It's a shame it had to end, especially the way it did, but 26 (if I count right) days is a hell of a run. Unfortunately, it was probably inevitable, though.
In the end, an era of a thing the way it was built to be--right or wrong, not here for that ---^ debate--makes me nod solemnly and light a smoke.
They should just indirectly affect the end-consumer's bandwidth bill if anything.
That would be one large roadblock--possibly the largest--to implementing any wholesale changes to the whole scheme; if transport costs go up, invariably part of that cost is sent down to the consumer, which would at least lead to vicious consumer backlash (at most, a race to see who can dicker down those costs best, which could lead to subscribers hopping like mad from ISP to ISP). In any case, revenue to some degree gets impacted, and over an issue that the VAST majority of end-users know nothing about. Yeah, it's broke right now, but there's no distinct reason to fix it. If something were going to go horrendously wrong, it very likely (imho, almost assuredly) would have happened at some point since this flaw became known.
But there are only 13 internet root servers . . ..
13 root DNS servers...this is a different protocol altogether. I don't pretend to understand real well--VLSM/CIDR confuse the hell out of me, and that's where I gave up trying to understand the nuts and bolts--but there's a very large number of systems whose routes would need to be compromised, and quickly, to make this have an effect that is visible to end users--and even that would be short lived. As the parent put it:
This "hijacking" happens all the time, people immediately see it and fix it and nobody notices.
It means it's an unposted story; if you've paid good money for the folks who run this joint, it's one of the 'plums' they give you--to see them before those cheapasses who prefer ads and such.
It depends on context, asshat. If it's an article about animals, you're absolutely right; if it's an article about people, you're dead fucking wrong. If you're an American, show some fucking respect; the wars these folks fought in may not have been 'right', but they did more than your lazy ass sitting in a chair in front of a computer.
Side note: If we were in a draft era, I would have been 4-F'd off the bat, before you bring up that counter.
And when a breach does occur, do you honestly believe this will waive any liability to Facebook, in this particular case? The only way it does is if someone has to go to extraordinary measures to obtain any lost data; it's more likely to be lax security on their part that would lead to something like that happening.
Secondly, the remainder of the Privacy Policy does give information on how and when your information, whether Personally Identifying or not, is disseminated, and what controls the end user has to limit such dissemination within certain bounds--which really gets outside the persistent backup that they seem to insist on, and has become a point of contention, as deleted accounts/information is generally be available to members of Facebook (@ Section Changing or Removing Information).
And, believe me, just because you're a lawyer does not mean you have all the law down.
Yes, but they have much more access to case law and ability to realize precedent than does Joe Six-Pack. It's much easier for one who's somewhat familiar with the law to do the research (knowing the linguistic hurdles used even in the 1% that they know, as well as having increased access and familiarity) that someone else.
Quite frankly, your 'hedging your bets' assertion is also rather ridiculous; I don't care what sector you go to, privacy is a serious thing no matter where you go or what industry you're working in, and that's the root of this particular debate--the indefinite storage, by a company, of any party's Sensitive Personal Information. This affects potentially anyone, anywhere, and more than likely in negative ways, and should be a priority for any company engaging in any sort of information storage. If you don't have the budget to keep up on law; then do the initial research, and go with the BARE MINIMUM on data retention--that's your best bet, is to keep as little as possible, to reduce the amount of potential breaches, present or future. That gets down to Joe'sWebsite.com as well; if Joe, in his website, is retaining any sort of SPI, he better damn well understand what he's doing before he does it; the onus is STILL on him.
This isn't a matter of someone finding some minor loophole, this is a major breach in the way this, and several other (very likely) companies (large or small) handle data retention.
That's the point; as soon as Canadians circumvent the filtering, Facebook is once again conducting business in Canada; it would solve NOTHING. As soon as a Canadian citizen is involved, even if the packet hits Facebook via a proxy server set up in Kazakhstan, Canadian law applies, and Facebook would have to comply. They'd waste the time/energy on that change, and STILL have to deal with the Privacy Commission.
