It's President elect Bush. He can't do much w/o the OK of the other branches of government. You guys make it sound like he can do whatever he likes.
No, it's Bush himself and Attorney General Gonzales that claim Bush can do whatever he likes. If you want to argue executive power, talk to them, not people on Slashdot who are discussing reality while you discuss theory.
Congress and the courts have both repeatedly slapped down the Executive branch for doing precisely the things Bush claims the authority to do right now (hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, spy on american citizens without warrants, kidnap foreign nationals, torture prisoners or give them to other countries for the purpose of torture, etc etc etc).
In your theory, he should be smart enough to realize what he's doing is unconstitutional and will be slapped down by the other branches. In reality, he's smart enough to know that it takes years for such smackdowns to occur, so he's happy to violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution for that period of years he can get away with it.
I can't imagine Attorney General Gonzales is so ignorant of the legal precedents that he truly believes the President is allowed to do these things, but they all know that with compliant voters like you who don't care about the Constitution that they can maintain plausible deniability without any repercussions.
Shouldn't you post your calculations before we can give any weight to them? It may be, for example, that you never fly out of the country and that fact would alter the risk.
The only thing that would raise his risk wold be to stay off planes, so i don't think it much matters how or where he flies (so long as he stays on first-world airlines). If he spent 24/7 in flight, he'd be statistically safer than if he just stayed home.
What monopoly? Are you trying to say there is just one top level domain?
I'm trying to say there's only one registrar you can buy the domain from. If they can dictate prices for no reason whatsoever, then yes, they're a monopoly, and the domain name system was designed to be run by a monopoly, so there isn't anything wrong with that so long as ICANN does their job and regulates it.
There's now likely to be high demand for the name google, so it's value is high.
Um, no, there wouldnt be high demand, since anyone trying to use Google.* would be sued out of existence in 48 hours. There is no possible (commercial) use for that name for anyone but Google. And I don't think personal users will be able to afford a billion dollars a year to renew it.
As I said. Supply and demand. If Google don't like it they can bugger off and use another top level domain instead.
There is no supply or demand involved whatsoever. Google is a billion-dollar domain name to only one company on Earth, nobody else is bidding it up. And you suggest they can just go off and use another domain, but why wouldn't the registrar charge them a billion dollars for that one, too? I mean, they're Google, they have the money.
What you're saying is that the registrar can just unilaterally decide to drive a particular company or political group offline completely by charging them $10 billion a year for whatever domain name they try to register -- 3242ksdfsdlfkj5324324.com is $100 billion a year because we don't like your group! And there's nothing your group can do about it because whatever domain you try to register, no matter how random it is, will cost $100 billion.
That's not "supply and demand" by even the most cynical libertarian view, that's "I have the supply and I demand you give me $100 billion".
You lost me on the bit about Windows apps insisting on "dumping pieces in the/Program Files or/Windows directories," though. Prithee, where should Windows apps install their files if not/Program Files? I mean... isn't that what it's for?
I was talking about why many windows apps can't be installed with mere user rights -- because even if you tell it to install in C:\Bob's Only Writable Directory\, many apps will STILL try and put little bits in Program Files and (less often nowadays) Windows. But in theory, Windows shouldn't behave any differently than Mac OS X in terms of ability to install applications with only user rights, as long as the user is installing to a writable directory.
So while it isn't Microsoft's direct fault that application installation is still a mess, it is their fault that they trained all the third-party developers to follow such bad practices in the first place.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it only has to do with supply and demand, if it isn't worth it to them, then they won't pay.
It has nothing to do with supply and demand, it has to do with monopoly control of the domain system. The whole point is that the registrar has been given free reign to charge any amount they like, and the customers have no choice but to pay or lose their domain. The reason google.* is a valuable domain name is because Google, Inc gave it value, not because the registrar did anything special, and not because there was a great demand for the name on the open market.
The only study I can say I have ever agreed with that linked videogames to violence, which also linked television to violence, the study was from Japan and it was determined that it had nothing to do with the content but was related to the quantity of exposure; children who played videogames or watched television in excessive of 4 hours a day were (something like) five times as likely to resort to violence in a social setting.
Do you recall if they compensated for different social skills or time spent with others? I would imagine someone playing videogames or watching TV or reading or doing anything solitary for many hours a day would be less socially capable, and possibly more likely to become frustrated easily or in other ways consider violence more reasonable to settle disputes.
