I agree that tracking people with RFID would be a challenge but considering the advances in the last 10 years or so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that in the near future this could be possible.
Of more immediate concern to me is that an unscrupulous criminal could pick up this guy's RFID as he passes by in a mall or on the street and intercept the RFID signal. He could then follow the guy home to find out where he lives. Then when the guy is not at home he could walk up to the house, reproduce the RFID signal and the house will open the door. Or worse, if it's a woman it would allow a stalker to walk into the house when she's at home.
Because RFIDs don't have any security and criminals are ingenious and becoming more tech savvy every day it's just another and perhaps easier way to steal someone's identity.
One of the possible uses being proposed is that a national Canadian ID card would be harmonized with the U.S. ID card. This would involve handing over the database to U.S. authorities. Once outside Canadian hands the database would no longer be subject to Canadian privacy laws. As a Canadian citizen, if my personal information is abused by my government then I have a chance of doing something about it. If the U.S. misuses it I have no recourse.
Another issue is that, assuming we trust our governments not to abuse the information, there is the threat that the information could be stolen and sold to criminals who could use it to perpetrate numerous scams and identity thefts. With personal information currently scattered among numerous databases that type of theft would be very difficult. With a national ID card bringing together all that information it's not only possible but I think much more likely.
Seriously, though. Why does the DOJ seem so toothless when it comes to corporations or the ultra-wealthy, yet act like right-stomping psychopaths for small players (to the point of waffling on definitions of torture, or weaseling around the constitution)?
I would agree with your analogy if the copyright claim in this case was to protect "the work" so that others could not profit from it but in this case they are hiding behind copyright law to prevent other people from seeing what they are doing. They are trying to protect their reputations not their creative work. That is not what copyright law was created to protect.
No but a couple folks I know do wedding videos and graduation videos in high def. You would not believe how cheap people are. And a plant running 100 copies is not cheap. To keep the average person from buying a copy and ripping it for every one in their family is nice. At least so the camera man can make his money back for his equipment and skill.
I see people ripping $8 dvd's of graduations. And why does it have to be a "plant" doing the duplication. I found 16 businesses offering DVD duplication near where I live. I imagine when the format war is officially over they'll begin offering Blu-ray duplication.
So let's say I create a video and want to sell it but not let folks copy it. I can't encrypt the disc and have it played in another player unless I pay to have the discs pressed. With hd-dvd I can change the encryption key to my own and make it at least semi difficult for some one to rip a copy of. A non technical person can't just rip a copy of it yet , like they can with a normal dvd. If your preference for HD-DVD is based in the virtues of it's DRM support then you're definitely in the wrong forum.
Seriously, if you produce a video with a big enough market that people even want to copy it, then you are likely sending it to a replicator and not burning them one at a time on your home PC. So the argument is moot.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
How is a cease and desist letter related in any way to "Science and useful Arts"?
I think that Idaho judge has smoked too many potatoes.
Now, if you grew wary of the american policies concerning ICAAN, get ready for bitchslapping at a worldwide level. I wouldn't trust the U.N. to oversee a four year old's birthday party.
A better approach might be to have a board of trustees elected by representatives of the ccTLD authorities.
It's not myspace's fault if their site is mis-used by children. They make a reasonable effort to protect children on their site. There is NO guarantee of ANYTHING (read the 20 page TOS/disclaimer). Just like gun makers aren't responsible for gang shootings, myspace isn't responsible if someone uploads KP.
I agree that Myspace is not responsible for how children use the site. They are however responsible for the hack that allowed pictures, that were supposed to be private, to be downloaded without permission. Just like a gun maker is not responsible for gang shootings but they are responsible if the gun blows up in the owner's hand because of a manufacturing flaw.
Also, the TOS is not an iron clad get-out-of-jail-free-card(tm). If people had a reasonable expectation that their pictures would remain private and didn't then it may not matter what the TOS says. However, that would be up to the courts to decide in the class action lawsuit that I suspect will be filed in the very near future.
