the credit card number was never sent over the internet. an encrypted block of text was.
That encrypted block of text is your credit card number. If it wasn't, how do you think Amazon, or whoever, is able to make use of it? All encrypting it does is makes it more difficult to eavesdrop. But there's no way around the fact that you are submitting it into the internet when you make an online purchase.
HTTP over SSL/TLS is all about preventing eavesdropping. The internet host you communicate with still has to decrypt the stream to make use of it. The OP wasn't talking about how your data can be peeked upon in transit, but that entering it into the internet in the first place means you should expect it to be public.
you think i'm doing a job of being clever? that is very telling.
No, I just think you're trying to be. There's a difference.
That's exactly what I thought. Apple most likely has already made a deal with MAFIAA et. al....
Right, because the "most likely" thing Apple will do is make their customers afraid to use their products. It's completely brilliant! I just need some small bit of clarification... what possible reason could Apple have to do something like that? It would effectively kill iCloud, and cripple Apple's reputation.
But, surely there's some upside to this company-killing scheme, right?
My argument simply stems from my distrust of cloud computing. You're right that what I'm talking about doesn't have much to do with the actual article, I was just talking about the idea of iCloud in general. And I already said I don't know much about iCloud or what it actually does.
Exactly, your argument is based on ignorance.
I just know that Apple is not going to launder music for people. If there's some way to verify a file's licensing, they will. And if some kind of incriminating information comes up from checking these files, Apple is going to definitely take advantage of it.
Oh really? You "just know" this, do you? How so?
It's the equivalent of letting a cop into your home just talk and then him busting you because he found something illegal. And he would have every right to; in fact, he would see it as his "duty".
Apple is the police now? When did this happen?
I'm just saying that it's probably not a good idea to let Apple anywhere near the pirated music you may have on your computer.
Right, because up to now, people have *never* put pirated music into iTunes or synced it onto their iPods!
This iCloud thing (haven't heard much about it, I don't follow apple products) just sounds like a way for Apple to legally collect information on stupid music pirates (and probably who has ripped back-ups on their computer) that they can sell to record companies.
Actually, it sounds like a way for Apple to offer a cloud storage service for people to store things like their entire music collection, to, you know, make owning an iOS device more compelling and thus driving sales. Yeah, too obvious, right? There's gotta be something dodgy going on, this *is* a discussion related to Apple on slashdot after all!
The idea that Apple will turn you in is completely laughable. That would instantly kill the service, and critically damage Apple's reputation with its hundreds of millions of non-slashdot nerd customers. There's no way Apple would do this. To get people to use the cloud, they need people to place trust in the cloud and its provider. You don't accomplish this by making your customers afraid they might be sued or go to jail for using your service.
Exactly how many pirates really care about "forgiveness"? While greater than 0,/me thinks they are overestimating the crushing guilt caused by pirating music from Sony and others.
I think you are overestimating the number of people who hate Sony such that it's an automatic justification for "piracy".
Sure, this might not be a big concern to many (most?) hard core, focused and purpose-driven pirates, but for every one of those, there are a thousand casual pirates who just wanted a bunch of songs they could remember the names to when they first found limewire. Many of these people have since found iTunes worth using. It's easier, quicker, more reliable and of consistent quality. Well worth the price. But they still have a back catalog of tracks of dubious origin.
iCloud's Match service will take these tracks and clean them up, both making them of higher and more consistent quality, while also scrubbing away at least the appearance of these tracks' nefarious origin. It's hard to predict what level of of impact this will have in the motivations of people to use the service, but it doesn't seem rational to so completely discount it.
Looking at it as a one-time charge of $25 to "wash" one's complete music library? It may not be perfect, or of iron-clad logic, but I do think there are plenty of people who will find it to be a compelling part of what the service offers.
I don't see how doing this would relieve the guilt in the first place. You still haven't payed for the music. And people who pirate don't fear lawsuits.
A sense of guilt and legality status are not as strongly reason bound as you seem to be implying.
I believe my point was, and if you took a second to reflect on it, that you should treat everything as public because it CAN be, very easily.
I got your point just fine. That's why I inquired about your name and CC#. Both are (presumably) on the internet, but clearly they are more private than you've made them out to be.
Much easier than keeping that picture you had taken back in the 80s of that hottie you doinked.
Or your credit card number, or name, or countless other bits of info that somehow manage to remain sufficiently private. I don't disagree with the idea that one should consider privacy when entering information online, but the claim you made was too broad.
credit card numbers are not transmitted over the internet... rather an encrypted block of text is sent, and that block doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the encryption keys.
I realize you are trying to be clever, but you're not really making any sort of point. What does encryption have to do with whether or not you've entered something into the internet? By your logic, if you use https, you're not using the internet? So https://www.facebook.com/ is private?
but keep being an idiot, i mean, since that's all you are and all you could hope to be and all....
Like I said, trying to be clever. Just not doing a good job of it.
Google's search is about extracting information from the image to give you other related pieces of information, not where on the internet you can find the same image.
Actually, Google's search is about extracting ad views from its users.
The screen, the case, the camera quality, the speaker quality, the battery... If you remove strictly just those things that add cellular connectivity to the iPhone, you'll still be left with something better than an iPod touch.
The irony here being that Google has actually used their kill switch, and Apple never has. But since Apple is supposed to be the evil one according to the nerds of slashdot...
Unlocking it isn't easy, and you first have to buy a phone to unlock, which means buying a phone under contract in the US (until just now).
With an unlocked iPhone, you can opt for any American GSM carrier, including many prepaid carriers. That means if you want an iPhone, but don't want to commit to a 2 year contract, you can buy prepaid cards and live on the cheap. Sure, that means you won't get 3G (unless you go with AT&T's network), but a non-3G iPhone is still worthwhile. After all, it's still a phone, still an iPod touch (with some upgraded components), and it's all in one package. And it gives you the option to move over to AT&T if you so desire, or cancel the phone altogether if you hit hard times, whatever.
Basically, the thing I can't understand, is why people seem to think having this as an option isn't a good thing. After all, there are clearly people who want an unlocked iPhone.
BTW escaping a two year contract is ridiculously easy. The companies change the terms so frequently (such as adding a datacap when you signed for an unlimited dataplan) that you can terminate the contract without repercussion.
The irony is this also applies to pretty much *anyone* who gets excited over *anything* like this. For example, what part of your brain do you think lights up when you find a study that reinforces your idea that Apple fans are religious zealots? Hmm...?
Or when you get into a "holy war" over Unity in Ubuntu? Or Google's new Arduino kit? Or you walk out of Fry's with a bunch of computer parts to build your next rig?
Or hell, for the perverse amongst us, when MS shows off their next version of Windows.
That's already what they charge. We just haven't been directly exposed to that price here in the US. And the iPhone is much more than just an iPod touch with a cell phone.
International travel, increased resale value, and the ability to switch over to a prepaid plan/carrier if you want. There are plenty of reasons to want an unlocked iPhone. The real question is, why *wouldn't* you want your iPhone unlocked by AT&T, given the choice?
Slashdot Mirror
No.
You overestimate the value others place on your opinion. Have a nice life.
the credit card number was never sent over the internet. an encrypted block of text was.
That encrypted block of text is your credit card number. If it wasn't, how do you think Amazon, or whoever, is able to make use of it? All encrypting it does is makes it more difficult to eavesdrop. But there's no way around the fact that you are submitting it into the internet when you make an online purchase.
HTTP over SSL/TLS is all about preventing eavesdropping. The internet host you communicate with still has to decrypt the stream to make use of it. The OP wasn't talking about how your data can be peeked upon in transit, but that entering it into the internet in the first place means you should expect it to be public.
you think i'm doing a job of being clever? that is very telling.
No, I just think you're trying to be. There's a difference.
That's exactly what I thought. Apple most likely has already made a deal with MAFIAA et. al. ...
Right, because the "most likely" thing Apple will do is make their customers afraid to use their products. It's completely brilliant! I just need some small bit of clarification... what possible reason could Apple have to do something like that? It would effectively kill iCloud, and cripple Apple's reputation.
But, surely there's some upside to this company-killing scheme, right?
My argument simply stems from my distrust of cloud computing. You're right that what I'm talking about doesn't have much to do with the actual article, I was just talking about the idea of iCloud in general. And I already said I don't know much about iCloud or what it actually does.
Exactly, your argument is based on ignorance.
I just know that Apple is not going to launder music for people. If there's some way to verify a file's licensing, they will. And if some kind of incriminating information comes up from checking these files, Apple is going to definitely take advantage of it.
Oh really? You "just know" this, do you? How so?
It's the equivalent of letting a cop into your home just talk and then him busting you because he found something illegal. And he would have every right to; in fact, he would see it as his "duty".
Apple is the police now? When did this happen?
I'm just saying that it's probably not a good idea to let Apple anywhere near the pirated music you may have on your computer.
Right, because up to now, people have *never* put pirated music into iTunes or synced it onto their iPods!
This iCloud thing (haven't heard much about it, I don't follow apple products) just sounds like a way for Apple to legally collect information on stupid music pirates (and probably who has ripped back-ups on their computer) that they can sell to record companies.
Actually, it sounds like a way for Apple to offer a cloud storage service for people to store things like their entire music collection, to, you know, make owning an iOS device more compelling and thus driving sales. Yeah, too obvious, right? There's gotta be something dodgy going on, this *is* a discussion related to Apple on slashdot after all!
The idea that Apple will turn you in is completely laughable. That would instantly kill the service, and critically damage Apple's reputation with its hundreds of millions of non-slashdot nerd customers. There's no way Apple would do this. To get people to use the cloud, they need people to place trust in the cloud and its provider. You don't accomplish this by making your customers afraid they might be sued or go to jail for using your service.
Exactly how many pirates really care about "forgiveness"? While greater than 0, /me thinks they are overestimating the crushing guilt caused by pirating music from Sony and others.
I think you are overestimating the number of people who hate Sony such that it's an automatic justification for "piracy".
Sure, this might not be a big concern to many (most?) hard core, focused and purpose-driven pirates, but for every one of those, there are a thousand casual pirates who just wanted a bunch of songs they could remember the names to when they first found limewire. Many of these people have since found iTunes worth using. It's easier, quicker, more reliable and of consistent quality. Well worth the price. But they still have a back catalog of tracks of dubious origin.
iCloud's Match service will take these tracks and clean them up, both making them of higher and more consistent quality, while also scrubbing away at least the appearance of these tracks' nefarious origin. It's hard to predict what level of of impact this will have in the motivations of people to use the service, but it doesn't seem rational to so completely discount it.
Looking at it as a one-time charge of $25 to "wash" one's complete music library? It may not be perfect, or of iron-clad logic, but I do think there are plenty of people who will find it to be a compelling part of what the service offers.
I don't see how doing this would relieve the guilt in the first place. You still haven't payed for the music. And people who pirate don't fear lawsuits.
A sense of guilt and legality status are not as strongly reason bound as you seem to be implying.
OH MY GOD! Apple is walling us in with DRM-FREE MUSIC!!!
You tell 'em! Those damned idiots and their emotion-filled arguments!!!! Screw em! They can shove their heads up their asses! Those bunches of morons!
Wait, what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, the superiority of making reasoned arguments. The rest are just bastards!
I believe my point was, and if you took a second to reflect on it, that you should treat everything as public because it CAN be, very easily.
I got your point just fine. That's why I inquired about your name and CC#. Both are (presumably) on the internet, but clearly they are more private than you've made them out to be.
Much easier than keeping that picture you had taken back in the 80s of that hottie you doinked.
Or your credit card number, or name, or countless other bits of info that somehow manage to remain sufficiently private. I don't disagree with the idea that one should consider privacy when entering information online, but the claim you made was too broad.
credit card numbers are not transmitted over the internet... rather an encrypted block of text is sent, and that block doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the encryption keys.
I realize you are trying to be clever, but you're not really making any sort of point. What does encryption have to do with whether or not you've entered something into the internet? By your logic, if you use https, you're not using the internet? So https://www.facebook.com/ is private?
but keep being an idiot, i mean, since that's all you are and all you could hope to be and all....
Like I said, trying to be clever. Just not doing a good job of it.
Google's search is about extracting information from the image to give you other related pieces of information, not where on the internet you can find the same image.
Actually, Google's search is about extracting ad views from its users.
What's your real name, and what are the credit card numbers you've used online?
I mean, since everything on the internet is public and all...
The screen, the case, the camera quality, the speaker quality, the battery... If you remove strictly just those things that add cellular connectivity to the iPhone, you'll still be left with something better than an iPod touch.
The irony here being that Google has actually used their kill switch, and Apple never has. But since Apple is supposed to be the evil one according to the nerds of slashdot...
Unlocking it isn't easy, and you first have to buy a phone to unlock, which means buying a phone under contract in the US (until just now).
With an unlocked iPhone, you can opt for any American GSM carrier, including many prepaid carriers. That means if you want an iPhone, but don't want to commit to a 2 year contract, you can buy prepaid cards and live on the cheap. Sure, that means you won't get 3G (unless you go with AT&T's network), but a non-3G iPhone is still worthwhile. After all, it's still a phone, still an iPod touch (with some upgraded components), and it's all in one package. And it gives you the option to move over to AT&T if you so desire, or cancel the phone altogether if you hit hard times, whatever.
Basically, the thing I can't understand, is why people seem to think having this as an option isn't a good thing. After all, there are clearly people who want an unlocked iPhone.
24 * $70, not * $40
BTW escaping a two year contract is ridiculously easy. The companies change the terms so frequently (such as adding a datacap when you signed for an unlimited dataplan) that you can terminate the contract without repercussion.
That's why they grandfather you in.
You will find that outside the nerd echo-chamber, few see Steve Jobs as a villain.
The irony is this also applies to pretty much *anyone* who gets excited over *anything* like this. For example, what part of your brain do you think lights up when you find a study that reinforces your idea that Apple fans are religious zealots? Hmm...?
Or when you get into a "holy war" over Unity in Ubuntu? Or Google's new Arduino kit? Or you walk out of Fry's with a bunch of computer parts to build your next rig?
Or hell, for the perverse amongst us, when MS shows off their next version of Windows.
That's already what they charge. We just haven't been directly exposed to that price here in the US. And the iPhone is much more than just an iPod touch with a cell phone.
Why the chorus of slashdot nerds decrying choice? Isn't "choice" the battle cry around here?
Oh, it's Apple that's offering choice? Well, that changes everything!
Durr hurr... I bet they'd also eat his children, too. lol!
There's absolutely no reason Apple wouldn't allow a payphone finder on the App Store.
International travel, increased resale value, and the ability to switch over to a prepaid plan/carrier if you want. There are plenty of reasons to want an unlocked iPhone. The real question is, why *wouldn't* you want your iPhone unlocked by AT&T, given the choice?
You should see the prices for unlocked top-tier Android phones!