Like writing "You will now get this and this dialog. This is normal, just hit ok." Or do their stuff indirectly through another application that is permitted to do the network operation. Or whatever.... To summarize: That feature is a bad idea, because it requires that the malware author works with the system, not around. Thus, it easily instills a false sense of security, while providing very little real benefit.
I think you misunderstood -- OS X prompts you the first time an application is run (or if it has been changed), it has nothing to do with the network. So if you didn't change it, why would you be looking at instructions on which buttons to click? And they can't do anything through another application, because the first application can't spawn the second until you've authorized it to run.
So yes, it is beneficial, as long as people actually pay attention to it and don't blindy authorize anything that pops up. That hasn't been much of a problem in my experience, since OS X doesn't pop up nearly as many confirmation dialogs as Windows, and the users don't get desensitized to them.
The outbound firewall most people use on OS X is Little Snitch, and while it is far and away better than most of the Zone Alarm/Norton stuff on windows, it is still vulnerable to simple circumvention like attaching the data to Safari.app or something like that. It is more intended to catch apps phoning home (hence the name) and that sort of thing, not actively malicious behavior.
That might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The word "convicted" has a specific meaning. "Convicted" means 'found guilty of a crime', it doesn't mean 'is'.
I sympathize if English is not your first language, it is much less precise than most, so it tolerates sloppiness in construction and can be ambiguous when determining the meaning of modifiers and words which have multiple meanings. I'm not sure how replacing "convicted" with "is" in "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist" would make any sense, so I can't address your confusion on that point.
And John White is a convicted Irishman - he's been found guilty of murder, and found to be Irish. Yeah, that makes a lot of fuckin' sense.
Saying "John White is a convicted criminal who is also an Irishman" would be more precise, but there is always the possibility that someone will come along and believe you are saying he was convicted of being a criminal, which of course is redundant. "Convicted" is modifying "criminal" in such a way as to describe the KIND of criminal that John White is, not to describe the particular crime he committed. Likewise, in "Microsoft is a convicted monopoly", "convicted" can simply be modifying "monopoly" so that you know what KIND of monopoly it is, not the particular crime it was convicted of.
Microsoft could also be a de-facto monopoly, a large monopoly, a small monopoly, an American monopoly, etc. Presumably someone describing them as a convicted monopoly desires to highlight their criminal past rather than their point of origin or size, but it makes the sentence construction or meaning no different.
For a home computer that could be fine, but once you get into a corporate environment then how would it be policed? How would thnigs like licences be dealt with?
I'd guess the IT guys should set things up the way they want it on the disk image they install to every system. I'm kind of confused, what operating systems are you using that default deny executables? Other than terminals and kiosks I haven't seen this kind of behavior, though there's certainly nothing stopping an administrator from setting things up that way on a desktop (well, maybe on Windows that would be tough, but *nix/OS X systems would allow it).
And as far as a sand box goes, how much of a sandbox? Should it have access to the network? What about to sound cards and video cards?
That's an excellent question for system administrators to answer. Are you suggesting Apple and MS and Ubuntu and Debian and FreeBSD should all distribute OSes that default to not allowing the user to run any applications, use a network, sound card, video card, keyboard, disk drive or USB device? That doens't sound like it would be able to do much computing.
At the operating system level, security should mean no user is allowed to touch other users or the system itself (or allow other users to touch the user, hence default deny on accepting network connections). If a system administrator wants to put restrictions on the user's behavior within his own sandbox, then the OS should support those efforts, but I can't imagine any kind of consensus on what restrictions if any would make sense out of the box for all situations.
Surely its the other way round? Any sensible system should not allow a user to install anything unless they have the specific rights to do so - whether "administrative rights", or "Install rights" or "Super User" rights.
By default, I think a desktop OS should allow a user to do whatever he wants in his own secure sandbox. That's how most operate (in theory) nowadays and I don't expect it to change much. I mean, there's no real "install" required on most unix apps, you just have an executable file and you have the rights to run it/copy it/set executable or you don't.
Mac OS X does have parental controls whereby you can restrict users to only run specified applications.
Arrgghhh! I hate it when people say that. That exact line: "Microsoft is a convicted monopoly". You can't be "convicted" of being a monopoly, being a monopoly isn't a crime. Using that monopoly to unfairly gain more market share and profits is a crime.
