Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Patents Guilt-By-Association

Posted by Soulskill on from the but-it's-in-the-cloouuuudddd dept.

theodp writes "Guilt by association is defined as the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty. It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,922, which was awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network Using Links, the invention of three Googlers. In its patent application, Google argues that if an individual posts content to social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. 'that is illegal (e.g., content violating copyright law, content violating penal statutes, etc.), inappropriate for minors (e.g., pornography, "R" or "NC-17" rated videos, adult content, etc.), in contravention of an end user licensing agreement (EULA), etc.', then their friends 'may be likely to post content to their profile pages related to similar topics.' Google further explains: 'For instance, a first user and a second user that are designated as friends on a social network may be friends based upon a set of common interests (e.g., the first user and the second user are both interested in tennis). If the first user adds content to its profile page that is related to sports, then the friendship (link) between the first user and the second user can indicate that the profile page of the second user is likely to contain content related to sports as well.' By extension, the same holds true for porn, pirated videos and music, etc., right? So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?"

145 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. This is simply collecting existing data by DaTrueDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see how it does anything to indicate someone's guilt or innocence. Can it detect trends and probabilities that should be investigated? Sure, but so does a 24-hour tip-line where anyone can call and report suspicious activity.

    This is just a tool that can be used and abused by law enforcement, just like their guns, their search warrants and their overall authority. Society has to give them a certain level of trust to fulfill the duties that we expect of them. Sure, sometimes we get burned. There are bad apples everywhere. But reining in the authority that law enforcement is entrusted with is OUR JOB, not theirs. We, as voters and taxpayers, are responsible for electing representatives who will determine the level of authority that law enforcement gets to use to enforce the law.

    1. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent...awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network...

      Look, we've been over this again and again. Don't fucking social network. Are you really that starved for attention and distraction, that you have no friends you could call or text, that you're willing to give up what little privacy you have for 1,000 fake friends?

      Anybody who didn't learn those lessons during the MySpace days should be smacked in the mouth with a rolled-up newspaper.

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    2. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Funny

      8427 attention-starved people +1 LIKED your shallow narcissistic plea for affirmation

    3. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Police can just check your garbage to collect a lot more clues on your life.
      The problem with these sites it is near impossible to track everyone to make sure they are playing by the rules. However if you can filter down your rules to a smaller set than you can probably run more efficient. Sure if your friend posts a nasty pic, you may be on the watch list. It doesn't mean they are going to kick you off just because you made a watch list.

      However just like in real life, if your friend is a known criminal, chances are you are going to be watched too. You won't get arrested if you do legal things, however you will be under more scrutiny

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I misread that as "Species 8472 +1 LIKED your shallow narcissistic plea for assimilation"

    5. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by stanlyb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean, now i am guilty because i just read your post???

    6. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      You win, man. I've watched every episode of Star Trek ever (even the very dodgy cartoon series) but you just win...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    7. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      It's already been done before. I worked on a system in 2001 that did this sort of thing. This seems like little more than one of those "but on the internet" kinds of patents that seem so prevalent these days.

      Replace "but on the internet" with "but on social media".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Police can't check your garbage unless they have a warrant. The garbage can and the garbage inside are still my property until hauled away by waste management, with which I have an agreement.

    9. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      This may vary by area, but it's pretty common for the law to say that once your trash is on the curb it's abandoned and fair game for anyone to search through.

    10. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Even the one where the Enterprise crew teams up with Satan? (No, I'm not kidding)

    11. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      Police can't check your garbage unless they have a warrant. The garbage can and the garbage inside are still my property until hauled away by waste management, with which I have an agreement.

      They are still your property, but the police don't need a warrant unless it's within your curtilage, which if it needs to be collected it usually isn't.
      The above statement does not take into account local laws, just what's protected in the U.S.A. by the 4th Amendment. It's also possible that you gave WM a key for your locked fence, and they need to enter in order to pick up the garbage, but that would be unusual in my experience.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    12. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to break it to you but as soon as it hits the curb they can search it...

    13. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by PoolOfThought · · Score: 1

      And interestingly those complaining don't see the irony. At every software patent story they shout:

      You can't patent that... it's the same thing as this physical device or existing process... only "with a computer".

      And then this story comes out and they're all:

      OMG...the man already does this in real life... if I hang out with drug dealers they think maybe I'm a drug dealer (or user). But this shouldn't be allowed. This this is different... it's "with a computer".

      --
      My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
    14. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      It's pretty hard to hang out with somebody and not know they're a drug dealer.
      It's pretty easy to have 400 'friends' on a social network and have no fucking idea where they currently live, work or how they spend their days.

    15. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      While the law (and in extension, patents) should not make a difference between RL and internet, people do.

      People wouldn't hand some random stranger posing as the postman their credentials to their cash card. They essentially do that, online, when they fall for a mail scam. Because they feel safe in their home while they're wary at the door since it is the "border" to a non-safe area, i.e. the rest of the world. I don't know about your laws, ours make a huge difference between stealing someone's purse on the street and breaking into their home to do the same, since the damage is higher: A burglar violates someone's "safe space", the place where they feel home, safe and secure. If you've ever been the victim of a burglary, you will maybe know how insecure you suddenly feel within the space that you considered home and safe before.

      The same goes with "friends" (I use the term very, very loosely here) on Facebook. You easily "friend" someone there. Without knowing anything about them. Because you might even share an interest for something completely unrelated to his "crime", or even just because he friended you to gain an edge on some shitty browser game and you hit accept without thinking. Because it just simply and plainly doesn't mean jack to be "friends" with someone on Facebook.

      And that's also how people view it, it just doesn't mean jack. It's not a "friend" you would expect to help you if you're having a problem. It's not a friend you would lend a buck (let alone more money than that). Hell, it most likely ain't even a friend you would tell that you're cheating on your wife, or if, just because you simply KNOW that he can't contact her because he doesn't know more about you than you know about him:

      NOTHING at all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I just hope that there will be someone to ask whether these bastards have no shame.

      I just fear there won't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:This is simply collecting existing data by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Who says they are looking for documents?
      The stuff you toss gives a lot of details about your life and what you have been up too and how many people are living with you.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Statistics by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So,they've managed to patent using statistics? Is anyone actually doing their job in the patent office?

    1. Re:Statistics by alphatel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So,they've managed to patent using statistics?

      No, they patented labeling every teenager as a marijuana user - by association of course.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:Statistics by tgd · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If the USPTO can grant patents on rounded corners(Apple) why not this ?

      Those are design patents.

      If you don't understand patents, its probably best to not comment on patents. And, you don't understand patents.

    3. Re:Statistics by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, actually, they patented this:

      A computer-implemented method comprising:

      receiving at a first server system information related to users of a social network site hosted on a second server system;

      determining by the first server system a social network graph for at least a portion of the social network from the received information, the graph comprising a plurality of nodes connected by links, each node corresponding to a user that is registered with the social network and that has a profile page on the social network;

      identifying first nodes from the plurality of nodes as including content associated with a particular subject of interest;

      seeding the identified first nodes with first scores that indicate profile pages for the identified first nodes are positively identified as including content associated with the particular subject of interest;

      determining second scores for second nodes of the plurality of nodes based on propagation of the first scores from the first nodes to the second nodes using the links of the social network graph, where:

                each of the determined second scores corresponding to a second node indicates a likelihood that a profile page for the second node contains content associated with the particular subject of interest,
                a particular second score for a particular second node is determined based on a combination of scores for neighboring nodes that are connected to the particular second node by one or more of the links, and
                a particular profile page that is associated with the particular second node is determined to have at least a threshold likelihood of containing content that is associated with the particular subject of interest when at least a portion of the scores for the neighboring nodes exceed a threshold score; and

      providing by the first server system the determined second scores for the second nodes.

      If you're dissatisfied with that, put your money where your mouth is, and join us. Currently, the available listings require someone with an engineering Ph.D. or equivalent industry experience, but we will probably have openings for people with 4-year engineering degrees soon.

    4. Re:Statistics by Idbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh well... I'm just really sorry for Kevin Bacon, that guy is going to have a hard time defending himself in court.

    5. Re:Statistics by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      It's a little obvious, don't you think? If you described the problem to someone involved in the field, they couldn't come up with this? On the plus side, it does actually describe an implementation, which seems to be better than a lot of the 'software' patents we see.

    6. Re:Statistics by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Seems to me like patenting behaviour, and judgements based on it.

      Either way. More proof the USPTO needs complete rebuilding.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    7. Re:Statistics by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a little obvious, don't you think? If you described the problem to someone involved in the field, they couldn't come up with this?

      That's like saying "he's a little guilty, don't you think? I mean, look at him, isn't he guilty looking?"
      Obviousness is a legal conclusion that must be supported by evidence - currently, you have no evidence that it's the right conclusion, just a gut feeling that's based on hindsight. To show something is obvious, you need to show that one or more pieces of prior art that existed at the time of filing, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element in the claims. So, for example, the claim quoted above includes "receiving at a first server system" - that's easy... here's a patent from 1995 that shows a server system receiving information. It then says "information related to users of a social network site hosted on a second server system". That's easy, too - we can go back to the original Myspace or Facebook pages. So now, in combination, we've got the entire first line.
      Then keep going.

      If you can do that for everything in the claim, you can prove it's obvious, rather than just alleging it.

    8. Re:Statistics by camperdave · · Score: 2

      The USPTO jumped the shark long ago. A decade ago they issued a patent for swinging sideways. In 1993 they issued a patent for using a laser pointer to exercise your cat.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All of the fuck ups happening on a daily basis at the patent office go to show that even with Ph.D.s, people are fucking morons. Possibly even more so.

    10. Re:Statistics by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

      No offense, but I would hazard a guess that the smartest and most experienced engineers would avoid the USPTO like the plague.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    11. Re:Statistics by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      The statistics indicate that the majority of them are not.

    12. Re:Statistics by Shagg · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you think their job is.

      If you think their job is to only approve valid patents, then no.

      If you think their job is to approve absolutely everything in order to encourage even more ridiculous patent applications (and the fees that go with them) in order to increase the revenue of the patent office, then yes.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    13. Re:Statistics by PoolOfThought · · Score: 1

      You're already a "5, funny" so I'll use my mods elsewhere, but your post was absolutely classic!

      --
      My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
    14. Re:Statistics by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      put your money where your mouth is, and join us [usptocareers.gov]. Currently, the available listings require someone with an engineering Ph.D. or equivalent industry experience, but we will probably have openings for people with 4-year engineering degrees soon.

      That's your problem, right there. You should maybe weight common sense a little higher in your criteria.

      You don't need an engineering degree to spot when someone's describing wheels in obfuscated language or taking something that's existed since forever and tacking "...with a computer", "...on a mobile device", or "...using a 3d printer" on the end.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Statistics by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 1

      First: I'm guessing that this is part of the 'Google Analytics" package already.
      Second: at face value, this appears to be an attack on Facebook, whether direct or indirect (i.e. the 'like' and/or 'share' functions, and the analysis thereof)
      Third: I'm not even sure that this is a proper patent (citing the aforementioned 'rounded edges' issue, which I also believe is an invalid patent) as it appears to be a reworded version of a relatively commonly used calculation, used to predict future. as well as analyze previous 'word of mouth' advertising effectiveness, applicable to both digital and real world environments.

    16. Re:Statistics by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      No, they patented labeling every teenager as a marijuana user - by association of course.

      Nothing illegal about that... at least over here in the great state of WA

    17. Re:Statistics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      One sword could have done a lot of damage, if applied to the courier transporting the note.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Well... by anom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?"

    That is pretty much how people are judged in real life too (minus the word online).

    1. Re:Well... by macbass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that my online company includes friends at locations thousands of miles away, kind of hard to keep up with them like the friends closer by. Additionally, while I haven't RTFA this appears to allow no room for error and assumes my friends are (mostly) mindless clones who automatically repeat or repost what I do. I don't know about you all, but I find this one step closer to welcoming our evil overlords. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Have I not lost my wide-eyed innocence yet?

    2. Re:Well... by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      Informally, yes, but not formally: "Sure he is guilty, his brother is in prison for murder". And on and on.

      --
      Nate
    3. Re:Well... by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      I get around the problem by not having any friends. Either online or in real life.

      I really don't want to be judged by the company I keep on Slashdot. People's tastes around here are just bizarre. Natalie Portman? Covered in grits? Petrified? Let alone the obsession with wanting to Beowulf everything.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    4. Re:Well... by jalopezp · · Score: 1

      I'm not so thrilled about being judged on the company I keep afk either. But the internet is our brave new world, and we would not want to spoil it with the sort of crap we have to put up with in real life.

    5. Re:Well... by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that my online company includes friends at locations thousands of miles away

      And yet, they are still friends. The association begs the question, "Why are they friends?" If you like and share their comments about the joys of smoking pot, even though you live in NC, it is an indication that you lean toward approving of the use of pot. No big deal, in and of itself, but if combined with an extremely large utility bill, and a propensity for buying large amounts of gardening chemicals, even though you live in a town home, and being caught with a large roll of cash, there may be a suspicion that you might be growing and selling pot. At least, that will be the argument used by the police to get a warrant to break down you door and pointlessly ruin your life.

      Birds of a feather, flock together, and you WILL be known by the company you keep. These cliches don't go away just because you keep the company digitally.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    6. Re:Well... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You only say that it's bizarre, because you've never had a Beowulf of Natalie Portmans trying to dig the petrified grits from your pants. Give it a try someday, buddy.

      8*)

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    7. Re:Well... by stanlyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because, my friend, i may wanna to kill you, in my thoughts, but that does now make me guilty. It would, only if i explicitly express my desire, and/or actually do it. But what you say is actually that once that thought crosses my mind, i am guilty by association. Welcome Minority Report, it appears it was not science fiction.

    8. Re:Well... by GatorSnake · · Score: 1

      I get around the problem by not having any friends. Either online or in real life.

      Nice try, but as we know, not participating in social networks also identifies you as a potential threat http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/1627203/facebook-abstainers-could-be-labeled-suspicious

    9. Re:Well... by camperdave · · Score: 2

      I get around the problem by not having any friends. Either online or in real life.

      It's true: magic maverick (2615475) is all alone in the world.

      But he does have a fan

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

      The association begs the question, "Why are they friends?"

      No. I don't see any circular argument or self-referential reasoning there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Well... by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      Who says I'm a "he"? ^_^
      (I'm pretty sure I've never stated whether I considered myself male, female, or other.)

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    12. Re:Well... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Chalk it up to a combination of the language not having a gender neutral pronoun for a person, the fabled gender ratios among Slashdot members, and the unlikely chance that any female here is only going to have just one fan.

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

      At least, that will be the argument used by the police to get a warrant to break down you door and pointlessly ruin your life.

      I am pretty sure that isn't enough information to justify a warrant. Otherwise the police would be breaking in lots of doors, even without the internet.

    14. Re:Well... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Natalie Portman friends YOU!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Well... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Oh c'mon, this is the Internet. Where the men are men, women are men and kids are FBI agents.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Well... by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      Well, at least you don't know that I'm a dog. Wait, why is there an add for chewy toys on this supposed tech site?

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
  4. Pigeonholing without purpose. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bwa-ha-hah. The porn I like is nothing like the porn my friends like, and vice versa. Not even my girlfriend and I agree on porn. I'm also willing to bet that the illegal activities I've done in my life are nothing like the ones my friends have committed.

    Where did Google get this correlation theory? It seems completely counter to my experience of human beings as individuals.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think this is a great excuse to unfriend my mom. She's always posting copyrighted material from the dog shelter she works at and I wouldn't want to be guilty of associating with someone posting material advocating helping homeless animals without the permission of the humane society.

    2. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by hazah · · Score: 1

      'Cause it's impossible to keep a friendship with someone who's some (read, not all) interests might not be your cup of tea. I don't think that's quite right.

    3. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It seems completely counter to my experience of human beings as individuals.

      Well, that's part of the problem. You're not supposed to treat human beings as individuals. That's a bunch of anarchist malarkey. I mean, how else are you going to label and condemn them if they can't be pigeonholed?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by swillden · · Score: 2

      How many of your friends avoid porn entirely due to their religious beliefs? Many of mine do, but I suspect you have different sorts of friends than I do.

      I don't think the concept is invalid, just that you're applying it at too detailed a level, and confusing "more likely to" with "will". Perhaps someone you're friends with is 2% more likely than average to have an interest in something you like. To a human looking at the data without applying any mathematical analysis, such a weak indicator would be completely invisible. And, actually, such a weak indicator is probably useless for any kind of predictions... but it may become very useful when combined with several other weak indicators.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by Urthas · · Score: 1

      Where did Google get this correlation theory? It seems completely counter to my experience of human beings as individuals.

      Hmm. Anecdotal assertion from a /. user versus access to more data than God from Google. Who to believe, who to believe?

    6. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I've had to unfriend someone after the slutty drunken whore got "saved" and everything she posted was a bible verse and she posted at least 10 a day. So yes, if your friend posts enough of the same crap, you implicitly don't mind it enough to break the association.

    7. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by Foolhardly · · Score: 1

      The porn I like is nothing like the porn my friends like, and vice versa. Not even my girlfriend and I agree on porn.

      You may have just validated their point. You, your friends, and significant other all consume porn.

      I'm also willing to bet that the illegal activities I've done in my life are nothing like the ones my friends have committed.

      You and your friends are involved in illegal activity. Put two and two together and you've got a network of people (allegedly) illegally downloading porn.

    8. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      But if you unfriend him, that means that you like to unfriend people....and we all know who does not have friends, the mass murderers LOL. And, by association, all of your ex-friends would be considered mass murderers.
      Man, this whole story is becoming funnier and funnier.

    9. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Do you mean that you like to read crazy statements???? Man, you are guilty by association.

    10. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Man, can you bet your life that none of your friends are watching porn!!! Are you really so delusional about your telepathic skills???

    11. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by hazah · · Score: 1

      Not the point I was making. You may choose to delete her, others may not, and still not care one bit for the verses.

    12. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I would have read that as, If we're reading a post from a Slashdot user who has a girlfriend then by association all Slashdot users have girlfriends... Don't tell my wife. I guess by association that means all Slashdot users have wives as well and are cheating on them with their associated girlfriends. Since some Slashdot users are girls that makes some Slashdot users lesbians so we must all be lesbians by association... I wonder how I'm going to break that to my wife and daughter?

    13. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I never claimed telepathy. They say they don't, and I see no reason not to believe them. I don't watch it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Is there an ignore list on FakeBook?

    15. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Alt-F4 should work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Pigeonholing without purpose. by hazah · · Score: 1

      Yup. that's what I do instead of deleting people who play those stupid games. I don't get the feeds, and once in a while we chat, so not a whole lot of hastle.

  5. Speaking of Which by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Slashdot,

    I'd like to ask you some questions about your ongoing involvement and interview with Hans Reiser ... I haven't seen any activity in CmdrTaco's wife's gmail account for quite some time!

    Sincerely,

    Googlock Holmes

    --
    My work here is dung.
  6. Do not too much evil? by Fishead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And that is why instead of Google Drive, I'm looking for an alternative that encrypts my family photo's rather than analyzes them.

    I don't THINK I have anything illegal in my photo drive, but you never know what may be spotted by a robot looking through my thousands of photos.

    1. Re:Do not too much evil? by spyke252 · · Score: 1

      And that is why instead of Google Drive, I'm looking for an alternative that encrypts my family photo's rather than analyzes them.

      I don't THINK I have anything illegal in my photo drive, but you never know what may be spotted by a robot looking through my thousands of photos.

      You could just encrypt your photos client-side (i.e. before you put them in Google Drive).

    2. Re:Do not too much evil? by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Your baby pictures.

      Chris Hansen would like you to have a seat over there.

    3. Re:Do not too much evil? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Wuala is a service that provides this (cloud storage of client-side encrypted files). The UI is a bit ugly but it works fine. Oh, and at least you used to be able to pay for storage with Bitcoins!

    4. Re:Do not too much evil? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      You could just encrypt your photos client-side (i.e. before you put them in Google Drive).

      Google Drive:

      Identifiable file type: likely dangerous software (malware or virus). Please purchase an antivirus software program and try again.

  7. But But... by hundredrabh · · Score: 1

    90% of the facebook friends I have, I barely know.
    Whatever one more reason not to be party to this social media mess.

    --
    --whacky
    1. Re:But But... by zlives · · Score: 1

      thats why you should use google plus or what ever its called. because you wont have any friends on it so no guilt by associatioin

  8. Oddly good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Google didn't patent this someone else would and then any relationship-linking done by Google would be at the risk of patent infringment. That is a problem with the patent system, not Google in particular.

    This is one of those cases where decent behavior intersects poorly with mathematics. Most of the people I consider friends do share the same view of copyright that I do (i.e. Lawrence Lessig's view) and some of that is simply due to my recommending his book and advocating its principles. That said, Mom is a friend and has never changed any of her views based on my input (e.g. she still runs Windows Vista). So in my single person anecdote I can still see the strong exception and the obvious correlation. Spread over millions of people I'm guessing the correlation between shared views on honesty/dishonesty issues is pretty strong.

    The question isn't about the patent, its about what they will do about it. The people who purchased YouTube, and spent $millions digitizing books are not going to become *AA puppets any more than absolutely required by law.

    So if this idea must be patented (as our current system dictates it must) I'd rather Google had it than Apple or Microsoft.

  9. Lets hope the police take no notice of this bull by second_coming · · Score: 1

    What an absolute load of shite. Just because you are 'friends' with someone online does not mean you do exactly the same things. How many people have people on their Facebook friends list who they haven't actually seen for years? (fucking lots I'm guessing)

  10. This is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I do not and will never have a social media account. Even though my friends are trying to push me to Facebook with them.

    However, even though I do not have a Facebook or other account my pictures are slathered over their own sites, which means that I can be associated with them by facial recognition.

    I love the world we are living in now, privacy has no meaning to most people any longer.

    1. Re:This is why. by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      So, translated, you are anti social guy, and by association are all of your friends....very very interesting...

    2. Re:This is why. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      I held out for a long time, but the usefulness of facebook and meetup for organizing events and activities finally overwhelmed my resistance.

      It's just a pain when there are one or two people in your circle that don't use social media and someone has to call them or send them a separate e-mail to clue them in.

    3. Re:This is why. by Lithdren · · Score: 2

      If my 'friends' view it as such a pain to contact me personally about things they'd like me to personally attend, im not so sure they're really all that great of friends to begin with.

    4. Re:This is why. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Anti social? I dunno, maybe rather "really social" instead of "virtually social"?

      Personally, I prefer that human touch of phone, IRC and instant messenger.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:This is why. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you use Facebook, you're no friend of mine to begin with.

      Sorry, I prefer people who can think further than the end of their nose, and who know that actions have consequences.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. It doesn't seem surprising by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    You see reports in business rags frequently about how dangerous social network sites are; with people getting canned or failing to get a job because of something a facebook friend posted. Your best bet is avoid the mess and don't use the social networks. Really, Google should be patenting simply considering users of social networks a criminal or deviant up front... seems to be the way things are going anyway.

  12. just shows that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you can patent the patently obvious.

  13. There's prior art by RNLockwood · · Score: 2, Funny

    This shouldn't fly. Christians, and perhaps Jews, have believed in original sin in which guilt has been transferred from Eve for millennia. They published but didn't file for a patent.

    --
    Nate
    1. Re:There's prior art by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      No, see, this is different because it's on a social network now. Take all the patents that were granted in the past 20 years that were obvious but had 'on the internet' appended and start appending 'on a social network'. That'll be the next 10 years of crap patents.

    2. Re:There's prior art by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But they neither did it on a computer, nor on the internet, let alone on a social network. So it's patentable because it's all new.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:Kevin Bacon by second_coming · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Kevin Bacon does anything dodgy, we're all fucked

  15. You hvae 0 friends by Krneki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, the more friends you have the bigger criminal you are?

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:You hvae 0 friends by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Ah, the silver lining to the story.

  16. nothing to see here by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have retarded patent, copyright, and trademark laws in the US. This is not news.

    DING fries are done

  17. Invention? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    How is that a new invention?

  18. And you guys .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And you guys disparage us ACs.

    Just think of the trouble we could get into with all these people here who think that Anonymous are heroes, downloading music and movies without paying isn't stealing, etc ....

    1. Re:And you guys .... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Anonymous may not be heroes, but they sure are good for my business!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Yes, Very Comfortable by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "By extension, the same holds true for porn, pirated videos and music, etc., right? So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?"

    Definitely. Most of the people whose company I enjoy favor a liberal interpretation of the authority of copyright and prefer adult-oriented content to PG and lighter fare. They speak ill of their government when it is justified (and sometimes when it is not) and accept that the four boxes of liberty are all unfortunate necessities. And they believe that even suspected terrorists who worship the wrong deity are endowed by their creator with the rights documented in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

    I rather like that sort of person, and hope that the world sees me as one of them. I think people who are not proud to fit that description tend to lie somewhere between pretentious and dull, and are detrimental to our advancement as a productive, open, honest, and self-aware society.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:Yes, Very Comfortable by geek · · Score: 3, Funny

      "By extension, the same holds true for porn, pirated videos and music, etc., right? So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?"

      Definitely. Most of the people whose company I enjoy favor a liberal interpretation of the authority of copyright and prefer adult-oriented content to PG and lighter fare. They speak ill of their government when it is justified (and sometimes when it is not) and accept that the four boxes of liberty are all unfortunate necessities. And they believe that even suspected terrorists who worship the wrong deity are endowed by their creator with the rights documented in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

      I rather like that sort of person, and hope that the world sees me as one of them. I think people who are not proud to fit that description tend to lie somewhere between pretentious and dull, and are detrimental to our advancement as a productive, open, honest, and self-aware society.

      Definitely. Most of the people whose company I enjoy favor a conservative interpretation of the authority of copyright and prefer family-oriented content to XXX and lighter fare. They speak positively of their government when it is justified (and sometimes when it is not) and accept that the four branches of liberty are all fortunate inheritances from our forward thinking founders. And they believe that self proclaimed terrorists who twist and contort their religion into a religion of hate instead of peace and wage a holy war on the West deserve to be rebuffed in the most forceful manner necessary.

      I rather like that sort of person, and hope that the world sees me as one of them. I think people who are not proud to fit that description tend to lie somewhere between naive and immature, and are detrimental to our advancement as a productive, open, honest, and self-aware society. However many of my close friends also fit this description and it doesn't affect my relationships with them because life is about more than politics, regardless of what the sitting President of the United States says.

    2. Re:Yes, Very Comfortable by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, because "adult" always means pornography. And copyright infringement is murder.
      Also, politics is applied philosophy, and philosophy is applied thinking, and thinking is life.
      So while life is not politics, politics is life. You deprecate it to your own detriment.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    3. Re:Yes, Very Comfortable by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, if the English had won, Washington would have entered the history books as a terrorist.

      The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is basically whether he's for or against us. But then again, what's in a word, what's in a name...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Re:Lets hope the police take no notice of this bul by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

    http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/239239/poll-based-system-predicts-us-election-results-for-president-senate

    Given the proper algorithms, statistical analysis can produce very accurate results. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not as simple as one friend you haven't seen in years posting something once correlates to you doing that same thing as well.

  21. Would I feel comfortable? by Bramlet+Abercrombie · · Score: 1

    No, go to hell you fuckin' Nazi's

  22. Too late by PPH · · Score: 1

    The police and other agencies have been doing this for decades. Google Joe McCarthy.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  23. Re:Lets hope the police take no notice of this bul by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    The police already do this. And it works just fine.

    Sure there no guarantee that just becuase you have a friend who plays a lot of board games that you do. But there's a better chance that you do than that some random person does. If you have 20 such friends who all play board games the probability is higher still.

    In the police work field, if you keep associating with known criminals you'll be getting a closer look at than a random person. Doesn't mean you are a criminal and it certainly doesn't work as proof for anything.

  24. As always, a sensationalized story by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    The Google patent covers, in short, getting an expectation of a user's content by reviewing the content of their friends.It's a generalization of PageRank, but instead of looking only at a single numeric value for a site's worth, it looks at various other criteria.

    The only meaningful "guilt by association" reference is claim 12:

    12. The method of claim 1, wherein the particular subject of interest comprises at least one of the group consisting [of] adult content and illegal content.

    Claims that short are usually defensive, to prevent trolls from getting a patent of "do this prior art, but looking for porn". Now Google can use their algorithm for content filters, without fear that a troll will use their own work against them. It is interesting that that's the only particular subject mentioned, but that's not very meaningful, since the general method is patented in claim 1. It could just be a writing technique to patent the technique and have the given examples be specifically covered. IANAL, so I'd love some lawyers to explain if there's something odd here.

    As usual, it's a benign patent on a data mining technique that Slashdot whips up into a frenzied sensational theory about corporations working to quash the individuality of the common man.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  25. So... everyone is guilty considering..... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

  26. It's not who you know, it's who you hate. by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing illegal in your photo drive?

    Do you have a flag of Taiwan in a picture? Perhaps you took a picture of your car? (Especially if you post it on your company's vanity page...) Or maybe there was a stranger in the background?

    It's not so much what is illegal in your photos, as it is "who takes offense at your pictures". And when anyone can sue (civil court) anyone for anything, there doesn't even have to be a law against it.

  27. stupid bullshit by Nyder · · Score: 2

    Growing up I didn't smoke cigarettes (still don't, never got into that), but a lot of my friends did, buy this study, I would of been labeled a cigarette smoker.

    Later on, a lot of the people I knew had felonies, I never had, but I guess I would be guilty of that also.

    I have gay friends, so I guess I'm gay also (I'm not, but according to this I would be...)

    My friends are a lot of things I am not, but now, maybe I am...

    --
    Be seeing you...
  28. Not statistics by Epeeist · · Score: 2

    So,they've managed to patent using statistics? Is anyone actually doing their job in the patent office?

    Nah, they have managed to patent a logical fallacy.

    1. Re:Not statistics by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The "guilt by association" in the article is NOT the 'guilt by association" in that logical fallacy.
      What Google is saying is, "birds of a feather, flock together" (its a saying, and they got a patent for it?)
      If you are on a basketball team, chances are all your teammates are your "facebook friends" (or whatever) What Google is saying, is you like basketball, so there is a good chance your friends do as well. It seems pretty obvious to me, although I don't quite understand the patent enough, but it doesn't really seem to be saying anything more than that.
      What it comes down to, is you have a connection with your friend. They are claiming that they can guess what that connection is, and therefore know something about your friend.
      Still don't see what is patentable here.

    2. Re:Not statistics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it is not reversible. Sure, RL friends and people who know each other well in RL will most likely also friend each other on facebook. The problem is that the reverse, i.e. that Facebook friends are also real friends, is not true. But that is exactly what this claims to be true.

      You may of course construe that if I like basketball and someone on my friend list likes basketball that this common interest brought us together. The fallacy is to assume that we share any other interests. For example I enjoy tinkering with microcontrollers. I create small projects, usually in the field of home automation. Of course, microcontrollers can also be used to create creative timers or triggers for bombs. In other words, I might well share the interest for microcontrollers with some terrorist. I also frequent a few message boards dealing with MCs, and I tend to answer questions there. Should I now start to question people's intentions before sharing information? What has the world come to, when information becomes illegal something is REALLY going wrong.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. With only 6 degrees of separation between us by thereitis · · Score: 1

    I guess the whole world is guilty.

    1. Re:With only 6 degrees of separation between us by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Should be easy now to get a warrant for ... well, anyone that bothers us.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. You've got it REVERSE! by mha · · Score: 1

    Excuse me, when you file a patent you have to prove THAT YOU HAVE A CASE (for getting a new patent awarded). You describe it the other way around, we (the PTO, whoever) have to prove that it's not a valid patent, with a default of "award it"???

    Nuts! (Sorry, but that's how I describe this reversal or who has to prove what).

    1. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Excuse me, when you file a patent you have to prove THAT YOU HAVE A CASE (for getting a new patent awarded). You describe it the other way around, we (the PTO, whoever) have to prove that it's not a valid patent, with a default of "award it"???

      Nuts! (Sorry, but that's how I describe this reversal or who has to prove what).

      Excuse me, but I am a patent attorney, and you're wrong. Maybe you're describing the way you'd like the law to be. It's currently the way I said.

    2. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by mha · · Score: 1

      You are not saying much. If a file a patent, do *I* have to file proof, or does *THE PTO* have to prove me wrong, and if they can't/don't they have to award the patent?

      THAT is what you said - it is not quite clear, since it is a reply to a reply - so I would just like you to confirm.

      PS: Is slashdot so d$%&n slow for others too? Not just today, even loading the homepage takes 5-10 seconds, each time.

    3. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are not saying much. If a file a patent, do *I* have to file proof, or does *THE PTO* have to prove me wrong, and if they can't/don't they have to award the patent?

      THAT is what you said - it is not quite clear, since it is a reply to a reply - so I would just like you to confirm.

      The latter - the PTO has to prove you wrong, and if they can't, they have to issue the patent. It's because of 35 USC 102, which says that an applicant "shall be entitled to a patent" subject to the requirements of the Patent Act. It's similar to the "shall issue" firearms licensing statutes that require the police to issue a permit unless they can prove that you're unfit.

    4. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Excuse me, but I am a patent attorney, and you're wrong."

      Considering I hold several patents, and the process has worked exactly opposite of how you describe in the seven years of filing for those patents, I think you might want to get a refund from your school.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      "Excuse me, but I am a patent attorney, and you're wrong."

      Considering I hold several patents, and the process has worked exactly opposite of how you describe in the seven years of filing for those patents, I think you might want to get a refund from your school.

      Really? You're seriously claiming that you filed a patent application, and the only thing the USPTO said was "prove that your claimed invention is new, useful, and nonobvious" and they waited for a response from you before issuing it? That they didn't issue an Office Action that contained one or more rejections over prior art for you to rebut? That's what you're claiming?

      If so, I'm calling you a liar. An easily provable one too: identify one or more of your patents. The file histories are publicly available.

    6. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Shagg · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but I am a patent attorney

      You'd probably have better credibility if you didn't share that bit of information.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    7. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by mha · · Score: 1

      In that case I still keep my "Nuts!" comment, but no longer point it at your comment, but at the patent law. And you have my sympathies - I think I like MY job even more now...

      I don't believe in that patent stuff at all anyway - I'm German, after all, and the way we got to where we are was through COPYING (British machines). I would be a hypocrite to defend patents now, just because now WE have the machines and somebody else copies them. The whole world is nuts.

    8. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      In that case I still keep my "Nuts!" comment, but no longer point it at your comment, but at the patent law. And you have my sympathies - I think I like MY job even more now...

      I don't believe in that patent stuff at all anyway - I'm German, after all, and the way we got to where we are was through COPYING (British machines). I would be a hypocrite to defend patents now, just because now WE have the machines and somebody else copies them. The whole world is nuts.

      As a funny aside, Switzerland used to have no patents, and yet was in compliance with international treaties like the Paris Convention because they treated foreign inventors exactly the same as they did their local inventors: no patent protection for anyone. Their reasoning was that Switzerland had so few local inventors to protect, and they wanted to steal technology from other countries. It was in fact your country that first got pissed off at them and threatened all sorts of economic pressure if they didn't implement a patent law, because they were upset at the Swiss stealing German inventions.

      So, I guess everyone's a hypocrite. :)

    9. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The latter - the PTO has to prove you wrong, and if they can't, they have to issue the patent.

      I've just invented a knerbweg for throoling a morginated comdowuler via a plirkitwang.

      Can you disprove that?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      The latter - the PTO has to prove you wrong, and if they can't, they have to issue the patent.

      I've just invented a knerbweg for throoling a morginated comdowuler via a plirkitwang.

      Can you disprove that?

      Sure... It's unpatentable under 35 USC 112 because your terms are undefined, and you'd receive a rejection on those grounds. You can rebut it by providing explicit definitions.

      I mean, really... You think the USPTO never thought of that?

    11. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No, I had no office objections ever filed. Probably because I make absolutely unique things.

      But it was as simple as filing my patent, paying the application fee, and waiting. Issued patents. No challenges, no questions, NOT ONE THING.

      Couple years later, patent acceptance in the mail.

      "If so, I'm calling you a liar. An easily provable one too: identify one or more of your patents."

      My NDA from the Department of Agriculture forbids that, unless you carry DoD clearance issued via investigation higher than ANACI.

      Give me that and we'll talk.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      No, I had no office objections ever filed. Probably because I make absolutely unique things.

      But it was as simple as filing my patent, paying the application fee, and waiting. Issued patents. No challenges, no questions, NOT ONE THING.

      Couple years later, patent acceptance in the mail.

      "If so, I'm calling you a liar. An easily provable one too: identify one or more of your patents."

      My NDA from the Department of Agriculture forbids that, unless you carry DoD clearance issued via investigation higher than ANACI.

      Give me that and we'll talk.

      Bullshiat.

      First, all issued patents are public documents, published under 37 CFR 1.11. They are open to the public for inspection, and cannot be under any non-disclosure agreements or secrecy orders, by definition. If your so-called "issued patent" was under a secrecy order under 37 CFR 5.2, it would be just an application, not issued by definition, and it would not have ever been examined. Got it? There are no such things as secret patents - there are applications that the military stamps "secret" on, that go into a locked file cabinet and never, ever get inspected. They aren't issued - they're withheld from being issued. If that's what you're claiming to have, then it is not and never was a patent.