It's actually the onus of the possessor of the information to prove that it's secure. If I provide such information, on good faith, to a company (who issues a privacy policy detailing how they disseminate and secure my information), they are responsible for making sure it doesn't fall into someone else's hands. Thus, if there's reason to believe (not necessarily proof) that such information may have been leaked, the possessor of the information has to be able to prove that it did NOT leak--otherwise, they pretty well satisfy the Petitioner's Burden of Proof for them; saying "Well, we made all these copies of the data, but we don't know where 1% of them are" is essentially saying "1% of our backups are outside the control of our company", thus creating a breach of privacy.
This wouldn't be of any assistance; those Canucks are rather industrious, and would find ways around such filtering. Thus, Canucks would still exist on Facebook, and there would be a pissed off Privacy Commision bloke getting calls at their office getting increasingly pissed at Facebook.
That is a special case, yes, but I would assume that, with a collaborative work, when one person dissents to continued display or holding of that work, the other(s) can't over-rule them on that, and the content would have to be taken down/removed. Just speculation, IANAL after all.
You have have dozens or even hundreds of backups of said data, which may or may not be fully accounted for.
If anyone who has my personal data can't account for what they've done with it, that's a much bigger concern than not deleting it; quite frankly, if someone tells me they don't know where (X) went, how can they tell me that entity (Y) doesn't have it?
I can't seriously fathom how you could seriously consider forcing someone to go through laws everywhere stating how they are in compliance with them.
Someone, somewhere, has to do it, whether the consumer or the provider of the service. Companies should be paying the 'nice' men in three-piece suits to say, actually do some work, rather than expecting the user (or the government) to point out when they've done fucked up. The casual user isn't likely to know the law very well, outside of the basics, nor do they have the resources to fully research and understand, particularly when it comes to determining judicial interpretation and precedent--unless they happen to be of the legal profession themselves.
This was NOT the original intention of copyright or patents (ie: intellectual property). The original intention was to give an incentive for people to publish their work for the betterment of society as a whole, rather than keeping it to themselves. It was also meant to encourage people to think of inventions that provide utility for many people.
Let's take a look at the first bold bit there; protecting the rights of the creator is one hell of an incentive to publish their works; without that protection, the substantial guarantee that you can create a work and no one can copy it and claim it as their own (even if the loss you encounter is just in notariety, rather than financial), there is no incentive to publish, and no other incentive that you can think of can even compete with it.
The second section you placed in bold says pretty well the same thing; why waste the time thinking of some new gadget, or a piece of music if, when you make it public, someone else can just take the same idea that you put time and energy into and run with it, leaving you in obscurity?
My statements initially are the logical simplification of the statements of the time. In essence, Copyright provides incentive for the creator to create, by protecting their rights as the sole creator, which is the best incentive the creator needs to justify publishing their work.
Very few people want "no copyright" but an awful lot of them want "less government"
Well said; we're getting to a point that 'piracy' is an inevitability...music, video, etc, is GOING to be shared, and the way interpretation of copyright law is going these days, any victory for the Industries gets one step closer to extreme government oversight and penalisation for things that, ultimately, end up being relatively minor. Copyright laws, as originally written and intended, were to prevent someone from taking the printed words or phonographed music of one person, and claiming it as their own, to make it a profit. It's been bastardized to excess now, though, and even though we've seen suit after complaint after appeal after suit on the whole subject, not a thing with copyright law or dealings related to infringement has seemingly changed EXCEPT to favour the Industries with increased prying by the lawyers with Government OK's in doing so.
In the end, it's a hopeless endeavor, make token efforts to put in limitations on physical media, and when they get cracked, take some solace in the fact that records are still being sold (or downloaded from iTunes), and that people will still flock to a movie theatre (probably for the popcorn)..
Wholeheartedly agreed. The only concievable situation where I could see an employer getting my credit report, and disqualifying me based on that, is if I owed them money--on the other hand, I'd think that'd be an ideal way to recoup the debt, is to have your debtor working for you, as a wage-slave of sorts.
