What about social engineering? Instead of car thieves picking a lock, or busting a window to steal a car, couldn't they call OnStar and trick them into opening the car for them?
You have a pin number, just like making a ATM transaction. Now, If you've taped your pin number to the dashboard, you might be in trouble.
Does OnStar get more money for finding these problems? Or just a flat fee for the service?
Is this really the first time that slashdot has promoted racism? Not really a core value that we want to hang onto in this age in the US, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
..can just reinstall the Windows disc that came bundled with her PC.
I tried to find the "Windows" disc that came with my PC, but I could only find one that said "OS X." Please tell me where I could find this Windows disc...
Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of.
Is this like saying that if I shop at a convenience store, then as a customer I should be offended that I get charges filed against me for robbing it? That just doesn't make sense.
There's no "customers" having lawsuits filed against them. None.
But really, if a company views this as a way to motivate its workers to improve the bottom line, then it isn't genuine -- you just give your workers enough freedom so that they shut up and work harder for you. Can the workers fire the CEO? Cap his/her salary? Decide the company should do good in the world rather than just exist to enrich shareholders?
I think the concept you are trying to describe is a Cooperative
But if they are going to take the high ground and be proactive I want them to ban the local news station if they were to post my information. Not being the CEO of Google I have a felling my request would fall on deaf ears.
Woah, do you not understand what they did? It sounds like you think that they banned CNet from using their search engine for a year. That's not what happened. They said that they would refuse to comment to CNet about stories for a year.
If the local news outlet prints personal information, you have every right to stop speaking to them also. No one is taking that right away from you.
Were in North America... I guess the new definition does not include us...
That's what is says, driving in and out of the US in North America, (ie, Mexico and Canada) they will start using FRID technology. I'm guessing that only vehicle trips between borders in North America will have FRID technology available, Homeland Security probably isn't planning on implementing it to check vehicles coming or going straight from places like South America, Europe, or Asia.
Even with the radio frequency technology, however, the vehicle will still have to stop. If a person's identifying data produce no red flags, they will get just a cursory check at the border rather than lengthy questioning.
New terrorist plan:
1. find a car with a known-good RFID tag and steal it.
2. sneak into the U.S., avoiding being questioned.
3. ???
4. **Kaboom!**
Somethings telling me that "Stolen Vehicle" will be one of those red flags that come up.
I firmly believe that if an 18 yr old High School Senior has sex with a 15 yr. old High School Sohphomor then you shouldn't ruin the man's life simply because "daddy didn't approve."
That's statutory rape. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If an 18 year old guy has sex with a 15 year old girl, then metaphorically he has made his bed and will have to lie in it.
Are we gonna see OSX being pirated like Windows, now that most people are actually able to run it?
No, most people will *not* be able to run it. Unless you've got this wierd notion that just because the Apple hardware has Intel processors now that is going to compel the masses to go out and buy Apple hardware. Somehow, I'm guessing the processor is not what is holding back people from buying Apple hardware.
I can't think of anyone who would actually buy a DRM based system.
I guess I don't get it. I can't think of anyone, Apple users expecially, who would legitimately not buy an Apple computer with DRM. I'm seriously failing to see an issue here.
What I'm trying to say is if the courts pointed out that ahh look he has encryption, I'm saying in my situation it would be 'so what, doesn't everyone?'
That's like telling me that when I commit a gun crime, and the prosecutor wants to put the gun with my fingerprints and gunpowder on it into evidence, I should object with the argument that "everyone" has a gun.
The courts aren't stupid. If the gun or encryption was used in the process of a crime, then it is going to be evidence. Regardless of how many other people might have a gun or encryption.
Now, if the court would say that since he had encryption on the computer, that is enough for a conviction, I would be concerned. But, if you read the article, you'll find that encryption was not the basis of the conviction.
Rather, Levie's conviction was based on the in-person testimony of the girl who said she was paid to pose nude, coupled with the history of searches for "Lolitas" in Levie's Web browser.
Because basically, right now they are inferring he has 'something to hide' by simply having encrypted files. That inference would be much more difficult if encryption was as commonplace as a telephone.
No, they are infering that he has something to hide because he paid a girl to pose nude. And had a history searches for "Lolitas." And that has squat to do with how many people use encryption.
Probably the same way that everyone with a gun is treated when there is a gun crime. The MN court said that encryption could be used as evidence, not that all encryption is 'evil.' I'd say you were overreacting, but that would be the understatement of the year.
A finger print is vastly different from a bar code on a document. If the document is stolen, a new document is issued with a new bar code. The old barcode is made invalid.
If the fingerprint is stolen...
I think this is different. If your barcode is stolen, it is gone, you don't have access to it anymore. However, if my fingerprint is stolen, my finger is still attached to the hand of my hand. I can go in person and prove it, yeah it's still there. Then the bastard that stole the fingerprint can be tracked down and suitably punished.
