So, due to privacy concerns, the EU dislikes Google storing data on its users, but forcesISPs to retain data for two years? Under the catch-all excuse of 'terrorism' no less.
In the US on the other hand privacy laws generally cover government actions while the business sector remains largely unregulated. Is it perhaps time to follow the European example and extend privacy laws to include corporations?
They could follow each others example: the EU could introduce laws to stop government snooping, whilst the US introduces laws to stop corporate snooping. Personally I find the EU government snooping worse than Google, at least Google is a product choice, government laws can't be worked around. Although the purchase of Double-click does make Google's tracking somewhat difficult to avoid when surfing around.
Failing that, just use Scroogle and/or Tor and/or an ad-blocker.:)
People working in an industry that routinely and without irony refers to "pipes", "sockets", "channels" and "flow" to describe data internetworking are in no position to laugh at people who (quite correctly) describe the Internet's structure as a "series of tubes".
It's not really the 'series of tubes' bit that's funny, that's just a tip of the hat to the rest of his random and weird comments. I also didn't find this funny before reading the rest of it.
Hey, I might want to buy an airplane, or rent a room - being able to find one is a legitimate service!
Absolutely right. Am not advocating taking down all sites with advertising, it's obvious the sites you pointed to are providing a service. I've used sites similar to those in order to find hotels and restaurants, tourist attractions and flights before now. They may be a bit scummy, but there's a whole world of difference between them and: webmaster-forums.com for example. I'm sure the spammers would like to blur the lines between useful and spam as much as possible, so their crap is indistinguishable from a real site. This would be difficult to police.
2) Who is going to police it? Really? With the bazillions of domain names expiring every year, policing this is just an absurd task.
Well this could be done by complaints, when someone complains a spammer is holding their domain for ransom ICANN could investigate. If the spammer is abusing trademark or not using the domain for anything other than spamming it should get returned to its rightful owner or put back into the pool of free domains.
Since this is a hypothetical situation I'd like to see/. police it. That or some other on-line community with more sense than the world governments. Could be funny, we'd probably see microsoft.com redirected to ubuntu.com or goatse though, which would be funny but not wholly fair.:)
3) Just because I haven't done anything yet with a domain, EG: doesn't mean I don't have plans for it. Granted, the plans may be a year or more before completion, but that's not to say that nothing is happening!
I concede this point, although it would be somewhat fair if you knew what the deal is when you buy a domain. As long as the same rules apply to everybody: get something useful on your domain in a year or it could go back into the pool.
4) And even if problems 1 to 3 could be addressed, whose standard are you going to apply? Remember, the Internet is INTERNATIONAL and ICAAN is more of a technical body than a regulatory or legislative one.
True, but your solution requires that ICANN do more than just the technical too. Maybe it's time to have a different international body to look after the legislative arm of the Internet. I like your idea though. It's pretty much what I'm advocating, but better explained.
3. Renew your domain name registration on time (for fuck sake)
I have and do, as said it wasn't my mistake. But yes, you're absolutely right.:)
4. If someone buys up your domain when you're not looking, sue them for trademark infringement.
Ahhh, how easy that is said yet how costly it would be to do. I will certainly take you up on your advice when I have as much free cash as the spammer that is the subject of this article. Maybe I should spend less time on/. and more time working!
5. Stop complaining on Slashdot.
Why? You think this guy isn't doing something scummy? Am not looking for a shoulder to cry on here, just warning people what these spammers are like.
No, I was involved with running this site for a number of years before buying it. We own (and owned) several variations on the domain name of the site. Imagine the joy of sending everyone on the member list an e-mail saying: 'don't use the.com to visit us, use the.net instead'. The previous owner was somewhat useless, hence why he was selling it.
Wow, bet you're pleased you asked now (that was a joke, well sarcasm anyway;) )
Sorry to double-post but I missed something in TFA that/.ers might need to be aware of:
Until now Ham has never talked publicly about his business. You won't find his name on any domain registration, nor will you see it on the patent application for the Cameroon trick.
(emphasis mine) Patent application?! He's patenting being a scummy bastard and redirecting.com domains to.cm? Wow, just wow.
Having been on the wrong side of 'cybersquatters' this is an issue close to my heart. I wouldn't mind if these people took a domain and did something useful with it, but instead they just plaster it with advertising and watch the cash roll in.
Am not even that bitter (it wasn't even me that lost the domain but the previous owner of my site), what makes me angry is the way these people just leech ad views without giving anything back. Scummy blighters, the lot of them!
Problem is what should be done about these people? It's not as if the government(s) of the world are competent enough to deal with problems like these (tubes anyone). ICANN is the organisation we should turn to: perhaps make a rule that the owner of a domain has to actually do something with it within a set period of time (say 6 months to a year). If all they've done in that time is plaster it in advertising (or have done nothing) it should return to the pool, perhaps with a bar disallowing the ghastly spammer from buying it again for a year.