Ultimately, though, it has no place in determining the worthiness of someone from an employment standpoint, especially where we're at now; 2 years from now, should this type of practice continue, people are going to be balls-to-the-wall, unable to get jobs because they defaulted on this loan or that loan during a recession. A credit report does NOTHING to determine if a person can do a job competently, that's what the goddamned resume is for.
Using the string indicated in the post, I tested this, 05:10 CDT on 08/08/09, and got results much the opposite (I'd do the whole copy-paste thing, but adding the paragraphs and breaks would take far too long--how about a screen grab? Here!
Please note, I'm no MS fanboi, I think the/. effect may have made Bill Gates shit his pants.
...and the only reason he was modding consoles was for people to play games they had pirated and didn't pay a dime for.
Talk about a giant jump to conclusions. If you read any number of above topics, there are SEVERAL other possible reasons for modding a game console (holy shit, one of which would be playing games you purchased for another region's console). Just because the knee-jerk reaction news post that is TFA says this is why does not, by default, make it true, it's a reactive statement intended to get readership and viewership, when not a damn thing has been proven. Just because it CAN be done with a modded console does not directly infer that's WHY it was done. As well, if that's what the end-user ended up doing when they got their modded console back, there is very little possibility of the Feds reliably being able to prove that he knew about it--it'd take some real creative maneuvering to get the people who bought the service of modding the console to speak up, because quite frankly, the prospect of an X-for-1 conviction by getting people to admit that's why they asked him to do it is much more tantalizing than giving those people any sort of amnesty in the whole deal, seeing as they would then be the primary infringers.
Hey, I choose not to be a sheep and opt to own anything that is not an iPhone. I prefer my mobile web browsing to fit within the limits or a 240x240 px screen, with minimal images and.wml extensions on the pages.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a shame it had to end, especially the way it did, but 26 (if I count right) days is a hell of a run. Unfortunately, it was probably inevitable, though.
In the end, an era of a thing the way it was built to be--right or wrong, not here for that ---^ debate--makes me nod solemnly and light a smoke.
They should just indirectly affect the end-consumer's bandwidth bill if anything.
That would be one large roadblock--possibly the largest--to implementing any wholesale changes to the whole scheme; if transport costs go up, invariably part of that cost is sent down to the consumer, which would at least lead to vicious consumer backlash (at most, a race to see who can dicker down those costs best, which could lead to subscribers hopping like mad from ISP to ISP). In any case, revenue to some degree gets impacted, and over an issue that the VAST majority of end-users know nothing about. Yeah, it's broke right now, but there's no distinct reason to fix it. If something were going to go horrendously wrong, it very likely (imho, almost assuredly) would have happened at some point since this flaw became known.
But there are only 13 internet root servers . . . .
13 root DNS servers...this is a different protocol altogether. I don't pretend to understand real well--VLSM/CIDR confuse the hell out of me, and that's where I gave up trying to understand the nuts and bolts--but there's a very large number of systems whose routes would need to be compromised, and quickly, to make this have an effect that is visible to end users--and even that would be short lived. As the parent put it:
This "hijacking" happens all the time, people immediately see it and fix it and nobody notices.
It means it's an unposted story; if you've paid good money for the folks who run this joint, it's one of the 'plums' they give you--to see them before those cheapasses who prefer ads and such.
It depends on context, asshat. If it's an article about animals, you're absolutely right; if it's an article about people, you're dead fucking wrong. If you're an American, show some fucking respect; the wars these folks fought in may not have been 'right', but they did more than your lazy ass sitting in a chair in front of a computer.
Side note: If we were in a draft era, I would have been 4-F'd off the bat, before you bring up that counter.
Then Slashdot steps in with "MS PHOTOSHOPS WHITE DUDE OVER SOME BLACK GUY".
Just the head. His hand is still black. Maybe they just hired Michael Jackson...? Too soon?
And when a breach does occur, do you honestly believe this will waive any liability to Facebook, in this particular case? The only way it does is if someone has to go to extraordinary measures to obtain any lost data; it's more likely to be lax security on their part that would lead to something like that happening.
Secondly, the remainder of the Privacy Policy does give information on how and when your information, whether Personally Identifying or not, is disseminated, and what controls the end user has to limit such dissemination within certain bounds--which really gets outside the persistent backup that they seem to insist on, and has become a point of contention, as deleted accounts/information is generally be available to members of Facebook (@ Section Changing or Removing Information) .
And, believe me, just because you're a lawyer does not mean you have all the law down.
Yes, but they have much more access to case law and ability to realize precedent than does Joe Six-Pack. It's much easier for one who's somewhat familiar with the law to do the research (knowing the linguistic hurdles used even in the 1% that they know, as well as having increased access and familiarity) that someone else.
Quite frankly, your 'hedging your bets' assertion is also rather ridiculous; I don't care what sector you go to, privacy is a serious thing no matter where you go or what industry you're working in, and that's the root of this particular debate--the indefinite storage, by a company, of any party's Sensitive Personal Information. This affects potentially anyone, anywhere, and more than likely in negative ways, and should be a priority for any company engaging in any sort of information storage. If you don't have the budget to keep up on law; then do the initial research, and go with the BARE MINIMUM on data retention--that's your best bet, is to keep as little as possible, to reduce the amount of potential breaches, present or future. That gets down to Joe'sWebsite.com as well; if Joe, in his website, is retaining any sort of SPI, he better damn well understand what he's doing before he does it; the onus is STILL on him.
This isn't a matter of someone finding some minor loophole, this is a major breach in the way this, and several other (very likely) companies (large or small) handle data retention.
That's the point; as soon as Canadians circumvent the filtering, Facebook is once again conducting business in Canada; it would solve NOTHING. As soon as a Canadian citizen is involved, even if the packet hits Facebook via a proxy server set up in Kazakhstan, Canadian law applies, and Facebook would have to comply. They'd waste the time/energy on that change, and STILL have to deal with the Privacy Commission.
It's actually the onus of the possessor of the information to prove that it's secure. If I provide such information, on good faith, to a company (who issues a privacy policy detailing how they disseminate and secure my information), they are responsible for making sure it doesn't fall into someone else's hands. Thus, if there's reason to believe (not necessarily proof) that such information may have been leaked, the possessor of the information has to be able to prove that it did NOT leak--otherwise, they pretty well satisfy the Petitioner's Burden of Proof for them; saying "Well, we made all these copies of the data, but we don't know where 1% of them are" is essentially saying "1% of our backups are outside the control of our company", thus creating a breach of privacy.
This wouldn't be of any assistance; those Canucks are rather industrious, and would find ways around such filtering. Thus, Canucks would still exist on Facebook, and there would be a pissed off Privacy Commision bloke getting calls at their office getting increasingly pissed at Facebook.
That is a special case, yes, but I would assume that, with a collaborative work, when one person dissents to continued display or holding of that work, the other(s) can't over-rule them on that, and the content would have to be taken down/removed. Just speculation, IANAL after all.
You have have dozens or even hundreds of backups of said data, which may or may not be fully accounted for.
If anyone who has my personal data can't account for what they've done with it, that's a much bigger concern than not deleting it; quite frankly, if someone tells me they don't know where (X) went, how can they tell me that entity (Y) doesn't have it?
I can't seriously fathom how you could seriously consider forcing someone to go through laws everywhere stating how they are in compliance with them.
Someone, somewhere, has to do it, whether the consumer or the provider of the service. Companies should be paying the 'nice' men in three-piece suits to say, actually do some work, rather than expecting the user (or the government) to point out when they've done fucked up. The casual user isn't likely to know the law very well, outside of the basics, nor do they have the resources to fully research and understand, particularly when it comes to determining judicial interpretation and precedent--unless they happen to be of the legal profession themselves.
This was NOT the original intention of copyright or patents (ie: intellectual property). The original intention was to give an incentive for people to publish their work for the betterment of society as a whole, rather than keeping it to themselves. It was also meant to encourage people to think of inventions that provide utility for many people.