And you will find that they are covered anything that can cause RF is under the FCC rules. This is nothing new. you will see a FCC notice on all electronic devices you buy and it will state it is in part 15 aka Must accept interfernce and Must not cause interfernce.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually think it is a great idea. It allows people to buy a car who would have never been able to purchase a car otherwise.
It doesn't seem like the dealer got in any trouble for the devices. The story makes it sound like the judge found in his favour.
Interesting, can you elaborate on the troubles he experienced down the line?
You have a pin number, just like making a ATM transaction. Now, If you've taped your pin number to the dashboard, you might be in trouble.
Does OnStar get more money for finding these problems? Or just a flat fee for the service?No, the onstar service is a flat monthly fee.
Is this really the first time that slashdot has promoted racism? Not really a core value that we want to hang onto in this age in the US, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
Maybe those who rob banks have bigger bank accounts then those who don't. Does that make a bank robber a "customer."
No, I'm for stopping illegal filetrading no matter how big a "customer" someone is.
I tried to find the "Windows" disc that came with my PC, but I could only find one that said "OS X." Please tell me where I could find this Windows disc...
Is this like saying that if I shop at a convenience store, then as a customer I should be offended that I get charges filed against me for robbing it? That just doesn't make sense.
There's no "customers" having lawsuits filed against them. None.
I think the concept you are trying to describe is a Cooperative
Woah, do you not understand what they did? It sounds like you think that they banned CNet from using their search engine for a year. That's not what happened. They said that they would refuse to comment to CNet about stories for a year.
If the local news outlet prints personal information, you have every right to stop speaking to them also. No one is taking that right away from you.
That's what is says, driving in and out of the US in North America, (ie, Mexico and Canada) they will start using FRID technology. I'm guessing that only vehicle trips between borders in North America will have FRID technology available, Homeland Security probably isn't planning on implementing it to check vehicles coming or going straight from places like South America, Europe, or Asia.
1. find a car with a known-good RFID tag and steal it.
2. sneak into the U.S., avoiding being questioned.
3. ???
4. **Kaboom!**
Somethings telling me that "Stolen Vehicle" will be one of those red flags that come up.
That's statutory rape. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If an 18 year old guy has sex with a 15 year old girl, then metaphorically he has made his bed and will have to lie in it.
No, most people will *not* be able to run it. Unless you've got this wierd notion that just because the Apple hardware has Intel processors now that is going to compel the masses to go out and buy Apple hardware. Somehow, I'm guessing the processor is not what is holding back people from buying Apple hardware.
Why do you want to avoid DRM? I'm not understanding a legitimate reason for that.
I guess I don't get it. I can't think of anyone, Apple users expecially, who would legitimately not buy an Apple computer with DRM. I'm seriously failing to see an issue here.
That's like telling me that when I commit a gun crime, and the prosecutor wants to put the gun with my fingerprints and gunpowder on it into evidence, I should object with the argument that "everyone" has a gun.
The courts aren't stupid. If the gun or encryption was used in the process of a crime, then it is going to be evidence. Regardless of how many other people might have a gun or encryption.
Now, if the court would say that since he had encryption on the computer, that is enough for a conviction, I would be concerned. But, if you read the article, you'll find that encryption was not the basis of the conviction.
Because basically, right now they are inferring he has 'something to hide' by simply having encrypted files. That inference would be much more difficult if encryption was as commonplace as a telephone.No, they are infering that he has something to hide because he paid a girl to pose nude. And had a history searches for "Lolitas." And that has squat to do with how many people use encryption.
Probably the same way that everyone with a gun is treated when there is a gun crime. The MN court said that encryption could be used as evidence, not that all encryption is 'evil.' I'd say you were overreacting, but that would be the understatement of the year.
And have what, 20% unemployment rate? No thanks, I'd rather work 20% more then not at all.
If the fingerprint is stolen ...
I think this is different. If your barcode is stolen, it is gone, you don't have access to it anymore. However, if my fingerprint is stolen, my finger is still attached to the hand of my hand. I can go in person and prove it, yeah it's still there. Then the bastard that stole the fingerprint can be tracked down and suitably punished.
I have it not to download or install. But once a day it "reminds" me that there are updates, I want to have it stop the reminding.
I have had a problem where a system will continue to pester you about updates, and there is no, I don't what that update option. aka SP2 in xp
This sounds nice. Also why just a space lift. could it also be used to scale other objects that we may not want to risk human life on?
it is a hack to make slashdot think it is google.com, but remember if it was really gmail it would read gmail.com not google.com
And you will find that they are covered anything that can cause RF is under the FCC rules. This is nothing new. you will see a FCC notice on all electronic devices you buy and it will state it is in part 15 aka Must accept interfernce and Must not cause interfernce.