This is pretty controversial and I suppose if someone pays for something they have a right to do what they like with it. That doesn't detract from the fact that these people are like parasites, filling the Internet with rubbish and getting in the way of those of us who just want to provide a service.
I guess its times like these when it is good that there still are some news organizations independent of the big media conglomerates.
Quite right, think about how it's funded (license fee from the British people). I believe PBS is the nearest thing available in the states, maybe more people should think about donating to them? I don't know what they're reporting is like, or whether they're truly independant, but there is certainly a need for media run and governed by the people, not private corporations.
On a more on-topic note: I have memorised that key. Does that mean I am guilty of thought crime? Could the AACS send a DMCA takedown notice to my brain?
I like how this article is juxtaposed with the MPAA story 'MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM' below. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this legal action have been threatened under the auspices of the DMCA? A bill which was bought and paid-for by the MPAA?
As someone else pointed out the corruption is not in the US government but with the companies supplying IT services to them. Practically every large company in IT seems to be involved, from Microsoft to HP, IBM and Sun. Which is annoying for those of us who love a good Microsoft bash, it seems they are not the worst offenders in this case.
As I read it the/. economic model for these scams goes something like this:
Company A has a contract to provide US government with an IT solution
Company A looks to Company B to provide part of that solution (some specific software product or service)
Company B gives Company A a discount for purchasing their services
Company A charges US government full amount that would be charged by Company B without the discount
???
Profit!
There seem to be other variations on the theme, such as giving share options instead of discounts. Either way the US government have been overcharged it seems. Hope I'm right about this as it's a complex issue and the article is a little vague on the details, that's why I thought this summary would be useful.:)
Care to back that up with an actual reference for those of us in the uninformed masses?
Have a look at the Halloween documents. They're leaked memos from Microsoft, I think you'll find all the evidence you need in there. Here's a good quote:
OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.
No, an unbiased observer would probably see this as an extension of student discount programs Microsoft already offers or an attempt to make a little extra money from markets that currently bring in none.
It's interesting that the summary only surmises what an unbiased observer might wonder, whereas you claim to speak for all unbiased observers. You are clearly a Microsoft fanboy, therefore not an unbiased observer. I don't believe it takes a 'free software zealot' to realise that this move is as a direct result of the OLPC efforts. Microsoft are rightly worried they're going to miss out, losing market share to FLOSS. I would be worred if I were defending an outdated business model with an uncertain future too.
The BBC is pretty unbiased when it comes to technology and they made the comparison between this and the OLPC, or did you not bother to read the article? Even if they aren't unbiased they're certainly not 'free software zealots'.
Whilst it's unfortunate that you're a Microsoft fanboy I do applaud your spelling of the word 'arse'.
Linux is great, I use Ubuntu, but that is one funny photo. It's like he's posing for a catalogue or something. Or maybe: 'Shuttleworth, for men. The new Open fragrance from Mark Shuttleworth'
A review by Richard Stallman said: 'It smells like GNU piss, and did nothing to cover up my body odour!'
/ontopic
His comments on Beryl/Compiz are quite telling. That's a fork that should never have happened. Also interesting are snippets about Canonical customers (from the article):
We have installations of several 100.000 machines in spain, obviously you know that Google uses Ubuntu on all of their developer desktops.
[...]
As an example, Lufthansa has all of there pilots use Ubuntu on their Laptops, cause they are constantly in different hotels using the WIFI-system and they don't want to get spyware and viruses.
[...]
I'm extremely happy with our relationship with Sun. It's been very good for us, it's been the first major server vendor to adopt and embrace Ubuntu. So that's given us entry to customers that we wouldn't have otherwise had access to.
[...]
derStandard.at: Initially the development of Ubuntu was mostly financed by your private funds, is this still the same or is this already changing?
Mark Shuttleworth: Well, it's changing, but it's not completely changed. Ubuntu still does depend on continued funding from me.
[...]
derStandard.at: But are there really big customers that are paying for your support?
Mark Shuttleworth: Yes of course. There are some large organizations who use Ubuntu
We all like to think that Ubuntu costs Shuttleworth a fortune but they're obviously meeting with some success. This is something I've worried about before: what happens when Shuttleworths' money runs out? Seems that we needn't worry for much longer.:)
I had a little read of his Wikipedia page and such. See what you mean about the weirdness, brilliance is always so close to insanity!
One day I will read some of his material, although am not really a comic fan, probably why I'd never heard of him!
Nice one, I live in Kitchener/Waterloo too. Good to see the local MP is receptive. Also have a look at this comment on how to take action. Basically, letters are the best medium, and the best people to send them to are the 'critics' who will hopefully set the honourable Bev 'Corporate Sponsorship' Oda on fire.
All this shouldn't be too difficult to work around. Google watching my every move? Nope: I use Scroogle! Then there's Tor, it's a bit slow sometimes, but if you don't like it run your own Tor server and help the network speed up.:) There are also all the other ad/cookie blockers mentioned by others here.
The only possibility worrying me is our government overlords demanding people give up the right to use this software in the name of anti-terrorism/anti-paedophilia. Until that time people have a choice whether they're anonymous online, which is good. The people who don't know how to remain anonymous can either read up or pay one of us IT chaps to tell them.
People want features and features are the enemy of security.
But isn't an OS without features a brick? I can understand not using the features we don't need, but wireless is sought after and really useful. Moaning about people using it is not going to help, following that argument to its logical conclusion would have us all back working with pen and paper. That's not an idea I relish since my typing is far better than my handwriting.:)
BSD has been whiling with little to no market-share despite the fact it's free.
Does this exploit affect BSD too? I was under the impression that the lack of FreeBSD success was due to it's project lead being a total git. Also OSX is based on BSD but still suffers plenty of security problems.
Slashdot Mirror
So, due to privacy concerns, the EU dislikes Google storing data on its users, but forces ISPs to retain data for two years? Under the catch-all excuse of 'terrorism' no less.
They could follow each others example: the EU could introduce laws to stop government snooping, whilst the US introduces laws to stop corporate snooping. Personally I find the EU government snooping worse than Google, at least Google is a product choice, government laws can't be worked around. Although the purchase of Double-click does make Google's tracking somewhat difficult to avoid when surfing around.
Failing that, just use Scroogle and/or Tor and/or an ad-blocker. :)
It's not really the 'series of tubes' bit that's funny, that's just a tip of the hat to the rest of his random and weird comments. I also didn't find this funny before reading the rest of it.
Absolutely right. Am not advocating taking down all sites with advertising, it's obvious the sites you pointed to are providing a service. I've used sites similar to those in order to find hotels and restaurants, tourist attractions and flights before now. They may be a bit scummy, but there's a whole world of difference between them and: webmaster-forums.com for example. I'm sure the spammers would like to blur the lines between useful and spam as much as possible, so their crap is indistinguishable from a real site. This would be difficult to police.
Well this could be done by complaints, when someone complains a spammer is holding their domain for ransom ICANN could investigate. If the spammer is abusing trademark or not using the domain for anything other than spamming it should get returned to its rightful owner or put back into the pool of free domains.
Since this is a hypothetical situation I'd like to see /. police it. That or some other on-line community with more sense than the world governments. Could be funny, we'd probably see microsoft.com redirected to ubuntu.com or goatse though, which would be funny but not wholly fair. :)
I concede this point, although it would be somewhat fair if you knew what the deal is when you buy a domain. As long as the same rules apply to everybody: get something useful on your domain in a year or it could go back into the pool.
True, but your solution requires that ICANN do more than just the technical too. Maybe it's time to have a different international body to look after the legislative arm of the Internet. I like your idea though. It's pretty much what I'm advocating, but better explained.
I have and do, as said it wasn't my mistake. But yes, you're absolutely right. :)
Ahhh, how easy that is said yet how costly it would be to do. I will certainly take you up on your advice when I have as much free cash as the spammer that is the subject of this article. Maybe I should spend less time on /. and more time working!
Why? You think this guy isn't doing something scummy? Am not looking for a shoulder to cry on here, just warning people what these spammers are like.
No, I was involved with running this site for a number of years before buying it. We own (and owned) several variations on the domain name of the site. Imagine the joy of sending everyone on the member list an e-mail saying: 'don't use the .com to visit us, use the .net instead'. The previous owner was somewhat useless, hence why he was selling it.
Wow, bet you're pleased you asked now (that was a joke, well sarcasm anyway ;) )
Sorry to double-post but I missed something in TFA that /.ers might need to be aware of:
(emphasis mine) Patent application?! He's patenting being a scummy bastard and redirecting .com domains to .cm? Wow, just wow.
Having been on the wrong side of 'cybersquatters' this is an issue close to my heart. I wouldn't mind if these people took a domain and did something useful with it, but instead they just plaster it with advertising and watch the cash roll in.
Am not even that bitter (it wasn't even me that lost the domain but the previous owner of my site), what makes me angry is the way these people just leech ad views without giving anything back. Scummy blighters, the lot of them!
Problem is what should be done about these people? It's not as if the government(s) of the world are competent enough to deal with problems like these (tubes anyone). ICANN is the organisation we should turn to: perhaps make a rule that the owner of a domain has to actually do something with it within a set period of time (say 6 months to a year). If all they've done in that time is plaster it in advertising (or have done nothing) it should return to the pool, perhaps with a bar disallowing the ghastly spammer from buying it again for a year.
