... Java, QuickTime, Real, etc. Most of them are unnecessary and they make Windows take ages to load...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  56. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Profitable for apple" could mean that they aren't making a profit on the warranty and repairs themselves, but they cover the costs easily in the profit of the pc and the customer is so happy they buy more apple stuff later.

    "Not losing your customers to the competition" can have a value too. It's a bit too indirect for most modern companies unfortunately, they seem to instead prefer to give all sorts of incentives to new customers and allow their existing customers to be drawn away by their competitors' new customer incentives. "We'll treat you like crap when you try to claim on the warranty, to make sure you never buy from us again!"

  57. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keys fell from your keyboard but you are still seriously recommending that people buy from Apple ? Are you joking ?

    Let's see... as a former IT guy, I've worked on thousands of computers over the last 20 years. A few dozen have had a key or two break/snap off (typically a well-worn one like a space bar, command key, letter "s", etc.). Probably five or six of those were Apple systems; the rest were mostly a mix of Dell, Sony, and Toshiba. Seems perfectly reasonable that it would happen now and then, even to the best of hardware.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  58. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Dekortage · · Score: 1

    True.

    I did not say it was NOT profitable for Apple. I merely said it was worth it for the customer. Clearly it's worth it for Apple too.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  59. Fool could have covered himself by tsstahl · · Score: 1

    He should have presented these womans (sorry, couldn't resist) with a lengthy terms of service agreement. The spycam language buried on the third page or so would have completely exonerated him.

    A case like this is what is needed to highlight the absurdities of EULAs.

    1. Re:Fool could have covered himself by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Yes I am ashamed of myself.

      ...That's what she said.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  60. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by steelfood · · Score: 1

    You just contradicted your point in the same post.

    It doesn't have to be that there's a losing side and a winning side, just because one side makes a profit and the other doesn't.

    There's always economies of scale. It might cost you $10 to buy a set of those rubber thingys under your laptop, but it might cost Apple $6 to buy them in bulk and ship them to you. Even if you didn't get your money's worth of the service with other broken parts and support calls, and it ends up effectively costing you $8 (out of $250 say) for those rubber thingys, they're still making money, and you're still saving money.

    It works the same way for every company, not just Apple.

    But granted, extended warranties tend to be a massive ripoff, and they tend to be how companies like Best Buy and Circuit City made most of their money. Devices usually fail within the warranty period, or they tend to fail around the life expectency of the device. Very few devices fail in between.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  61. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by joshtheitguy · · Score: 1

    I had a Samsung CRT which I didn't get the extended and one day it wouldn't power on. I sent it back to them and rather then repairing it they sent me a refurb with a huge gouge in the anti-glare coating and several other visual defects. When I called to complain seeing the one I sent them had no scratches in the anti-glare coating they basically told me to go fuck myself in so many words. I guess I wouldn't have minded about the refurb so much if the viewing area didn't have several highly distracting and visually distorting scratches especially when my original didn't have that issue. I decided to get the extended on my new monitor which replaced that one and the extended plan on my current monitor gets me a brand new monitor with no visual defects where as Samsung just gives me some piece of shit then tells me to go fuck myself.

    I personally have had good experiences with extended coverage plans on car stereo equipment, TVs and monitors but that is me and I can't speak for everyone.

  62. HMM by majortom1981 · · Score: 1

    How do you not know that your webcam is on. Both of the ones i have (one intergrated into my laptop and a usb 2 external one) both have lights that come on when they get accessed.

    1. Re:HMM by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      How many of your appliances do NOT have an LED on it somewhere? My toaster has an LED light. My crockpot has them too, come to think of it. I even have a bottle opener with a blinking red LED on the snow man's nose.

      Point is, LED ennui is easy to come by. Though, I still agree that modern digiratti should know better.

  63. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by maxume · · Score: 1

    It could mean that they are doing it for customer relations reasons, but I would be dumbstruck if they were doing it for any reason other than profit (based largely on the assumption that it would be better to simply spend the make-up money on improving quality).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  64. More information by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Local paper article about this. Includes a picture!

    1. Re:More information by Rockabilly_Redbeard · · Score: 1

      His plan was obviously 1. Fix the computer problem 2. Profit!!! 3. Install Spying Software on Webcam 4. Sell Naked Pictures of unsuspecting Women 5. Profit!!! 6. ???????????? 7. Don't go to Jail. It's all about step 6.

