If you can override it if you wish then there is no purpose for it to be there in the first place. Less government intrusion into our daily lives not more!
Actually you're innocent until proven guilty. Just because the BSA makes an accusation does not mean you are obligated to help them prove their case. It is just in a civil case the bar for guilt is lower. If it is a criminal case the bar is 99% or beyond a reasonable doubt. In a Civil Case its like 50%+1, or preponderance of the evidence, basically whichever side makes a better argument.
Roughly speaking the firm takes an estimate of the amount of computers shipped to individual companies, takes a further estimate of what software should be on those machines, and compares that, not to exact software sales, but to interviews with software vendors.
I think this is total bullshit method for determining piracy rates. This means that if you sold a computer if they sold it with Linux on it, Microsoft would only have to say that one of every machine needs Windows on it (because every system needs an OS) and BAM inflated piracy numbers. Just like Adobe says about 1 in 10 computers should have Photoshop, but if they're all equipped with GIMP.
After all how likely do you think it is that someone like Microsoft is going to acknowledge Apple's marketshare... Or Linux's? Not bloody likely. Which means its pointless to believe these numbers in teh first place
A real, honest to goodness analogy of what happens in the digital world with DVD rips and their distribution, would be sheet music. Often times sheet music is purchased legally, and then copied (via a copy machine) and distributed dozens of times. This happens a lot in school music programs, and most music teachers who do this don't realize that when they give little Johnny a photo-copy of Little Drummer Boy to take home and practice, they are committing a crime.
Except that 'Little Drummer Boy' was based off a Czech christmas carol. It was also made in the 1941, part of the problem with copyright is the terms that allow for 68 year old works to be treated as protected. Funny how the time point for 'public domain' was made to be 1923 when media organizations rape the Public Domain for ideas and copyright their crap based off them.
Also the Teachers use would more likely be considered fair use or educational use which usually is an exception.
Easy way to fix Copyright would be to limit its term to say oh I dunno 7 years like it was originally hell even 20 years like patents currently are wouldnt be bad (even though they are trying to extend that to 50 years, technical stagnation that would result from that would be as horrendous as the cultural stagnation that copyright has caused)
1) MediaSentry is not a licensed private investigator. Therefore their evidence could very well be considered suspect in and of itself.
2) You could make a case that 9250x of the item 'stolen' is cruel and unusual punishment and thus against the constitution. Sure it is a civil case but the government is the one issuing the 'punishment' as a result of the laws the government has on the books. Back in the old days you'd pay 3 times the item's cost or return 3 of the item (IE. You stole someone's chicken they'd expect you to give 3 chickens as punishment).
3) How could they prove that it wasnt? After all it only becomes 'evidence' once legal proceedings begin (IE. Served a supeona). Until then you can do absolutely anything you want including wiping it with a magnet, low level formatting it, throwing truecrypt onto it (all you need is something plausible like business trade secrets and company customer information or whatever or use the plausible deniability features), or even overwriting everything.
Dude thats when you should really try to keep the guy on teh line as long as you can... The idiot phoning you is making minimum wage. The manager is probably making double that.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty = Only for living breathing human beings. Guilty Until Proven Innocent = Only for fictional corporate personhood.
Make it more easy to go after the execs responsible for disregarding the laws and hold them responsible for the acts of the company they've signed off on. (IE. Sending their telemarketing to these suspect telemarketing companies for example).
99% of DUI suspects shouldn't have been drinking otherwise they might have the capacity to exert their rights.
That said, up here in Canada we have police set up random checkpoints to catch DUIs. I'm as anti-laws as anyone but it makes sense that police would be able to stop someone and check them out if they are operating a motor vehicle and your right to drive drunk ends when you touch the public streets (and usually run over pedestrians or smash into other peoples cars)
If they removed remote attestation from the TPM spec, or simply put a switch on the side of the computer so the owner could forge attestations whenever he felt like it, it wouldn't be evil. So the question is, if Trusted Computing is such a boon for users, why does it still have features that only serve to undermine those very users?
While I can see why this would be a good thing to implement on the user end. TPM is about the other side trusting you as much as you trust the other side. If you could forge this "Remote Attestation" then what good would it be? Clearly if you could forge it then so could someone who has hacked your system.
As with all things they can be used for good or evil. However, TPM the evil far outnumbers the good.
While this may be a place of business and owned privately. The fact remains that if the premises are open to the public and there is a general invitation to entry (open doors without having to be screened to get in) then the place qualifies as a public location. The only difference between this and true public property is the fact that the owner of the business or their employees can request/demand that you leave and/or request/demand that you stop doing something (like taking pictures).
Thank you, this is easily the best comment in this thread I think.