I agree. Until some international or "country neutral" form of oversight can be put in place it's not a good idea to arbitrarily remove the oversight that it currently has. Regardless of what the tinfoil hat people might think of the current arrangement.
First of all, IE6 will render the pages correctly and if Microsoft correctly recognized the DOCTYPE tag then there really is no reason to create a new metatag for IE7 and IE8. After all, these same pages that would benefit from this tag seem to be correctly rendered in other browsers without needing anything more than DOCTYPE. What's so special about IE7/8 that it can't read and understand the DOCTYPE tag?
And yes, browsers that don't care can and will ignore the tag. But if Microsoft is able to convince web developers to code this metatag by default then that makes it a defacto standard. In effect allowing Microsoft to extend the standard.
My comment was in reference to new versions of Opera and Firefox not breaking older pages the way a new version of IE does not to the fact that it doesn't pass the Acid2 test. The metatag issue is not about the Acid2 test but about controlling browser rendering in a non-standard, browser/platform specific way.
They are attempting to end a cycle of new Microsoft browsers breaking older pages.
Opera, Mozilla/Firefox don't have this problem so why should Microsoft. By adding a tag that specifies the browser it makes the page browser specific and since we are talking IE it is now OS specific.
Sure a web developer could code other browsers in the tag but it will be ignored by other browsers because other browsers already follow standards and don't require the hint. The metatag might as well be called "IEVersion(tm)" because that's what it is. Once again, Microsoft is trying to make a standard Microsoft specific because they are too stupid, lazy or ignorant to implement what everyone else on the planet has agreed to.
Microsoft has no intention of ever being the "most accurate implementors of the specs" because they have no incentive. Implementing a standard does not make Microsoft more money, tying people to Microsoft products does.
The tag gives Microsoft a get out of jail free card so they don't have to follow standards ever again. Using the tag only reinforces their behaviour.
The satellite and resulting debris field in question are in low Earth orbit not geostationary orbit and therefore do not remain over the same location on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because in the two world wars last century the U.S. immediately jumped to everyone's defense...oh wait, they didn't.
I agree that tracking people with RFID would be a challenge but considering the advances in the last 10 years or so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that in the near future this could be possible.
Of more immediate concern to me is that an unscrupulous criminal could pick up this guy's RFID as he passes by in a mall or on the street and intercept the RFID signal. He could then follow the guy home to find out where he lives. Then when the guy is not at home he could walk up to the house, reproduce the RFID signal and the house will open the door. Or worse, if it's a woman it would allow a stalker to walk into the house when she's at home.
Because RFIDs don't have any security and criminals are ingenious and becoming more tech savvy every day it's just another and perhaps easier way to steal someone's identity.
These aren't the religions I'm looking for. I can go about our business. I'll along to the next article.
One of the possible uses being proposed is that a national Canadian ID card would be harmonized with the U.S. ID card. This would involve handing over the database to U.S. authorities. Once outside Canadian hands the database would no longer be subject to Canadian privacy laws. As a Canadian citizen, if my personal information is abused by my government then I have a chance of doing something about it. If the U.S. misuses it I have no recourse.
Another issue is that, assuming we trust our governments not to abuse the information, there is the threat that the information could be stolen and sold to criminals who could use it to perpetrate numerous scams and identity thefts. With personal information currently scattered among numerous databases that type of theft would be very difficult. With a national ID card bringing together all that information it's not only possible but I think much more likely.
IBM hasn't been truly evil since the 70's whereas Microsoft has been the worst of the worst for the better part of two decades.
I'm on teksavvy as well, great service. $30CDN/month for 200GB transfer. Unlimited transfer for $40CDN/month.
Because there is a Republican president.