  65. Re:Shoot him by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    You keep out of this. He doesn't have to shoot you now.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  66. Re:Shoot him by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > Then get him some therapy and get him back on the streets as
    > soon as possible to be a constructive member of society.

    Might be worth trying once. But the odds are people with those sort of sexual malfunctions are beyond current skill in head shrinking. They repeat offend with shocking regularity.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  67. Re:Shoot him by Psmylie · · Score: 1

    I'm not being sarcastic, it's a speech impediment.

    --

    psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

  68. Re:Shoot him by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Punishments hardly fit the crime here. They are frequently proportional to the social taboo rating of the offense, with a coefficient for "example making."

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  69. Re:Webcam lights... by wattrlz · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's how he got caught, sorta. One of the women noticed that her computer was running slower and a new LED was lighting up when she got close to her computer.

  70. Re:Shoot him by clone53421 · · Score: 1
    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  71. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    And how badly you abuse your hardware :)

  72. Does anybody know the name of the software? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I've got a couple of uses for something like that.

    --
    No sig today...
  73. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Unless you own an iMac, mine is in the shop (AGAIN!) for yet another circuit board and possibly new video card. So that was the best $169 I ever spent.

    I'm not surprised your Mac keeps breaking down if you only spent $169 on it!

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  74. Uh, Glass Houses... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    You should probably ask bob to look over your journal entries before you ask him to look at other posts belonging to other people.

    Fixing the grammar in your stories won't fix your non-sensical ramblings of your crappy life, but it would at least qualify you to make stupid grammar nazi comments.

  75. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    No two ways about it, there are two sides to every story.

  76. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

    An entirely fair point. I didn't necessarily mean to single out Apple with this, it's just that Apple is the only company I've bought an extended warranty from because of this issue.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  77. Re:Shoot him by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Actually, there are probably more cyberbvoyeurs in the countries you mention, per capita, then there are here. Of course, they all work for the government...

  78. Peeping Tom Virus by crashmph · · Score: 1

    A few years a go a dude in Spain wrote a virus to do this same thing. Pretty creepy if you ask me. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2125724/peeping-tom-webcam-worm-created-virus-writers

  79. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    He spent $169 on the warranty, obviously.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  80. Oh hey by kjzk · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, it's just a new feature for Google Maps. Not only do they trespass private property to snap pictures of your home, they also take pictures of the interior. You shouldn't be worried unless you have something to hide... commie.

  81. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 1

    Are you serious? AppleCare for my wife's laptop $350.00... I said no way. She's had it for two years and the hard drive just died, but I replaced it AND tripled her RAM while I was at it for a total of $44 by just ordering the parts myself from newegg. Apple wanted $350 for the repair. I even mounted the old drive in linux and was able to recover some of her data which I probably warned her about 50 times that she should be backing up!!

    Extended warranties are a racket and a rip-off. The manufacturers LOVE them though because they are almost pure profit, most people who buy them never have a single incident and the ones that do almost never have anything which comes close to what they paid for the extra coverage.

    The only reason people seem to think AppleCare is worth it is because Apple charges such insane amounts for simple repairs which people could do themselves for a fraction of that price.

  82. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    The three year extended warranty is dirt frickin cheap compared to any repair you might need down the line.

    That's because Apple has a monopoly on their parts, so they're overpriced to begin with. If you buy a good computer, you shouldn't need all of those repairs, making the extended warranty a rip off.

    The moral of the story isn't, "if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty," it's don't buy a Mac!

    Yes, I am totally aware that I will be modded into oblivion for this. But somebody has to say it, and I have karma to burn.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  83. In unrelated news... by hoofinasia · · Score: 1

    Free web cams to the first 100 (female) customers of my new discount PC repair shop.

  84. MILF by argee · · Score: 1

    The ultimate source for milf pictures.

  85. sure... by wiIIyhiII · · Score: 2, Funny

    that's what twitter wants you to believe. In fact, Anonymous Coward is yet another one of his sockpuppets.

    It's a very elaborate troll.

    1. Re:sure... by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      so twitter existed before the first bit of /.? What are the odds that he'll outlast /.? --cue selfreferenceparadoxmeme-- [picks your laptop an leaves with a bunch of ghosted robots]

  86. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by encoderer · · Score: 1

    That's not necessarily true.