Let's take a look at the first bold bit there; protecting the rights of the creator is one hell of an incentive to publish their works; without that protection, the substantial guarantee that you can create a work and no one can copy it and claim it as their own (even if the loss you encounter is just in notariety, rather than financial), there is no incentive to publish, and no other incentive that you can think of can even compete with it.
The second section you placed in bold says pretty well the same thing; why waste the time thinking of some new gadget, or a piece of music if, when you make it public, someone else can just take the same idea that you put time and energy into and run with it, leaving you in obscurity?
My statements initially are the logical simplification of the statements of the time. In essence, Copyright provides incentive for the creator to create, by protecting their rights as the sole creator, which is the best incentive the creator needs to justify publishing their work.
Very few people want "no copyright" but an awful lot of them want "less government"
Well said; we're getting to a point that 'piracy' is an inevitability...music, video, etc, is GOING to be shared, and the way interpretation of copyright law is going these days, any victory for the Industries gets one step closer to extreme government oversight and penalisation for things that, ultimately, end up being relatively minor. Copyright laws, as originally written and intended, were to prevent someone from taking the printed words or phonographed music of one person, and claiming it as their own, to make it a profit. It's been bastardized to excess now, though, and even though we've seen suit after complaint after appeal after suit on the whole subject, not a thing with copyright law or dealings related to infringement has seemingly changed EXCEPT to favour the Industries with increased prying by the lawyers with Government OK's in doing so.
In the end, it's a hopeless endeavor, make token efforts to put in limitations on physical media, and when they get cracked, take some solace in the fact that records are still being sold (or downloaded from iTunes), and that people will still flock to a movie theatre (probably for the popcorn)..
Wholeheartedly agreed. The only concievable situation where I could see an employer getting my credit report, and disqualifying me based on that, is if I owed them money--on the other hand, I'd think that'd be an ideal way to recoup the debt, is to have your debtor working for you, as a wage-slave of sorts.
Ultimately, though, it has no place in determining the worthiness of someone from an employment standpoint, especially where we're at now; 2 years from now, should this type of practice continue, people are going to be balls-to-the-wall, unable to get jobs because they defaulted on this loan or that loan during a recession. A credit report does NOTHING to determine if a person can do a job competently, that's what the goddamned resume is for.
Ugh...Zap Brannigan.
Using the string indicated in the post, I tested this, 05:10 CDT on 08/08/09, and got results much the opposite (I'd do the whole copy-paste thing, but adding the paragraphs and breaks would take far too long--how about a screen grab? Here!
/. effect may have made Bill Gates shit his pants.
Please note, I'm no MS fanboi, I think the
...and the only reason he was modding consoles was for people to play games they had pirated and didn't pay a dime for.
Talk about a giant jump to conclusions. If you read any number of above topics, there are SEVERAL other possible reasons for modding a game console (holy shit, one of which would be playing games you purchased for another region's console). Just because the knee-jerk reaction news post that is TFA says this is why does not, by default, make it true, it's a reactive statement intended to get readership and viewership, when not a damn thing has been proven. Just because it CAN be done with a modded console does not directly infer that's WHY it was done. As well, if that's what the end-user ended up doing when they got their modded console back, there is very little possibility of the Feds reliably being able to prove that he knew about it--it'd take some real creative maneuvering to get the people who bought the service of modding the console to speak up, because quite frankly, the prospect of an X-for-1 conviction by getting people to admit that's why they asked him to do it is much more tantalizing than giving those people any sort of amnesty in the whole deal, seeing as they would then be the primary infringers.
On a side note, is Xboxen the proper plural for them now? Outside Brian Regan's however-many boxen of donuts, never heard it used.
There are a lot of questions here, and the law under discussion is a highly complex piece of...shit.
Let's just call a spade a spade here.
Now that's just lazy.
Hey, I choose not to be a sheep and opt to own anything that is not an iPhone. I prefer my mobile web browsing to fit within the limits or a 240x240 px screen, with minimal images and .wml extensions on the pages.
"Oops, you got an injection attack! 327!"
I almost tried that IRL. My wife wouldn't let me pick our daughter's name.