And it is ILLEGAL. It is really quite simple. Are they offerering a paid-for service? Yes. Are you using that service? Yes. Did you pay for the service? No! Then you have committed theft of services. All your blathering about whitelists, holes, devices, means absolutely nothing. The legal meaning of 'authorized' does not include any nonsense about whitelists, backdoors, mis-configured servers. The legal meaning of authority is 'do you know (mybe not, if you are an idiot), or should you know (absolutely) that the only way this service is offered is by explicit agreement with the provider (ie payment), and do you have that explicit agreement (ie paid)'. And no, a hole in their defenses does NOT provide that agreement.
Theft of services is basically defined as knowingly using a service that is being sold without paying for it. It doesn't matter if your method of access is some extremely clever and complicated hack, a mis-configured server, a backdoor, or getting your buddy who works there to authorize your device.
As with most laws, it is YOUR actions that matter, NOT your targets actions.
There certainly are laws that say you can't get access you didn't pay for. I cited New York's law above. Basically, if someone is selling a service and you find a way to use their service without paying for it, no matter how clever you think you are, it is theft of services.
Where did you get that idea? For instance, here is an excerpt from NY law explaining when a person is guilty of theft of services
With intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for any telephone service which is provided for a charge or compensation he (a) sells, offers for sale or otherwise makes available, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device; or (b) uses, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device; or (c) knowingly obtains any telecommunications service with fraudulent intent by use of an unauthorized, false, or fictitious name, identification, telephone number, or access device. For purposes of this subdivision access device means any telephone calling card number, credit card number, account number, mobile identification number, electronic serial number or personal identification number that can be used to obtain telephone service.
Wrong. General Motors was not bailed out. It failed. The company no longer exists. The shareholders got nothing. If you find some GM stock in your grandmother's attic you might as well use it as toilet paper, because it is worthless.
Everything is locked down? Weird then that they publish this. It tells you how to enable/disable Secure Boot, how to enable/disable TPM, how to boot from other devices, etc.
Exactly. And before that, they built crystal radio sets. I think the OP just threw together a bunch of stereotypes to see if he could get any mods to bite. Unsurprisingly, he did.
Either you don't realize there is a difference between healthy older people and those with dementia, or you think all older people have dementia. Unless he had dementia, it is very unlikely your grandfather was 'completely baffled' by any of those things.
A few weeks ago we had a party for my parents, and their friends were there. The ages ranged from 70 to 90. Almost all of them had cell phones, and many were taking pictures and posting them to Facebook. Of the ones that didn't have cell phones, some couldn't see well enough to use one, and one said it hurt his hands too much to hold one.
Your comments about 'old people homes' are absurd. There are basically three types of 'od people homes': senior housing, assisted living, and nursing home. For the first two types, the residents CHOOSE to live there, so the facilities provide whatever amenities that will attract residents. OF COURSE they provide Internet service.
But I guess when you say old people home, you mean nursing home. Those people are not there because they want to be, they are there because they can't care for themselves or make their own decisions. Some can't feed themselves, some can't use the bathroom, some don't even know their children's names. But you think if you wind up there a concern is going to be Internet access? Are you already insane?
Yeah, as usual this is just another hyped-up clickbait summary. When you read TFA, you find that what they actually claim to have is:
All KNOWN addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses (jeez, they know stuff they know)
Propery bought and sold, including mortgages (public records stuff) Vehicles owned (public records) Criminal record (public records) Voter registration (public records) Hunting permits (public records)
They also claim to have 'biilions of photographs from private companies with license plate scanners'. Kind of doubtful, companies don't give that info away for free, and why would they buy it if they don't need it.
Oh, and the 'every purchase' bullshit? Well, they own a couple of coupon companies, and IF you sign up for their coupons they ask for stuff like email and birthday, and IF you use those coupons when you buy something they know what you bought. No shit.
The Constitution most certainly does NOT say the government may not respect any religion, it says it cannot create a LAW respecting a religion. This is not a law, it is a resolution. They are NOT the same thing. A law requires YOU to do, or prevents YOU from doing,something. A resolution does not.
Ah, yes. 'The republicans' did that, did they? The actual vote for that resolution was 197-0, with 4 members (1 republican, 3 democrats) on leave. 89 of the people (45%) who voted FOR the amendment were Democrats. There were 0 Democrats who voted AGAINST the resolution. If this were purely 'a republican' thing, as you like to portray, why did ALL of the Democrats support it?
Seriously? You expect us to believe that when you said 'nice lawsuit trolling' you were maybe referring to the reporter? You saw something that fit in nicely with your narrow world view so you believed it without doing any checking to see if it was true. When it was pointed out that the statement was in fact false you deny that you ever believed it.
Not lawsuit trolling, just trolling by whatever idiot wrote that. In the Retailers Information Guide to what is taxable is this statement (page 14).
Tax is imposed on books, stationery and stationery supplies, including Bibles and religious publications sold by religious groups. (emphasis mine)
And the summary of the new taxes simply says it applies to 'e-books and otherwise taxable printed material'. Not a single mention of 'Bibles' anywhere.
Except there does not appear to actually be such an exemption. It appears to have been made up, probably to generate outrage and hence clicks.
Here is what the state says the new changes are. It includes 'e-books and otherwise taxable printed matter'. It does not mention bibles anywhere.
So, bibles must not be 'otherwise taxable printed matter', right? Nope. Here is the list of what is taxable. The list starts on page 14. First item on the list is 'Books', and right under the heading is this statement. "Tax is imposed on books, stationery and stationery supplies, including Bibles and religious publications sold by religious groups."
Oh, and further down the list we find that textbooks are NON-TAXABLE.
Read the whole document (which is what I quoted), not just the bits you like.
The part you quoted was just an introductory statement, it has no content. The second quote I gave says exactly what they committed to - investigating ways to allow open source on certain 5Ghz routers without allowing the radio operation to be changed. Hardly a requirement to allow open source.
I imagine the conversation went like this: your routers allow the user to adjust the radio, we can't have that. Well, we think the hacker community is important and want them to use our stuff. Well, you had better make sure you don't allow the radio to be adjusted. Ok, we'll do that.
You have agreement, commitment, and no requirement other than the radio be protected.
What makes you think the FCC has even the slightest authority to demand that a manufacturer allow open source, especially for an unlicensed product like a WiFi router?
Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open source. What it says is:
“While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.”
They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE,
Later on it says: TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters.
So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open source,
The maximum width (which is what matters for lane size) of a commercial vehicle (ie real truck or bus) is 102 inches. The largest Suburban tops out at 80 inches. For reference, a Camaro is 74.5 inches. So a Suburban is slightly wider than a car, and a whole lot narrower than a truck.
The maximum height (which is what matters for overpass restrictions) of a commercial vehicle is 168 inches. The maximum height of a Suburban is 74 inches. You could stack 2 Suburbans on top of each other and not be as high as a truck.
Pickups with 4 rear wheels are already classified as medium-duty trucks, and do pay higher tolls and have lane and road restrictions.
1. The license plates are determined by the USAGE of the vehicle in addition to the TYPE of vehicle. If an SUV is not being used commercially, why on earth should it have commercial plates? That makes as much sense as saying all Town Cars should be required to have T&LC plates.
2. Pressure is what causes road wear. Tire inflation pressures for SUVs and pickups is about the same as for cars. Therefore, the pressure on the road is also about the same.
3. Road restrictirons are because the roads have lanes that are too narrow and/or overpasses that are too low for trucks to safely use them. SUVs and pickups fit on those roads just fine. Car only lanes are there to prevent a slow-moving truck from trying to pass a slightly slower-moving truck and causing congestion. Not an issue with pickups and SUVs.
Slashdot Mirror
And it is ILLEGAL. It is really quite simple. Are they offerering a paid-for service? Yes. Are you using that service? Yes. Did you pay for the service? No! Then you have committed theft of services. All your blathering about whitelists, holes, devices, means absolutely nothing. The legal meaning of 'authorized' does not include any nonsense about whitelists, backdoors, mis-configured servers. The legal meaning of authority is 'do you know (mybe not, if you are an idiot), or should you know (absolutely) that the only way this service is offered is by explicit agreement with the provider (ie payment), and do you have that explicit agreement (ie paid)'. And no, a hole in their defenses does NOT provide that agreement.
Nothing is taken in the case of a server sending you files. It's not like taking money at all.
The law disagrees. It is called THEFT of services.
Theft of services is basically defined as knowingly using a service that is being sold without paying for it. It doesn't matter if your method of access is some extremely clever and complicated hack, a mis-configured server, a backdoor, or getting your buddy who works there to authorize your device.
As with most laws, it is YOUR actions that matter, NOT your targets actions.
There certainly are laws that say you can't get access you didn't pay for. I cited New York's law above. Basically, if someone is selling a service and you find a way to use their service without paying for it, no matter how clever you think you are, it is theft of services.
Where did you get that idea? For instance, here is an excerpt from NY law explaining when a person is guilty of theft of services
With intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for any telephone service which is provided for a charge or compensation he (a) sells, offers for sale or otherwise makes available, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device; or (b) uses, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device; or (c) knowingly obtains any telecommunications service with fraudulent intent by use of an unauthorized, false, or fictitious name, identification, telephone number, or access device. For purposes of this subdivision access device means any telephone calling card number, credit card number, account number, mobile identification number, electronic serial number or personal identification number that can be used to obtain telephone service.
See anything in there about TOS?
Exactly this. You can tell how little someone knows about actual security by how they trot out the old 'security by obscurity' meme.
Wrong. General Motors was not bailed out. It failed. The company no longer exists. The shareholders got nothing. If you find some GM stock in your grandmother's attic you might as well use it as toilet paper, because it is worthless.
Do you even know what too big to fail means? I doubt it.
Wrong. They even publish how to disable secure boot an TPM.
Everything is locked down? Weird then that they publish this. It tells you how to enable/disable Secure Boot, how to enable/disable TPM, how to boot from other devices, etc.
Exactly. And before that, they built crystal radio sets. I think the OP just threw together a bunch of stereotypes to see if he could get any mods to bite. Unsurprisingly, he did.
Either you don't realize there is a difference between healthy older people and those with dementia, or you think all older people have dementia. Unless he had dementia, it is very unlikely your grandfather was 'completely baffled' by any of those things.
A few weeks ago we had a party for my parents, and their friends were there. The ages ranged from 70 to 90. Almost all of them had cell phones, and many were taking pictures and posting them to Facebook. Of the ones that didn't have cell phones, some couldn't see well enough to use one, and one said it hurt his hands too much to hold one.
Your comments about 'old people homes' are absurd. There are basically three types of 'od people homes': senior housing, assisted living, and nursing home. For the first two types, the residents CHOOSE to live there, so the facilities provide whatever amenities that will attract residents. OF COURSE they provide Internet service.
But I guess when you say old people home, you mean nursing home. Those people are not there because they want to be, they are there because they can't care for themselves or make their own decisions. Some can't feed themselves, some can't use the bathroom, some don't even know their children's names. But you think if you wind up there a concern is going to be Internet access? Are you already insane?
It was never stated that this was a done deal. It was announced as a feasibility study, and this is the result of the study.
Yeah, as usual this is just another hyped-up clickbait summary. When you read TFA, you find that what they actually claim to have is:
All KNOWN addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses (jeez, they know stuff they know)
Propery bought and sold, including mortgages (public records stuff)
Vehicles owned (public records)
Criminal record (public records)
Voter registration (public records)
Hunting permits (public records)
They also claim to have 'biilions of photographs from private companies with license plate scanners'. Kind of doubtful, companies don't give that info away for free, and why would they buy it if they don't need it.
Oh, and the 'every purchase' bullshit? Well, they own a couple of coupon companies, and IF you sign up for their coupons they ask for stuff like email and birthday, and IF you use those coupons when you buy something they know what you bought. No shit.