    The actual cost of the warranty repairs could end up breaking-even for Apple. In which case, they'd be making profit from pooling together everyones warranty money and earning 3-10% annually on it. Especially during the first couple years when things are likely not failing.

    If they did this and earned an average of, say, 7% annually, and they compound the interest, they'd make about $40 per warranty over the first 3 years.

    And I think it's safe to say that as an Apple customer, if you didn't plunk down $170 on that warranty, chances are you're not going to invest that money in your IRA instead.

    I'm not trying to be a "know it all" about this, and I have no idea if Apple is actually doing this. But this is how insurance companies work, and all a warranty is, is an insurance policy. So it makes sense to me.

  87. Re:Shoot him by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "I bet your family would rather you be helped than executed."

    Family ties are stronger than logic. Jeff Dahmer's father, for example, was quite supportive.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  88. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Macman408 · · Score: 1

    I used to work for an Apple Authorized Service Provider, and we probably marked up prices at least as much as Apple did - every part we bought from Apple got marked up a fair amount, and that's on top of the $60/hour, 1-hour minimum labor charge. Never mind that, at the peak, I was only getting $11/hour. On the other hand, Apple also has (had?) a flat-rate repair service. For roughly $350, they'd replace anything and everything on a laptop, excluding accidental damage/abuse (which could drive the price up to around $1100, if the screen was involved, or much less for less expensive parts). So that actually acted like a cap on the price of repairs - if we could repair it cheaper ourselves for the individual parts and labor (despite our markups), we would; else we'd send it in to Apple.

    The prices certainly weren't reasonable for RAM, hard drives, and the like - but we sold third party upgrades instead of the "official" Apple service parts when the computer was past the warranty and needed repair. But for the parts prices from Apple, a lot of repairs weren't too unreasonable (though yes, some were horrendous).

    I think where they are able to come ahead is by charging prices roughly equivalent to replacement costs, but then they get the old parts back, which they may be able to fix and reuse.

  89. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by cffrost · · Score: 1

    jalet said IBM PS/2 keyboard. Problems with these keyboards are not reasonable, 14 years of continuous use notwithstanding.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  90. Re:Shoot him by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

    Invasion of privacy is a criminal act, while speeding is a civil offense. Invasion of privacy has a victim, speeding does not.

    Apples to oranges.

    --

    There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  91. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    Hell yes, on any Macbook Pros with an Nvidea GPU.

  92. There's more than one kind of porn, you know by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Porn isn't about sex. It's about power.

    O.K. Then riddle me this: why do _women_ watch porn, if it's strictly about men having power over them? Depending on what study you want to believe, even a _lot_ of women. One study claimed that 87% (yes, eighty-seven percent) of women aged 25 to 39 watch porn. I find that a bit _too_ high to believe, but there you go. Another claim, and from an ACLU activist woman no less, claimed that 40% of porn rentals in the USA are women, for a total of some 160 million videos per year. An erotica magazine claimed the same 40% women among its subscribers. So, you know, us men barely score 50% higher than women in porn rentals (60% rentals by men, vs 40% by women.) Go figure.

    So, you know, why _do_ so many women watch it then? Some even pay for it (e.g., rentals.) Go figure. You'd think that something that blatantly and obviously about power over women, wouldn't turn so many women on. Are so many of you gals secretly masochistic, or what? Or maybe it's not that clear cut at all that having sex is some kind of humiliation and torture?

    Not the power of women over men, as one poster claims. If porn was about sex, why would the most popular pornography be all about humiliation, violence, and torture?

    No offense, but I'd like to see some statistics about that "most popular" claim. Just how much of you find on the internet, doesn't say much about how many people watch that, let alone make it their primary motive there. Catering to niches can be sometimes disproportionately more represented.

    Point in case: gay porn. Pretty much _everywhere_ you turn, you find gay porn thumbnails, although only 10% of the population are gay. A lot of us males actually lose erection at the sight of that, and, at least in the USA, I get the idea that a large segment of the population is outright homophobe. But judging by availability on the net, you'd think the majority of the people get off on male homosexuality. Sometimes extrapolating from an unrepresentative sample gets you that kind of thing.