Saying Microsoft is a convicted monopolist does not mean they were convicted of being a monopoly any more than saying someone is a convicted Irishman means they were convicted of being an Irishman.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist -- they've been found guilty of criminal activities, and they've been found to be a monopoly.
Microsoft can't put good security into Windows. They aren't allowed. They would be "investigated" and sued... again. Every time Microsoft puts some new, useful app into Windows someone cries "monopoly".
I think I see your fundamental misunderstanding, which seems to be the same as Microsoft's. Security is not about installing new apps, or developing new apps, or distributing new apps. Security is about removing the need for those apps in the first place.
There is a truism about design -- whether visual design, mechanical design, or OS design. The design will only improve as you remove unnecessary parts, and conversely if it isn't working right, the solution is almost never to add more to it. You need to takle it apart and see where the failure is before you add any more dead weight to the design.
I further defy you to find a single piece of software for MacOS X that doesn't require Admin privs to install.
I'm not sure if you mixed up words here or something. The vast majority of software can be installed on OS X by a non-admin user, just not to the global/Applications directory. Which is, of course, how any sensible system should behave -- users can install all the software they want in their own account under ~/Applications but can't do anything to the system or other users.
Some Windows applications support being installed entirely in user directories, but more often than not they insist on dumping pieces in the/Program Files or/Windows directories. Officially they shouldn't be doing that anymore, so it is more the fault of Windows application developers following outdated practices. But that's why it is so important to establish good practices from the beginning of the OS lifetime, rather than trying to ship first and fix later.
Otherwise whats stoping me from grabbing this 10 meg spreadsheet with all kindsa of useful customer info on it and emailing it to myself at home?
What's to stop you from running naked down the halls? What's to stop you from buying a shotgun and killing 4 people? What's to stop you from taking a dump on your boss's desk?
Are you incapable of self-control to the point where you need someone physically preventing you from doing wrong? Do you need to be bound and gagged and transported Hannibal Lector-style on a handcart everywhere you go?
When I worked the help desk for an ISP, I got complaints from folks because we didn't support SSL connections to our email servers. That would be like using an armed courier to send a package to someone, then having the courier leave the package on the doorstep!
I wasn't aware that every email I send and receive has my account password attached to it. Oh, they don't? Then I should probably use SSL to connect to my email server. SSL isn't about protecting the message, it's about protecting the client login.
This is the part I didn't get. Why would SCO care about asking some ex-employee of IBM about his personal life? I would think they would try to ask him things about the case itself and try to get him to contradict his previous testamony or testamony from someone else from IBM.
Because asking embarassing questions is a time-honored way for lawyers/police to upset and frustrate the interview subject. The hope is that once the person isn't thinking logically and carefully, they can be tricked into saying something stupid, or something that can be twisted, or something that can undermine their credibility. It's also a great way to discourage witnesses from participating in cases where you can't undermine their testimony, so your best bet is to try and prevent it.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
This is a civil case, not criminal. The way depositions work is that you answer all the questions asked and note objections at the time -- the judge will review objections after the fact and decide which portions of the deposition are admissible. But you can't refuse to answer questions wihtout risking contempt of court. Because of this, depositions are a favorite method of attorneys to harrass innocent people.
It seems like a sucky way to do things, but the alternative would be to perform all depositions with a judge there, which would probably require a hundred thousand new judges and every case would take even longer, or depositions would each take years to finish because every objection would have to stop the interview and then you'd wait for a ruling and then schedule another deposition to continue.
It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up.
You mean eBay isn't allowed to look and see if feedback is all negative until the feedback is public? Why is this company held to know standard of responsibility? If someone makes a new account and immediately starts getting negative feedback, maybe just maybe sombody at eBay should get off their ass and close the account, not just sit around and let buyers continue falling into the scam.
Of course, you could also make all feedback for a new account immediately public until it reaches a certain feedback value. There are at least a hundred different solutions to this "problem".
Slashdot Mirror
It's President elect Bush. He can't do much w/o the OK of the other branches of government. You guys make it sound like he can do whatever he likes.
No, it's Bush himself and Attorney General Gonzales that claim Bush can do whatever he likes. If you want to argue executive power, talk to them, not people on Slashdot who are discussing reality while you discuss theory.
Congress and the courts have both repeatedly slapped down the Executive branch for doing precisely the things Bush claims the authority to do right now (hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, spy on american citizens without warrants, kidnap foreign nationals, torture prisoners or give them to other countries for the purpose of torture, etc etc etc).
In your theory, he should be smart enough to realize what he's doing is unconstitutional and will be slapped down by the other branches. In reality, he's smart enough to know that it takes years for such smackdowns to occur, so he's happy to violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution for that period of years he can get away with it.
I can't imagine Attorney General Gonzales is so ignorant of the legal precedents that he truly believes the President is allowed to do these things, but they all know that with compliant voters like you who don't care about the Constitution that they can maintain plausible deniability without any repercussions.
Maybe the ire at haveing to talk to a computer comes out in my voice if it's not my accent.
:)
It's the old tech support truism -- computers smell fear!
or BSMD lifestyles
:P
BSMD -- is that where people get sexually excited by listening to doctors talk authoritatively about things they don't know?
Shouldn't you post your calculations before we can give any weight to them? It may be, for example, that you never fly out of the country and that fact would alter the risk.
The only thing that would raise his risk wold be to stay off planes, so i don't think it much matters how or where he flies (so long as he stays on first-world airlines). If he spent 24/7 in flight, he'd be statistically safer than if he just stayed home.
And sorry if my tone came off as harsh. I tend to over-elaborate sometimes.
:)
Puh-leeze! This is slashdot, you'll have to get MUCH more condescending and sarcastic to keep up with the crowd here!
What monopoly? Are you trying to say there is just one top level domain?
I'm trying to say there's only one registrar you can buy the domain from. If they can dictate prices for no reason whatsoever, then yes, they're a monopoly, and the domain name system was designed to be run by a monopoly, so there isn't anything wrong with that so long as ICANN does their job and regulates it.
There's now likely to be high demand for the name google, so it's value is high.
Um, no, there wouldnt be high demand, since anyone trying to use Google.* would be sued out of existence in 48 hours. There is no possible (commercial) use for that name for anyone but Google. And I don't think personal users will be able to afford a billion dollars a year to renew it.
As I said. Supply and demand. If Google don't like it they can bugger off and use another top level domain instead.
There is no supply or demand involved whatsoever. Google is a billion-dollar domain name to only one company on Earth, nobody else is bidding it up. And you suggest they can just go off and use another domain, but why wouldn't the registrar charge them a billion dollars for that one, too? I mean, they're Google, they have the money.
What you're saying is that the registrar can just unilaterally decide to drive a particular company or political group offline completely by charging them $10 billion a year for whatever domain name they try to register -- 3242ksdfsdlfkj5324324.com is $100 billion a year because we don't like your group! And there's nothing your group can do about it because whatever domain you try to register, no matter how random it is, will cost $100 billion.
That's not "supply and demand" by even the most cynical libertarian view, that's "I have the supply and I demand you give me $100 billion".
You lost me on the bit about Windows apps insisting on "dumping pieces in the /Program Files or /Windows directories," though. Prithee, where should Windows apps install their files if not /Program Files? I mean... isn't that what it's for?
I was talking about why many windows apps can't be installed with mere user rights -- because even if you tell it to install in C:\Bob's Only Writable Directory\, many apps will STILL try and put little bits in Program Files and (less often nowadays) Windows. But in theory, Windows shouldn't behave any differently than Mac OS X in terms of ability to install applications with only user rights, as long as the user is installing to a writable directory.
So while it isn't Microsoft's direct fault that application installation is still a mess, it is their fault that they trained all the third-party developers to follow such bad practices in the first place.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it only has to do with supply and demand, if it isn't worth it to them, then they won't pay.
It has nothing to do with supply and demand, it has to do with monopoly control of the domain system. The whole point is that the registrar has been given free reign to charge any amount they like, and the customers have no choice but to pay or lose their domain. The reason google.* is a valuable domain name is because Google, Inc gave it value, not because the registrar did anything special, and not because there was a great demand for the name on the open market.
CorelDRAW was once the industry standard. Things change.
*spits coffee*
What industry would that be exactly? Windows-using corporate secretaries doing DTP from 1991-1994?
The only study I can say I have ever agreed with that linked videogames to violence, which also linked television to violence, the study was from Japan and it was determined that it had nothing to do with the content but was related to the quantity of exposure; children who played videogames or watched television in excessive of 4 hours a day were (something like) five times as likely to resort to violence in a social setting.
Do you recall if they compensated for different social skills or time spent with others? I would imagine someone playing videogames or watching TV or reading or doing anything solitary for many hours a day would be less socially capable, and possibly more likely to become frustrated easily or in other ways consider violence more reasonable to settle disputes.
Like writing "You will now get this and this dialog. This is normal, just hit ok." Or do their stuff indirectly through another application that is permitted to do the network operation. Or whatever. ...
To summarize: That feature is a bad idea, because it requires that the malware author works with the system, not around. Thus, it easily instills a false sense of security, while providing very little real benefit.
I think you misunderstood -- OS X prompts you the first time an application is run (or if it has been changed), it has nothing to do with the network. So if you didn't change it, why would you be looking at instructions on which buttons to click? And they can't do anything through another application, because the first application can't spawn the second until you've authorized it to run.
So yes, it is beneficial, as long as people actually pay attention to it and don't blindy authorize anything that pops up. That hasn't been much of a problem in my experience, since OS X doesn't pop up nearly as many confirmation dialogs as Windows, and the users don't get desensitized to them.
The outbound firewall most people use on OS X is Little Snitch, and while it is far and away better than most of the Zone Alarm/Norton stuff on windows, it is still vulnerable to simple circumvention like attaching the data to Safari.app or something like that. It is more intended to catch apps phoning home (hence the name) and that sort of thing, not actively malicious behavior.
That might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The word "convicted" has a specific meaning. "Convicted" means 'found guilty of a crime', it doesn't mean 'is'.
I sympathize if English is not your first language, it is much less precise than most, so it tolerates sloppiness in construction and can be ambiguous when determining the meaning of modifiers and words which have multiple meanings. I'm not sure how replacing "convicted" with "is" in "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist" would make any sense, so I can't address your confusion on that point.
And John White is a convicted Irishman - he's been found guilty of murder, and found to be Irish. Yeah, that makes a lot of fuckin' sense.
Saying "John White is a convicted criminal who is also an Irishman" would be more precise, but there is always the possibility that someone will come along and believe you are saying he was convicted of being a criminal, which of course is redundant. "Convicted" is modifying "criminal" in such a way as to describe the KIND of criminal that John White is, not to describe the particular crime he committed. Likewise, in "Microsoft is a convicted monopoly", "convicted" can simply be modifying "monopoly" so that you know what KIND of monopoly it is, not the particular crime it was convicted of.
Microsoft could also be a de-facto monopoly, a large monopoly, a small monopoly, an American monopoly, etc. Presumably someone describing them as a convicted monopoly desires to highlight their criminal past rather than their point of origin or size, but it makes the sentence construction or meaning no different.
For a home computer that could be fine, but once you get into a corporate environment then how would it be policed? How would thnigs like licences be dealt with?
I'd guess the IT guys should set things up the way they want it on the disk image they install to every system. I'm kind of confused, what operating systems are you using that default deny executables? Other than terminals and kiosks I haven't seen this kind of behavior, though there's certainly nothing stopping an administrator from setting things up that way on a desktop (well, maybe on Windows that would be tough, but *nix/OS X systems would allow it).
And as far as a sand box goes, how much of a sandbox? Should it have access to the network? What about to sound cards and video cards?
That's an excellent question for system administrators to answer. Are you suggesting Apple and MS and Ubuntu and Debian and FreeBSD should all distribute OSes that default to not allowing the user to run any applications, use a network, sound card, video card, keyboard, disk drive or USB device? That doens't sound like it would be able to do much computing.
At the operating system level, security should mean no user is allowed to touch other users or the system itself (or allow other users to touch the user, hence default deny on accepting network connections). If a system administrator wants to put restrictions on the user's behavior within his own sandbox, then the OS should support those efforts, but I can't imagine any kind of consensus on what restrictions if any would make sense out of the box for all situations.
Surely its the other way round? Any sensible system should not allow a user to install anything unless they have the specific rights to do so - whether "administrative rights", or "Install rights" or "Super User" rights.
By default, I think a desktop OS should allow a user to do whatever he wants in his own secure sandbox. That's how most operate (in theory) nowadays and I don't expect it to change much. I mean, there's no real "install" required on most unix apps, you just have an executable file and you have the rights to run it/copy it/set executable or you don't.
Mac OS X does have parental controls whereby you can restrict users to only run specified applications.