      Second, why would the DoA even care about a DoD clearance? Somehow, I doubt your "method for fingering a pig" really is crucial to national secrecy.

    13. Re:You've got it REVERSE! by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Okay, how about your name? I hope that's not classified. Then we can just look it up that way.

  31. Linked in by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    "So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?" That is pretty much how people are judged in real life too (minus the word online).

    Yeah, when I joined linked-in I "connected" only to the most competent people I knew at first. I had just assumed people would judge me by the quality of my connections. Then the requests started coming in larger quantities. Not sure what to think, the more connected you are the more someone will find you but it seems like you'd be less relevant as as well. Once everyone is connected to everyone else it's just a directory of people.

  32. I'd like to go with C: Indifference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this, and most people in general, throw out the 3rd option of indifference? Do you have to "lean" toward or "lean" away from all things? Can you not, just, not lean?

    If my friends promote piracy, illicit drug use, what-have-you, do I have to approve of it because we're friends? Do I have to not be friends with somebody that does something like that if I don't approve a single particular facet of their interests?

    Can't I just not care at all? Where are the ethics and philosophy studies here?

  33. Pedophiles by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    MOST pedophiles (vast majority) abuse kids of friends or family.

    So, a teenager who is "abused" by a relative and was or is friends online with the pervert will then end up profiled and guilty by automated association when the pervert is caught.

    This extends to all sorts of things. As people become touchy wimps who tolerate less diversity among their friends (Americans are the worst as far as I know) the expectation that like minded people congregate will become stronger. This start with extremes like perverts and progress towards HR people skipping you over because of characteristics of your friends. You might not put your life open for the planet to judge you but your friends might--- so then you have to police them because they can indirectly harm you by exercising their freedom to be foolish.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
  34. Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

    YO would be considered statically likely to smoke; which is true.

    "Later on, a lot of the people I knew had felonies, I never had, but I guess I would be guilty of that also."
    No. Assuming you were hanging around them when they committed the felony, you would be statistically higher chance of being a felon.

    and so on.

    Of course the number per example you give vary on many factors.
    If you are in a gay bar? there is a very high statistical probability that you are gay. Is it 100%? no.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. Re:Lets hope the police take no notice of this bul by tragedy · · Score: 1

    The problem with the theory that is "works just fine" is how you know it works just fine. The justice system in the US works on the principle of giving people a choice between a plea bargain with a relatively small sentence and a jury trial with a significant risk of a much harsher punishment, guilty or innocent. Oh, and that jury trial comes with a price tag high enough to destroy a person's life, guilty or innocent. The logical choice for most individuals, even the innocent, is to take the plea bargain. Given that, it's really hard to figure out whether or not the system actually works. Prosecutors and police tend to skip this dilemma by looking at conviction rates and concluding that things are working perfectly, unless someone is found not guilty.

  36. Don't worry by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    The patent system is totally not broken, says the guy who wields the biggest arsenal of patents. No reform needed! ^_^

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Don't worry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Also in the news, lobbyists inform us that laws against corruption are completely sufficient.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. real friendship requires reflexive property by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
    True friendship requires reflexive symmetric friending by both parties.

    :)

    Strangely, "friend"ing is not a symmetric/reflexive property on Slashdot/FB/most-other-social-or-sociallyinept-website. A friending is a one-way directed arrow. Which is closer to real life. I can claim "B" as my friend, by "B' may disclaim me and say that I am not a friend of hers. "A" Alice may claim that she considers me to be her friend, but I may claim that "A" is not my friend. So really, claiming that you consider someone to be a friend is different from the reflexive property of "being friends" where both "A=friendof(B) and B=friendof(A)".

    Luckily, /. distinguishes this by labeling people as fans when they have friended you. It also provides transitive links to FOAF (friends of all friends) and FkOAFk (freaks of all freaks). Shouldn't the enemies of those who consider me an enemy be merged into my friends? And how does "Love means never having to say you're sorry" fit into this scheme/schema? ;>p

  38. Re:Well... that takes the cake... by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    So conversely, having one fan right now means I not a female? And my gender-status will change once the number of fans I have changes? I know some people like to believe that gender is mutable, but sheesh, that really takes the cake! And I don't have any cake left!

  39. Re:Well... that takes the cake... by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Both your nickname and your ID number indicate that you're new here. Give it a while. :-)

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  40. Re:Kevin Bacon by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That could easily put some innocent people into hot water, especially if two interest groups (one legal and one illegal) have a high cross section. Like, say, people interested in P2P protocols and networking and people interested in copyright violation.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. Re:Prior art: NSA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And? Did they publish?

    Sucks to be them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  42. Re:musing patents by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Hmm... let's see...

    Who has an interest to keep patents how they are now? Big corps. Who could change the laws? Politicians. Who gives them money for their campaigns?

    See the circle?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. Time to take out the trash by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Time and again politicians are caught red handed as corrupt, lying thieves who don't give half a shit about the country and only care about themselves and their cronies. I think it's about time to round up congress, they all somehow associate in a way or another with the crooks, hey, they are even in the same party (since there were politicians from BOTH parties that have been shown to be crooks, it works out, don't worry).

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. Only consequential by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Remember Charlie Miller, the hacker Apple hates so much he was banned for a year from the App Store? Google barred his wife from an Google Play Store developer account because "I got banned for being 'associated' with @jonoberheide. My wife got banned for associating with me."

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  45. Doe-eyed idealist here... by schmookeeg · · Score: 2

    But wouldn't this patent allow Google to sue for infringement any agency like the MPAA/RIAA who used techniques like this to find people to sue?