    At any rate, even so, the vast majority of porn _I_ found doesn't involve any pain or humiliation. Maybe because I'm not looking for that kind of thing. There _is_ plenty of it on the net, but not a majority by any reckoning, and, again, there's actually more gay porn than that. See the previous paragraph.

    Porn is fulfilling and perpetuating a fantasy of punishing women.

    Just repeating it doesn't make it true. There's more than one kind of porn, you know? Much as I hate to rain on your self-righteous parrade (ok, ok, I don't), but not all porn is about punishing anyone in any way.

    Porn isn't sex. Pornography is pimps and johns, outsourced and mass-mediated. When you masturbate to pornography, you are buying a prostitute. The fact that there are technologies of film or video between you and the pimp doesn't change the equation. You're still just a john.

    That may be so, but prostitution doesn't necessarily involve violence either. Pretty much everyone who goes to a brothel here (yes, they're legal), goes there for a fuck. You _can't_ get abusive to the gals there, any more than you could on a woman on the street, because the cops then want to get in the act. And they're as unionized as anything else here.

    So basically again you're projecting your own androphobe ideas there, and have to see humiliation and abuse because that's what you already decided to see. In practice it's a bunch of women who do that of their own free will, same as any other job, and are decently paid for it.

    This is what porn is really about:

    I'd like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:There's more than one kind of porn, you know by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      At any rate, even so, the vast majority of porn _I_ found doesn't involve any pain or humiliation. Maybe because I'm not looking for that kind of thing. There _is_ plenty of it on the net, but not a majority by any reckoning, and, again, there's actually more gay porn than that.

      Actually, it seems that there's been an uptick in the amount of misogynist porn over the past decade. As an avid porn watcher for years, I've noticed a current trend towards more abusive porn - specifically spitting and slapping (not spanking, but across the face) - that seemed to start about 6-7 years ago with some of Rocco Sifredi's stuff (Rocco's Animal Trainer, etc.), and then spreading into things like Bangbus and others. It's almost getting tough to find porn that doesn't involve spitting or a girl being called derogatory names.

      This is not a reflection on the morality of pornography in general, but simply observance of an uncomfortable trend within the mainstream over the past several years.

  93. Related unintentional story... by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

    I bought a webcam from Staples, found the quality poor, and returned it. I could have sworn I did a factory reset, but six months later I started received emailed videos from some families rec room. :S (At the time, I was out of the country, and thought someone had stolen my home security video system, and was a bit freaked out...) But it turns out someone bought the refurb camera I returned, which still had my email notification in it.

    So unintentionally, I was being email bombed by videos from someone else's house. I contacted the ISP of the originating videos repeatedly (Eastlink), which repeatedly ignored me. It took me going to the CTV and getting the story on national news to embarrass Eastlink into immediately contacting the people and resolving the problem. (Staples contacted me upon seeing the story, was incredibly apologetic, claimed they were putting new refurb policies in place, and said they could have tracked down the buyer for me. I didn't realized they could have done this; it would have been an easier route than the media...)

    Contacting the media really worked to get the attention of the ISP. They did make me sound like a bit of pervert (sheeesh, it was a mistake, I wanted the videos stopped from the start!), but at least it had the desired result...

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  94. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by gerardolm · · Score: 1

    Because Dell, Sony and Toshiba computers have a command key.

  95. 9th & 10th Amendments by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not an exhaustive list of all rights. The courts can and do find additional ones from time to time, and that is legitimate.

  96. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Apple is the only company I've bought an extended warranty from because of this issue.

    Likewise. Well, no, I think I extended the warranty on my automobile for pretty much the same reason. Most other stuff is getting cheaper and better with such rapidity that the cost of the extended warranty plus interest is enough to buy you a new one by the time the product fails. :-)

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  97. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

    Interesting, I rejected the extended warranty for my car for similar reasons. I figured that the neighborhood garage would be able to fix any problem I had for far less money than the extended warranty would cost.

    It might depend on what kind of car you have, though. I just have a boring mid-range GM. Maybe if you have something fancier it starts to pay off better.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  98. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 1

    This is what I absolutely HATE about warranties and, in particular, extended warranties that you pay extra for...they imply that you now have rights to service that you otherwise arent't entitled to...which is complete bullshit.

    In Australia, and I'm sure the US too, consumer protection laws will generally provide a level of protection well beyond the conditions stated in the warranty or extended warranty for hardware.