Arrgghhh! I hate it when people say that. That exact line: "Microsoft is a convicted monopoly". You can't be "convicted" of being a monopoly, being a monopoly isn't a crime. Using that monopoly to unfairly gain more market share and profits is a crime.
Saying Microsoft is a convicted monopolist does not mean they were convicted of being a monopoly any more than saying someone is a convicted Irishman means they were convicted of being an Irishman.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist -- they've been found guilty of criminal activities, and they've been found to be a monopoly.
Microsoft can't put good security into Windows. They aren't allowed. They would be "investigated" and sued... again. Every time Microsoft puts some new, useful app into Windows someone cries "monopoly".
I think I see your fundamental misunderstanding, which seems to be the same as Microsoft's. Security is not about installing new apps, or developing new apps, or distributing new apps. Security is about removing the need for those apps in the first place.
There is a truism about design -- whether visual design, mechanical design, or OS design. The design will only improve as you remove unnecessary parts, and conversely if it isn't working right, the solution is almost never to add more to it. You need to takle it apart and see where the failure is before you add any more dead weight to the design.
I further defy you to find a single piece of software for MacOS X that doesn't require Admin privs to install.
/Applications directory. Which is, of course, how any sensible system should behave -- users can install all the software they want in their own account under ~/Applications but can't do anything to the system or other users.
/Program Files or /Windows directories. Officially they shouldn't be doing that anymore, so it is more the fault of Windows application developers following outdated practices. But that's why it is so important to establish good practices from the beginning of the OS lifetime, rather than trying to ship first and fix later.
I'm not sure if you mixed up words here or something. The vast majority of software can be installed on OS X by a non-admin user, just not to the global
Some Windows applications support being installed entirely in user directories, but more often than not they insist on dumping pieces in the
Nice and subtle :)
Otherwise whats stoping me from grabbing this 10 meg spreadsheet with all kindsa of useful customer info on it and emailing it to myself at home?
What's to stop you from running naked down the halls? What's to stop you from buying a shotgun and killing 4 people? What's to stop you from taking a dump on your boss's desk?
Are you incapable of self-control to the point where you need someone physically preventing you from doing wrong? Do you need to be bound and gagged and transported Hannibal Lector-style on a handcart everywhere you go?
Should be titled "Teen creates device to prevent himself from ever being invited to parties".
When I worked the help desk for an ISP, I got complaints from folks because we didn't support SSL connections to our email servers. That would be like using an armed courier to send a package to someone, then having the courier leave the package on the doorstep!
I wasn't aware that every email I send and receive has my account password attached to it. Oh, they don't? Then I should probably use SSL to connect to my email server. SSL isn't about protecting the message, it's about protecting the client login.
This is the part I didn't get. Why would SCO care about asking some ex-employee of IBM about his personal life? I would think they would try to ask him things about the case itself and try to get him to contradict his previous testamony or testamony from someone else from IBM.
Because asking embarassing questions is a time-honored way for lawyers/police to upset and frustrate the interview subject. The hope is that once the person isn't thinking logically and carefully, they can be tricked into saying something stupid, or something that can be twisted, or something that can undermine their credibility. It's also a great way to discourage witnesses from participating in cases where you can't undermine their testimony, so your best bet is to try and prevent it.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
This is a civil case, not criminal. The way depositions work is that you answer all the questions asked and note objections at the time -- the judge will review objections after the fact and decide which portions of the deposition are admissible. But you can't refuse to answer questions wihtout risking contempt of court. Because of this, depositions are a favorite method of attorneys to harrass innocent people.
It seems like a sucky way to do things, but the alternative would be to perform all depositions with a judge there, which would probably require a hundred thousand new judges and every case would take even longer, or depositions would each take years to finish because every objection would have to stop the interview and then you'd wait for a ruling and then schedule another deposition to continue.
held to know standard of responsibility /eats, shoots self, and leaves
It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up.
You mean eBay isn't allowed to look and see if feedback is all negative until the feedback is public? Why is this company held to know standard of responsibility? If someone makes a new account and immediately starts getting negative feedback, maybe just maybe sombody at eBay should get off their ass and close the account, not just sit around and let buyers continue falling into the scam.
Of course, you could also make all feedback for a new account immediately public until it reaches a certain feedback value. There are at least a hundred different solutions to this "problem".