Anti-Privacy Apologists are usually the first ones to point out when it works in the favor of the cops/company/whatever that it's a public place and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore if the internal workings are so damn top secret they shouldn't open it while the business is open. It also might be against company policy to put a curtain around it as they might need footage from the surveillance cameras in order to verify if anything has gone missing (IE. into one of the ATM repairmen's pockets).
The 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' defense doesn't just let the Corporate-Government machine put up surveillance cameras everywhere with impunity, it also protects you when you want to take a picture of something in public.
Sounds like an exceedingly weak method of billing. Imagine if someone just randomly entered phone numbers until they got one. From what I heard Telstra is the biggest one around there so it'd be likely to hit one sooner or later.
You cant get thrown into jail for enacting Jury Nullification because one of the principles behind a Jury that goes back to the old England times is that a jury cannot be punished for doing their job or rendering a verdict that the judge does not like.
1) He had legit access to the network. (as an Employee at the time) 2) He went to a website that probably ends up on everyone's spam ads. (God damn I'm thankful for Adblock Plus) 3) He stupidly posted a naked picture of himself. (Epically dumb move to do from the office)
Sorry but no hacking here, just a good load of stupidity. Quite possibly against company internet access policy and what not likely resulting in him being fired from his job but under no circumstance should the guy have been thrown in jail.
Is it too much to ask for a limited government that is by the people and for the people?
Surveillance should be in the opposite direction. We should be able to see what our elected officials are doing 24/7. Have microphone on them at all times to make sure they arent being bought by lobbists and taking bribes and what not.
It does makes some sense that crypto systems reliant on prime numbers might see a small weakness introduced. I know RSA is reliant on two prime numbers multiplied together.
If 30% of all primes start with the digit 1 then it might be possible to exploit it somewhat. If you limit your initial search to primes that start with the digit 1 then you apparently cut your search space by about 70%. Odds are one of the two numbers will start with a 1 although it is not out of the realm of possibility that both primes in your key could start with a 9. Once you factor one of the primes the other one is out in the open as well.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can override it if you wish then there is no purpose for it to be there in the first place. Less government intrusion into our daily lives not more!
You mean they use the same method that the BSA uses to come up with piracy numbers?
Actually you're innocent until proven guilty. Just because the BSA makes an accusation does not mean you are obligated to help them prove their case. It is just in a civil case the bar for guilt is lower. If it is a criminal case the bar is 99% or beyond a reasonable doubt. In a Civil Case its like 50%+1, or preponderance of the evidence, basically whichever side makes a better argument.
Roughly speaking the firm takes an estimate of the amount of computers shipped to individual companies, takes a further estimate of what software should be on those machines, and compares that, not to exact software sales, but to interviews with software vendors.
I think this is total bullshit method for determining piracy rates. This means that if you sold a computer if they sold it with Linux on it, Microsoft would only have to say that one of every machine needs Windows on it (because every system needs an OS) and BAM inflated piracy numbers. Just like Adobe says about 1 in 10 computers should have Photoshop, but if they're all equipped with GIMP.
After all how likely do you think it is that someone like Microsoft is going to acknowledge Apple's marketshare... Or Linux's? Not bloody likely. Which means its pointless to believe these numbers in teh first place
A real, honest to goodness analogy of what happens in the digital world with DVD rips and their distribution, would be sheet music. Often times sheet music is purchased legally, and then copied (via a copy machine) and distributed dozens of times. This happens a lot in school music programs, and most music teachers who do this don't realize that when they give little Johnny a photo-copy of Little Drummer Boy to take home and practice, they are committing a crime.
Except that 'Little Drummer Boy' was based off a Czech christmas carol. It was also made in the 1941, part of the problem with copyright is the terms that allow for 68 year old works to be treated as protected. Funny how the time point for 'public domain' was made to be 1923 when media organizations rape the Public Domain for ideas and copyright their crap based off them.
Also the Teachers use would more likely be considered fair use or educational use which usually is an exception.
Easy way to fix Copyright would be to limit its term to say oh I dunno 7 years like it was originally hell even 20 years like patents currently are wouldnt be bad (even though they are trying to extend that to 50 years, technical stagnation that would result from that would be as horrendous as the cultural stagnation that copyright has caused)
So many angles of attack on the RIAA case...
1) MediaSentry is not a licensed private investigator. Therefore their evidence could very well be considered suspect in and of itself.
2) You could make a case that 9250x of the item 'stolen' is cruel and unusual punishment and thus against the constitution. Sure it is a civil case but the government is the one issuing the 'punishment' as a result of the laws the government has on the books. Back in the old days you'd pay 3 times the item's cost or return 3 of the item (IE. You stole someone's chicken they'd expect you to give 3 chickens as punishment).
3) How could they prove that it wasnt? After all it only becomes 'evidence' once legal proceedings begin (IE. Served a supeona). Until then you can do absolutely anything you want including wiping it with a magnet, low level formatting it, throwing truecrypt onto it (all you need is something plausible like business trade secrets and company customer information or whatever or use the plausible deniability features), or even overwriting everything.