    The "warranty" acts as a mechanism for making a customer think they have less rights than they actually do under the law.

  99. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by evilviper · · Score: 1

    the point is that Apple sells them because they are profitable for Apple, so on the balance, they aren't profitable for Apple customers.

    This isn't necessarily true. You're acting like Apple is just some random 3rd party company offering insurance. But they're not. They are the OEM, and as such, have access to parts at cost, skilled and experienced labor, schematics, and an otherwise huge knowledge base for the product.

    In other words: you may be getting parts under warranty that would retail for more than the warranty, yet Apple may still be turning a profit, either because their unit costs are low, or perhaps because they spend $5 to replace a capacitor and refurbish your busted motherboard, which they give to someone else who paid $200 for a warranty...

    I saw this first hand with cheap-junk (MAG-brand) monitors at Best Buy. The things wouldn't last a year, and even when I took it to my local TV repair shop and paid a $20 testing fee, they couldn't figure it out with a basic check, and couldn't get specs from the manufacturer. So the second time around I got a $50 3-year warranty on the monitor. Brought in the monitor twice, they shipped it to their service facility, (where they no doubt have the specs and equipment) checked it out, and fixed the lose solder joints, burnt out components, etc. Cost to them? Perhaps $20? Meanwhile, I would have had to spend $300+ to buy new ones. And for the record, yes, I did wise-up, and went with another brand, at another store, which has gone for many years without needing warranty service.

    Side-note: I was considering Viewsonic, due to their 3-year warranty, but it turned out that didn't include any of the reasonably-priced ones you'd find in stores, which seems an awfully big red flag... I hear HP in particularly is very good about providing service documentation for all their monitors. But I digress.

    I find the same thing with hard drive manufacturers. When you cross-ship a HDD, the "deposit" fee put on your credit card is less than it would cost you to buy a similar (refurb) drive anywhere else. They may not be making nearly as much profit as a retail sale, but it's presumably still more than it cost them to repair, so still a net profit, versus a consumer tossing it in the trash, and a big savings for the customer who would otherwise have to buy a new, retail drive. Everyone is happy.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  100. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty.

    Why? Cause you'll need it?

    Keys fall off keyboards? Hard drives fail?

    I've used the same keyboard I've had for the last 9 years. If a hard drive fails, there's usually some indication there's a problem before it fails, back it up, scrub clean (dod wipe or other magic rewrite) - use spinrite to enforce the scrub onto the tracks, send into vendor for warranty replacement. Yes, there are hard drives with 5 year warranties - that's where you should spend your money - not on an overpriced Mac.

    If you build your own computer, each component has it's own warranty, and you usually end up spending less than the price of the Mac, but get much better quality components than Apple uses.

    --
    Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
  101. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1
    --
    music lover since 1969
  102. OH JOHN RINGO NO! by argent · · Score: 1

    I could honestly see the hero of "Ghost" using this trick...

  103. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    I bought a Toyota Rav4. The warranty was cheap enough that it paled in comparison with the number of repairs my previous vehicle needed in that range of mileage. Part of that was probably my choice of vehicles, though. Apparently vans and minivans are designed to last about 30,000 miles. Well, the Ford dealer here said I should think about buying a new vehicle at 80,000 miles or at least having the engine rebuilt. Translation: we're too clueless to ifind and repair a simple coolant leak. Took them five days to find the split metal tube inside the intake manifold. I'll walk before I ever let that dealer touch any vehicle I own again, but that's a long story.

    Basically, I had a horrible experience with a Ford Windstar in which a design defect in the engine caused me to spend an entire day tearing down the intake manifold and replacing all the seals, replacing one valve cover, flushing out the EGR hose, and cleaning pounds of oily gunk from the inside of the intake manifold.... I've also split a metal high pressure water line just below the intake manifold, had clogged vacuum lines just above 30,000 miles (which, BTW, was actually the first symptom of the design defect that I fixed at 60k which the ultra-sleazy Ford dealer KNEW ABOUT at the time and neither bothered to fix nor inform me about. Had I taken it to a competent Ford dealer, I'm told Ford actually would have eaten the parts cost that close to the end of the warranty period because the design flaw was well known and well documented at the time....