The Constitution most certainly does NOT say the government may not respect any religion, it says it cannot create a LAW respecting a religion. This is not a law, it is a resolution. They are NOT the same thing. A law requires YOU to do, or prevents YOU from doing,something. A resolution does not.
Ah, yes. 'The republicans' did that, did they? The actual vote for that resolution was 197-0, with 4 members (1 republican, 3 democrats) on leave. 89 of the people (45%) who voted FOR the amendment were Democrats. There were 0 Democrats who voted AGAINST the resolution. If this were purely 'a republican' thing, as you like to portray, why did ALL of the Democrats support it?
Seriously? You expect us to believe that when you said 'nice lawsuit trolling' you were maybe referring to the reporter? You saw something that fit in nicely with your narrow world view so you believed it without doing any checking to see if it was true. When it was pointed out that the statement was in fact false you deny that you ever believed it.
Not lawsuit trolling, just trolling by whatever idiot wrote that. In the Retailers Information Guide to what is taxable is this statement (page 14).
Tax is imposed on books, stationery and stationery supplies, including Bibles and religious publications sold by religious groups. (emphasis mine)
And the summary of the new taxes simply says it applies to 'e-books and otherwise taxable printed material'. Not a single mention of 'Bibles' anywhere.
Except there does not appear to actually be such an exemption. It appears to have been made up, probably to generate outrage and hence clicks.
Here is what the state says the new changes are. It includes 'e-books and otherwise taxable printed matter'. It does not mention bibles anywhere.
So, bibles must not be 'otherwise taxable printed matter', right? Nope. Here is the list of what is taxable. The list starts on page 14. First item on the list is 'Books', and right under the heading is this statement. "Tax is imposed on books, stationery and stationery supplies, including Bibles and religious publications sold by religious groups."
Oh, and further down the list we find that textbooks are NON-TAXABLE.
Read it yourself, idiot. It says CONGRESS shall make no law. Got it? CONGRESS did not make this law, it was a civil trial using COMMON law.
Read the whole document (which is what I quoted), not just the bits you like.
The part you quoted was just an introductory statement, it has no content. The second quote I gave says exactly what they committed to - investigating ways to allow open source on certain 5Ghz routers without allowing the radio operation to be changed. Hardly a requirement to allow open source.
I imagine the conversation went like this: your routers allow the user to adjust the radio, we can't have that. Well, we think the hacker community is important and want them to use our stuff. Well, you had better make sure you don't allow the radio to be adjusted. Ok, we'll do that.
You have agreement, commitment, and no requirement other than the radio be protected.
What makes you think the FCC has even the slightest authority to demand that a manufacturer allow open source, especially for an unlicensed product like a WiFi router?
Weird then that ATT provides instructions on how to use your own router,
Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open source. What it says is:
“While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.”
They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE,
Later on it says:
TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5
GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters.
So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open source,
The maximum width (which is what matters for lane size) of a commercial vehicle (ie real truck or bus) is 102 inches. The largest Suburban tops out at 80 inches. For reference, a Camaro is 74.5 inches. So a Suburban is slightly wider than a car, and a whole lot narrower than a truck.
The maximum height (which is what matters for overpass restrictions) of a commercial vehicle is 168 inches. The maximum height of a Suburban is 74 inches. You could stack 2 Suburbans on top of each other and not be as high as a truck.
Pickups with 4 rear wheels are already classified as medium-duty trucks, and do pay higher tolls and have lane and road restrictions.
1. The license plates are determined by the USAGE of the vehicle in addition to the TYPE of vehicle. If an SUV is not being used commercially, why on earth should it have commercial plates? That makes as much sense as saying all Town Cars should be required to have T&LC plates.
2. Pressure is what causes road wear. Tire inflation pressures for SUVs and pickups is about the same as for cars. Therefore, the pressure on the road is also about the same.
3. Road restrictirons are because the roads have lanes that are too narrow and/or overpasses that are too low for trucks to safely use them. SUVs and pickups fit on those roads just fine. Car only lanes are there to prevent a slow-moving truck from trying to pass a slightly slower-moving truck and causing congestion. Not an issue with pickups and SUVs.