I would agree with your analogy if the copyright claim in this case was to protect "the work" so that others could not profit from it but in this case they are hiding behind copyright law to prevent other people from seeing what they are doing. They are trying to protect their reputations not their creative work. That is not what copyright law was created to protect.
I see people ripping $8 dvd's of graduations. And why does it have to be a "plant" doing the duplication. I found 16 businesses offering DVD duplication near where I live. I imagine when the format war is officially over they'll begin offering Blu-ray duplication.
Seriously, if you produce a video with a big enough market that people even want to copy it, then you are likely sending it to a replicator and not burning them one at a time on your home PC. So the argument is moot.
How is a cease and desist letter related in any way to "Science and useful Arts"?
I think that Idaho judge has smoked too many potatoes.
Largest body of countries, International.
Now, if you grew wary of the american policies concerning ICAAN, get ready for bitchslapping at a worldwide level. I wouldn't trust the U.N. to oversee a four year old's birthday party.
A better approach might be to have a board of trustees elected by representatives of the ccTLD authorities.
I agree that Myspace is not responsible for how children use the site. They are however responsible for the hack that allowed pictures, that were supposed to be private, to be downloaded without permission. Just like a gun maker is not responsible for gang shootings but they are responsible if the gun blows up in the owner's hand because of a manufacturing flaw.
Also, the TOS is not an iron clad get-out-of-jail-free-card(tm). If people had a reasonable expectation that their pictures would remain private and didn't then it may not matter what the TOS says. However, that would be up to the courts to decide in the class action lawsuit that I suspect will be filed in the very near future.
I agree. Until some international or "country neutral" form of oversight can be put in place it's not a good idea to arbitrarily remove the oversight that it currently has. Regardless of what the tinfoil hat people might think of the current arrangement.
I didn't think of that angle but that's a good point.
Sorry, I'm usually pretty good but this time I missed the sarcasm.
First of all, IE6 will render the pages correctly and if Microsoft correctly recognized the DOCTYPE tag then there really is no reason to create a new metatag for IE7 and IE8. After all, these same pages that would benefit from this tag seem to be correctly rendered in other browsers without needing anything more than DOCTYPE. What's so special about IE7/8 that it can't read and understand the DOCTYPE tag?
And yes, browsers that don't care can and will ignore the tag. But if Microsoft is able to convince web developers to code this metatag by default then that makes it a defacto standard. In effect allowing Microsoft to extend the standard.
My comment was in reference to new versions of Opera and Firefox not breaking older pages the way a new version of IE does not to the fact that it doesn't pass the Acid2 test. The metatag issue is not about the Acid2 test but about controlling browser rendering in a non-standard, browser/platform specific way.
Opera, Mozilla/Firefox don't have this problem so why should Microsoft. By adding a tag that specifies the browser it makes the page browser specific and since we are talking IE it is now OS specific .
Sure a web developer could code other browsers in the tag but it will be ignored by other browsers because other browsers already follow standards and don't require the hint. The metatag might as well be called "IEVersion(tm)" because that's what it is. Once again, Microsoft is trying to make a standard Microsoft specific because they are too stupid, lazy or ignorant to implement what everyone else on the planet has agreed to.
Microsoft has no intention of ever being the "most accurate implementors of the specs" because they have no incentive. Implementing a standard does not make Microsoft more money, tying people to Microsoft products does.
The tag gives Microsoft a get out of jail free card so they don't have to follow standards ever again. Using the tag only reinforces their behaviour.
Now you can make money converting VBA macros to AppleScript for all those Mac users out there.
And the money train keeps chugging along...
Hey, it's a public forum. Quote away.
But to clarify, the "incompetent journalist overlords" I was referring to were the ones who wrote the article not the Slashdot editors that posted it.
No, that would be our "dupe overlords".
I for one welcome our incompetent journalist overlords.
This has to be a first. An AC I agree with.
The satellite and resulting debris field in question are in low Earth orbit not geostationary orbit and therefore do not remain over the same location on Earth.