It is pointless to secure a system that is to be used by idiots.
A Default installation of XP or Vista is the most secure system in the world for an average user any security beyond that is invalidated by their stupidity. What they need are competent employees then these issues wouldn't exist.
The reason you don't get spam faxes is not so much to do with the lawsuits as it is to do with technology. Email is simply a more effective way of spamming.
Not bad, but I think there needs to be greater transparency for the people in the closed room who view and access the unencrypted feed. A supervisor who doesn't normally work or associate/personalise with the individuals he/she is supervising would go a long way to deter any potential abuse.
However with ISP's I don't max out my line all the time, but I could if I wanted to. It's me who gets to decide when and how I use the service I paid for.
The same applies to phones, I can makes calls anytime I want for as long as I want. Sure if everyone in the area did it there would be a problem but that has never happened and if it did the phone company would have to improve their service or faces severe penalties.
As answered before CCTV is used to track people, street view is not.
There is a world of difference between someone taking a once off still photograph of a public street, something I have done many times myself and having a network of cameras capable of tracking your every movement. There is a remote chance that someone you know might look at your house on street view and be able to identify you emerging from it, but they cannot follow to see where you go or what you do. At most they will be stuck with a single photo taken at an unknown time. CCTV on the other hand can watch you in real-time all the time.
If street view were a live feed then it would be radically different, but it is not a live feed and not even updated regularly.
Slashdot Mirror
Win32.trojan seems to discourage people as well.
The private sector has been dealing with security issues since the beginning, what gives the government the right to intervene and fuck it all up.
This is about disconnecting US companies.
If the Chinese invade we could also nuke each city before they reach it, that would stop THEM from killing American Civilians.
No, but you did kill those poor English chaps while they were "having a cuppa tea"
"internet emergency" read "OMG!!!111 file sharers!!!111"
I am still stunned by the fact that "Christian" and "Science" have been used in the same sentence.
With bit-torrent you don't need "friends" in order to share.
Theft is only a slap on the wrist, hardly even an offence.
So in some ways it would be better to criminalise file-sharing.
The Nazi "ideals" live on.
Because the UK is not a democracy.
There are more files sharers than there are content producers, there for in a true democracy file sharing would be legalised.
*jumping the bandwagon* (its a slow morning)
Yes jackass of course the postal service should be immune.
You can be sure any policy they implement will contain allowances for media companies to do all sorts of unpleasant things.
The media companies forgot to pay the FCC.
It is pointless to secure a system that is to be used by idiots.
A Default installation of XP or Vista is the most secure system in the world for an average user any security beyond that is invalidated by their stupidity. What they need are competent employees then these issues wouldn't exist.
People still use faxes?
The reason you don't get spam faxes is not so much to do with the lawsuits as it is to do with technology. Email is simply a more effective way of spamming.
Email Spammers are less vulnerable to community justice.
Half a house brick and good aim can take care of the loudspeaker truck.
Not bad, but I think there needs to be greater transparency for the people in the closed room who view and access the unencrypted feed. A supervisor who doesn't normally work or associate/personalise with the individuals he/she is supervising would go a long way to deter any potential abuse.
The only place where you can really expect privacy is inside your home. That's always been true.
But for how long?
When there's a camera on every street it becomes less of a deterrent. People soon forget about the cameras being there (remember criminals are stupid)
How about those of us who need our cars. Forcing people to pay for parking only keeps them away from the area.
It is also to prevent them from controlling protocol.
The bad guys of course being people they collect money from.
That's true.
However with ISP's I don't max out my line all the time, but I could if I wanted to. It's me who gets to decide when and how I use the service I paid for.
The same applies to phones, I can makes calls anytime I want for as long as I want. Sure if everyone in the area did it there would be a problem but that has never happened and if it did the phone company would have to improve their service or faces severe penalties.
Because it's just not the same as cctv, in fact it's nothing close.
As answered before CCTV is used to track people, street view is not.
There is a world of difference between someone taking a once off still photograph of a public street, something I have done many times myself and having a network of cameras capable of tracking your every movement. There is a remote chance that someone you know might look at your house on street view and be able to identify you emerging from it, but they cannot follow to see where you go or what you do. At most they will be stuck with a single photo taken at an unknown time. CCTV on the other hand can watch you in real-time all the time.
If street view were a live feed then it would be radically different, but it is not a live feed and not even updated regularly.