    There have also been dozens of other problems with the vehicle (flaky rear air conditioner switch causes the rear air to randomly come on when it is switched off, left turn signal becomes a right signal instead of resetting when you turn the wheel, key switch randomly turns interior lights on, low grinding sound when I turn the wheels at low speed caused by some rubber hood rubbing under there), each of which the dealer seems to want $1500 just to look at, most of which I simply lived with because the vehicle was out of warranty before it started falling apart. It has paint peeling on the door. I've had the transmission rebuilt, the starter plate replaced (they noticed it was pretty much shattered when they dropped the transmission), and experienced... two or maybe three blowouts, and I'm still not up to 100,000 miles.

    Before that, I drove a Chevy van whose fuel line clogged up once, which had constant problems with water in the fuel (at least once a year) due to an improperly designed fuel filler, that had some sort of ignition module failure, and whose paint fell off in sheets. Oh, and the rear air conditioner freon line ruptured. Was there anything else? I can't remember. Seems like it had some weird electrical quirks, but it has been too long for me to remember what they were.

    Given how breathtakingly unlucky I've been with new or barely-used vehicles falling apart in the past, getting an extended warranty on the Rav4 seemed like a good idea. :-)

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  104. being on slashdot by nx6310 · · Score: 1

    you'd think someone would give tips on how to avoid this? or at least help with telling others what software packages actually DO this to avoid.

  105. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    IMO the biggest reason for buying extended warranties is that they have access to the right parts quickly and easilly.

    Certain parts on laptops (e.g. keyboards, screen cables) are manufacturer specific and have a tendancy of failing long before the expensive stuff dies. For a warranty repair this is no problem, they will almost certainly have the right part in stock. For a non warranty repair you will have to trawl the likes of ebay and when you do find a replacement it is likely to be secondhand.

    Motherboards in desktops are a similar issue, if you replace the motherboard in a big brand OEM machine with a generic board then the OEM copy of windows will deactivate. You may be able to provide MS to phone activate it but it is likely to be a pain at best.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  106. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    I've bought an IBM PS/2 [wikipedia.org] keyboard back in 1994, it had never lost any key and still works like if it was still brand new.
    That may be but laptop keyboards have to be much thinner than desktop keyboards to keep the overall size of the machine down. This unfortunately makes them flimsier.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  107. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

    Ouch! Well, I can't blame you there.

    As for me, my mileage is much lower (under 40,000) but so far no repairs needed. I'm keeping my fingers crossed....

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  108. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by itguy01 · · Score: 1

    Apple's warranty is well worth it. I mean you pay like 1-200 bucks for a warranty. Ok say your surfin Slashdot and your computer dies...you take it into the apple store and they say oh your logic board is bad that will be 700 dollars please...but wait whats this we have here? you bought the Apple Care plan ok we'll fix it free. WELL WORTH IT!

    --
    ~I bet you were looking down here for an awesome siggy like everyone else..sorry to disappoint~
  109. Move along by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    Seriously, I'm surprised it took this long for something like this to come to light.

    I'm sure the folks at the Geek Squad are glad this wasn't one of their employees for a change.

  110. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    *whoosh!*

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  111. This happened to me by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    A year after I graduated a girl I went to HS with was featured in Playboy as a college issue (from UF).

    Also I am an audio engineer and worked for Good Charlotte at one of their concerts last week and got to meet Paris Hilton. First porn star I've ever met!

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  112. God and Rights by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    The existence of God is not a point needed to be argued in order to understand that all humans have inalienable rights.

    Our rights are inherent in our humanity because humans desire to be free. It's called "natural law". So if you believe we evolved from nature, then you still realize that humans, like animals, have an inherent desire to be free from artificial restraint. If you believe in God, then you realize that being made in His image means that we desire to be free from artificial restraint.

    God vs Nature is another argument entirely, but the existence of our natural and inalienable rights does not hinge on it.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
    1. Re:God and Rights by gnick · · Score: 1

      That is an excellent argument for rights that humans want. Also an excellent argument for rights that humans should have. Also an excellent argument for rights that humans should fight to acquire and defend.

      But I still think that it falls short of an argument for rights that humans have inalienably.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:God and Rights by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Well those rights ARE INDEED inherent. Government is supposed to secure these rights. If you read the US Declaration of Independence you would see this clearly spelled out. For the first time in human history humans were independent.

      The problem is that most governments do not recognize these rights, and the government in the US tends to ignore its founding documents more often than not.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum