That's ridiculous. The whole point of facebook is that it is a private place for you and whoever you authorize, and no one else (be it mom or the PD, depending on if you "add" them).
The real solution is to not post things on facebook that you don't want contacts on your friends list to see.
I work at UGA. While I didn't know this guy, I do know he did a lot of work in campus-wide anti-virus. So his job was a lot more than just e-mailing students who sparked a DMCA letter.
Later, a full-force Bear Patrol is on watch. Homer watches proudly.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
It's not as simple as every slippery slope argument is a fallacy (read your link). And in this circumstance, I think it's apt. But you have failed to demonstrate that my argument is flawed. Try again:)
As for your argument that removing only some cameras is ineffective, I disagree. I think that's the only way. Rarely are rights won in broad strokes of the pen. It is usually bit by bit. It's a slow process, for sure, but just because it's slow doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Imagine if civil rights leaders gave up because they couldn't gain widespread equality in one step.
The argument is that a cop pulling you over is a lot different than a camera snapping a picture.
The slippery slope argument applies here. If we have cameras at traffic lights looking for crime, why not put cameras on all streets. Take it one step further, and why not put cameras in people's homes? If they're not breaking the law, they have nothing to fear, right?
I think it's a good idea that a cop should have to witness a traffic violation to cite the driver. Automation in police enforcement is a very scary idea for those of us concerned with the decay of our rights to privacy.
Usage of the software constitutes acceptance of the EULA. Displaying it during install is a formality. Have your cat, drunk underage neighbor, automated device or whatever click "I Agree" all day long. But as whenever you're using the software, you're agreeing to the terms.
I've not seen a bank do it, but these guys do, which I think is just insane, especially seeing as in all other respects (apart from price) they are an excellent domain registrar. Click the login link in the top left and you'll be presented with a non-https page with a username and password on it. I've emailed them about it but they just don't get it. Idiots.
I've stopped using MelbourneIT for new registrations on that basis. I suggest you do the same.
Actually the site you mentioned DOES process your login through SSL. If you look at the form action, it is sent to a HTTPS address. Now looking at the web page, the blank form is sent unencrypted, but the login is handled over SSL. That's the way some banks operate to avoid the sluggish load times with HTTPS compared to regular HTTP.
And thus the (fatal?) flaw of capitalism: it has no regard for sustainability. Seriously, we can't always keep increasing everything. We'll run out of resources real quick that way.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's not technically "spying" if a spy obtains info EASILY?
That's ridiculous. The whole point of facebook is that it is a private place for you and whoever you authorize, and no one else (be it mom or the PD, depending on if you "add" them). The real solution is to not post things on facebook that you don't want contacts on your friends list to see.
Pot meet kettle
Er that should read "he did a lot of work in campus-wide anti-virus SOLUTIONS." That's what I get for posting while eating lunch at my desk.
I work at UGA. While I didn't know this guy, I do know he did a lot of work in campus-wide anti-virus. So his job was a lot more than just e-mailing students who sparked a DMCA letter.
Police set up a sting operation and had a plain clothes officer meet the employee who demanded the money.
Later, a full-force Bear Patrol is on watch. Homer watches proudly.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Or just look at the cached version. It contains all the content in the pay-for version of EE, and can actually be useful, sometimes.
Can the product expiration simply be avoided by setting an earlier date in BIOS?
Does this remind anyone else of the argument that "when the president does it, it's not illegal"?
Nice to see that change came to town...
Remember when students actually stood for something and raged against the machine, instead of for it? Nice to see that still exists somewhere.
Just because it's cheaper to violate people's privacy rights doesn't make it the right decision.
It's not as simple as every slippery slope argument is a fallacy (read your link). And in this circumstance, I think it's apt. But you have failed to demonstrate that my argument is flawed. Try again :)
As for your argument that removing only some cameras is ineffective, I disagree. I think that's the only way. Rarely are rights won in broad strokes of the pen. It is usually bit by bit. It's a slow process, for sure, but just because it's slow doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Imagine if civil rights leaders gave up because they couldn't gain widespread equality in one step.
The argument is that a cop pulling you over is a lot different than a camera snapping a picture. The slippery slope argument applies here. If we have cameras at traffic lights looking for crime, why not put cameras on all streets. Take it one step further, and why not put cameras in people's homes? If they're not breaking the law, they have nothing to fear, right? I think it's a good idea that a cop should have to witness a traffic violation to cite the driver. Automation in police enforcement is a very scary idea for those of us concerned with the decay of our rights to privacy.
Reading a public web posting and running somebody's code are different things entirely.
Usage of the software constitutes acceptance of the EULA. Displaying it during install is a formality. Have your cat, drunk underage neighbor, automated device or whatever click "I Agree" all day long. But as whenever you're using the software, you're agreeing to the terms.
I've stopped using MelbourneIT for new registrations on that basis. I suggest you do the same.
Actually the site you mentioned DOES process your login through SSL. If you look at the form action, it is sent to a HTTPS address. Now looking at the web page, the blank form is sent unencrypted, but the login is handled over SSL. That's the way some banks operate to avoid the sluggish load times with HTTPS compared to regular HTTP.And thus the (fatal?) flaw of capitalism: it has no regard for sustainability. Seriously, we can't always keep increasing everything. We'll run out of resources real quick that way.
Or maybe he just doesn't believe in imaginary property and is practicing civil disobedience, rather than merely being "cheap"?