Dude thats when you should really try to keep the guy on teh line as long as you can... The idiot phoning you is making minimum wage. The manager is probably making double that.
I think it's time to rethink the justice system.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty = Only for living breathing human beings.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent = Only for fictional corporate personhood.
Make it more easy to go after the execs responsible for disregarding the laws and hold them responsible for the acts of the company they've signed off on. (IE. Sending their telemarketing to these suspect telemarketing companies for example).
99% of DUI suspects know nothing of their rights.
99% of DUI suspects shouldn't have been drinking otherwise they might have the capacity to exert their rights.
That said, up here in Canada we have police set up random checkpoints to catch DUIs. I'm as anti-laws as anyone but it makes sense that police would be able to stop someone and check them out if they are operating a motor vehicle and your right to drive drunk ends when you touch the public streets (and usually run over pedestrians or smash into other peoples cars)
If they removed remote attestation from the TPM spec, or simply put a switch on the side of the computer so the owner could forge attestations whenever he felt like it, it wouldn't be evil. So the question is, if Trusted Computing is such a boon for users, why does it still have features that only serve to undermine those very users?
While I can see why this would be a good thing to implement on the user end. TPM is about the other side trusting you as much as you trust the other side. If you could forge this "Remote Attestation" then what good would it be? Clearly if you could forge it then so could someone who has hacked your system.
As with all things they can be used for good or evil. However, TPM the evil far outnumbers the good.
the year before the conviction was pretty good financially for all of them.
Well duh, thats what happens when you engage in anti-competitive behavior and price fix.
Wrong.
While this may be a place of business and owned privately. The fact remains that if the premises are open to the public and there is a general invitation to entry (open doors without having to be screened to get in) then the place qualifies as a public location. The only difference between this and true public property is the fact that the owner of the business or their employees can request/demand that you leave and/or request/demand that you stop doing something (like taking pictures).
Thank you, this is easily the best comment in this thread I think.
Anti-Privacy Apologists are usually the first ones to point out when it works in the favor of the cops/company/whatever that it's a public place and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore if the internal workings are so damn top secret they shouldn't open it while the business is open. It also might be against company policy to put a curtain around it as they might need footage from the surveillance cameras in order to verify if anything has gone missing (IE. into one of the ATM repairmen's pockets).
The 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' defense doesn't just let the Corporate-Government machine put up surveillance cameras everywhere with impunity, it also protects you when you want to take a picture of something in public.
Sounds like an exceedingly weak method of billing. Imagine if someone just randomly entered phone numbers until they got one. From what I heard Telstra is the biggest one around there so it'd be likely to hit one sooner or later.
Which is weird, because in the Wisconsin case, the officers had a warrant. The judges there said it wasn't needed!
So just drive from Wisconsin to New York then they'll need to get a warrant.
Yeah, then we wont have to worry about that shit for 20 years... well 50 if they upgrade the patent protection crap they want to do...
You cant get thrown into jail for enacting Jury Nullification because one of the principles behind a Jury that goes back to the old England times is that a jury cannot be punished for doing their job or rendering a verdict that the judge does not like.
1) He had legit access to the network. (as an Employee at the time)
2) He went to a website that probably ends up on everyone's spam ads. (God damn I'm thankful for Adblock Plus)
3) He stupidly posted a naked picture of himself. (Epically dumb move to do from the office)
Sorry but no hacking here, just a good load of stupidity. Quite possibly against company internet access policy and what not likely resulting in him being fired from his job but under no circumstance should the guy have been thrown in jail.
Is it too much to ask for a limited government that is by the people and for the people?
Surveillance should be in the opposite direction. We should be able to see what our elected officials are doing 24/7. Have microphone on them at all times to make sure they arent being bought by lobbists and taking bribes and what not.
Exactly... 'Free' on these newspapers means every page = full page ad with about 10% of every 2nd page with a small bit of news.
Tell me what cop can monitor 20 intersections/streets at once. A CCTV system lets one person pull that off
Except that the DHS is trying to centralize it all with some degree of success.
No they wouldnt tell educators to cut hours teaching they'd just include more material.
It does makes some sense that crypto systems reliant on prime numbers might see a small weakness introduced. I know RSA is reliant on two prime numbers multiplied together.
If 30% of all primes start with the digit 1 then it might be possible to exploit it somewhat. If you limit your initial search to primes that start with the digit 1 then you apparently cut your search space by about 70%. Odds are one of the two numbers will start with a 1 although it is not out of the realm of possibility that both primes in your key could start with a 9. Once you factor one of the primes the other one is out in the open as well.
All you need to do is jam GPS signals then the GPS Tracker cannot do it's job properly.
Alternatively if you did find it you could easily take it and attach it to another vehicle or something.