This is pretty controversial and I suppose if someone pays for something they have a right to do what they like with it. That doesn't detract from the fact that these people are like parasites, filling the Internet with rubbish and getting in the way of those of us who just want to provide a service.
Shame this Aston Martin runs like it's got the engine of a Lada though.
Quite right, think about how it's funded (license fee from the British people). I believe PBS is the nearest thing available in the states, maybe more people should think about donating to them? I don't know what they're reporting is like, or whether they're truly independant, but there is certainly a need for media run and governed by the people, not private corporations.
On a more on-topic note: I have memorised that key. Does that mean I am guilty of thought crime? Could the AACS send a DMCA takedown notice to my brain?
I like how this article is juxtaposed with the MPAA story 'MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM' below. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this legal action have been threatened under the auspices of the DMCA? A bill which was bought and paid-for by the MPAA?
Fair use, my arse.
That's what I was getting at, my /. economics could do with some work! Thanks for the defense and clarification.
As someone else pointed out the corruption is not in the US government but with the companies supplying IT services to them. Practically every large company in IT seems to be involved, from Microsoft to HP, IBM and Sun. Which is annoying for those of us who love a good Microsoft bash, it seems they are not the worst offenders in this case.
As I read it the /. economic model for these scams goes something like this:
There seem to be other variations on the theme, such as giving share options instead of discounts. Either way the US government have been overcharged it seems. Hope I'm right about this as it's a complex issue and the article is a little vague on the details, that's why I thought this summary would be useful. :)
Sorry, in my frustration I copied the wrong quote, I'll start again:
That's Google you pillock.
That's Google you pillock.
Have a look at the Halloween documents. They're leaked memos from Microsoft, I think you'll find all the evidence you need in there. Here's a good quote:
It's interesting that the summary only surmises what an unbiased observer might wonder, whereas you claim to speak for all unbiased observers. You are clearly a Microsoft fanboy, therefore not an unbiased observer. I don't believe it takes a 'free software zealot' to realise that this move is as a direct result of the OLPC efforts. Microsoft are rightly worried they're going to miss out, losing market share to FLOSS. I would be worred if I were defending an outdated business model with an uncertain future too.
The BBC is pretty unbiased when it comes to technology and they made the comparison between this and the OLPC, or did you not bother to read the article? Even if they aren't unbiased they're certainly not 'free software zealots'.
Whilst it's unfortunate that you're a Microsoft fanboy I do applaud your spelling of the word 'arse'.
Linux is great, I use Ubuntu, but that is one funny photo. It's like he's posing for a catalogue or something. Or maybe: 'Shuttleworth, for men. The new Open fragrance from Mark Shuttleworth'
A review by Richard Stallman said: 'It smells like GNU piss, and did nothing to cover up my body odour!'
His comments on Beryl/Compiz are quite telling. That's a fork that should never have happened. Also interesting are snippets about Canonical customers (from the article):
We all like to think that Ubuntu costs Shuttleworth a fortune but they're obviously meeting with some success. This is something I've worried about before: what happens when Shuttleworths' money runs out? Seems that we needn't worry for much longer. :)
I had a little read of his Wikipedia page and such. See what you mean about the weirdness, brilliance is always so close to insanity! One day I will read some of his material, although am not really a comic fan, probably why I'd never heard of him!
Just got here from England about 9 months ago. Am also a geek, so don't get out much, ergo I have no clue what you're talking about! :)
Care to elaborate?
Did you write to Tina Keeper as well? Now would be a good time to write to her about this. :)
Nice one, I live in Kitchener/Waterloo too. Good to see the local MP is receptive. Also have a look at this comment on how to take action. Basically, letters are the best medium, and the best people to send them to are the 'critics' who will hopefully set the honourable Bev 'Corporate Sponsorship' Oda on fire.
My apologies, that link should have been: http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html.
All this shouldn't be too difficult to work around. Google watching my every move? Nope: I use Scroogle! Then there's Tor, it's a bit slow sometimes, but if you don't like it run your own Tor server and help the network speed up. :) There are also all the other ad/cookie blockers mentioned by others here.
The only possibility worrying me is our government overlords demanding people give up the right to use this software in the name of anti-terrorism/anti-paedophilia. Until that time people have a choice whether they're anonymous online, which is good. The people who don't know how to remain anonymous can either read up or pay one of us IT chaps to tell them.
Ah yes, sorry. That's who I was thinking of.
But isn't an OS without features a brick? I can understand not using the features we don't need, but wireless is sought after and really useful. Moaning about people using it is not going to help, following that argument to its logical conclusion would have us all back working with pen and paper. That's not an idea I relish since my typing is far better than my handwriting. :)
Does this exploit affect BSD too? I was under the impression that the lack of FreeBSD success was due to it's project lead being a total git. Also OSX is based on BSD but still suffers plenty of security problems.