I assume by your use of quotes that you don't think the guy committed a crime. You would do well to read the Computer Misuse Act (1980), and in particular Section 1 ("Unauthorized Access to Computer Material").
Explain how reporting a vulnerability to a company causes damages.
He's already broken in to your system without your permission or knowledge and downloaded your source code, you're meant to just trust him when he says that he didn't do anything else while he was in there?
You have to spend time and money on working out exactly what he did to make sure that there are no nasty surprises waiting for you.
No, they've tried to. "Send us email, go to our Facebook page, watch our twitter feed,..."
Oh don't be silly, they bought data from apparently-unrelated market research surveys, conducted their own surveys, etc. The GP is talking about the situation before Internet access became commonplace, though of course such surveys are still conducted now (my dad is semi-retired and does them himself from time to time).
Actually, what I think he's trying to say is that if copying data (a movie) isn't theft because nothing is actually stolen, then copying data (your contact list) isn't theft either, because again nothing is actually stolen.
He's not explicitly saying anything at all about the privacy implications or equating the two in any other way.
especially when that data comes in the form of a device ID, which is not really about an individual, but about a device that the individual owns
I own my device; it is not only very useful but also rather valuable and potentially able to cause me not inconsiderable expensive if it fell into the wrong hands (running up call charges, etc). Thus at all times, it is either on my person (e.g. in a pocket) or in the building in which I am currently in (on my desk at work or at home, etc). It is never more than a few metres away from me. Combine the device ID with the device's location, and you are tracking me to within a few metres (+/- the resolution of the location, of course). If that's not a privacy issue I don't know what is.
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion
I was once told, to my face, on a train station platform, that the necklaces I was wearing (a Celtic cross and a rune stone) meant that I was "worshipping a false god and would go to hell". She was very nice about it, but there you go.
I've also had Jehova's witnesses knock on my door, on occasion I've been stopped in the street and invited to talk about religion, I've seen people standing in the street with a megaphone proselytizing at passers by, I've even been approached in a pub by someone from a group meeting in a room upstairs inviting us to join them.
That's ignoring the references in popular culture - movies and music especially contain numerous references to Christianity, God, etc, the evangelical pastors and groups, etc.
On the other hand, I've never had an atheist approach me and push their non-belief on me. (And it's not like I have "atheist" tattooed on my forehead, although I am one)
Heh, I was going to reply to say almost exactly that (except for me it's 8 months and we're both in two minds about kids) - OkCupid seems to work really well, much better than any other dating site I've used. There are some truly awful ones out there (as with anything else), but tarring them all with the same brush is counter-productive (again, as with anything else).
Children have fully adult brain function at an average of age eight.
That may be neurologically true (though I doubt it), but they most certainly do not have the experience to make informed decisions or a real grasp of the concept of consequence and how their actions can lead to consequences which may be unpleasant or dangerous.
After all facebook doesn't need you to tag yourself, they have already identified you and just wait for your confirmation.
Their facial recognition software is impressive, but certainly not perfect. I don't have any hard data but in my experience while it does correctly identify people quite often, there are still significant false positives and negatives.
Well now, my employer already knows where I live and who I am (duh), my sexual orientation (and I know my boss's - I'm straight, he's gay, who cares?), I don't care who knows my political leanings (left of centre, from a UK perspective). That only leaves medical problems, which a) Google most certainly does not know, and b) currently amount to a mild case of psoriasis on my scalp and a mild strain injury to my right wrist/hand (from DIY). The former is visible, while the latter I have certainly moaned about to anyone within earshot enough times that the people I work closely with (including my boss) know about it, even if the wrist strap didn't give it away.
I can see that people wouldn't want all and sundry knowing all of that, especially the medical stuff. However, as for things like political leanings, sexual orientation, whether or not I enjoy a drink now and again, etc, while it's nobody's business I really don't care who knows and if an employer is going to object to any of it, I'd rather know before I waste time applying for a job with them as I wouldn't want to work for that sort of person anyway.
So personally, while I am a relatively private person (I have a Facebook account, but I don't share everything with everyone), I tend to agree with both you and the OP - sure, it's abusable, but in my case meh.
The sites want it as it's free advertising. I'm really not sure why the users want it though - what do I care if people know that I read a given news article? If I think it's good and worth their time, I'll post a link myself.
Why would they have to be doing it illegally? I'm sure if they waved enough money at Apple they'd get a licence - Apple would have no reason not to licence it to them, even if they withheld it from competitors.
I wish the EU would drop the sanity hammer and force OEMs to offer all computers with an option for no operating system at a full OEM license discount for said OS. What reason is there not to?
One possible reason is that the cost would need to be the OEM licence cost less the kickbacks the manufacturer gets for installing crap like trial versions of Norton, etc - there's no way that they're not being paid to do that, and it's possible that the effective cost to them of the licence is fairly close to zero.
That said in principle I agree, it should be possible to buy a computer without an OS. I just don't think the discount would be as high as people seem to think it would be.
no matter how abhorrent the law, it was still the law, and he knew that - I disagree with the law against assisted suicide but it doesn't mean anyone should go and break it JUST because they disagree with it
I think Rosa Parks would disagree with you. Disobeying an unjust law is the basis of civil disobedience; some would say that it is in fact your moral duty as a citizen. Of course, just because someone doesn't like a law doesn't make it unjust, but in cases like Turing's civil disobedience is absolutely justified.
I get creating replacement organs (whether "printed", grown in a lab or harvested from a pig or similar donor animal), but I'm confused about the "no scars" claim. Surely you still need to make an incision large enough to get the old organ out and the new one in - why would that not leave a scar?
Slashdot Mirror
making claims against the "criminal"
I assume by your use of quotes that you don't think the guy committed a crime. You would do well to read the Computer Misuse Act (1980), and in particular Section 1 ("Unauthorized Access to Computer Material").
Explain how reporting a vulnerability to a company causes damages.
He's already broken in to your system without your permission or knowledge and downloaded your source code, you're meant to just trust him when he says that he didn't do anything else while he was in there?
You have to spend time and money on working out exactly what he did to make sure that there are no nasty surprises waiting for you.
No, they've tried to. "Send us email, go to our Facebook page, watch our twitter feed, ..."
Oh don't be silly, they bought data from apparently-unrelated market research surveys, conducted their own surveys, etc. The GP is talking about the situation before Internet access became commonplace, though of course such surveys are still conducted now (my dad is semi-retired and does them himself from time to time).
Actually, what I think he's trying to say is that if copying data (a movie) isn't theft because nothing is actually stolen, then copying data (your contact list) isn't theft either, because again nothing is actually stolen.
He's not explicitly saying anything at all about the privacy implications or equating the two in any other way.
especially when that data comes in the form of a device ID, which is not really about an individual, but about a device that the individual owns
I own my device; it is not only very useful but also rather valuable and potentially able to cause me not inconsiderable expensive if it fell into the wrong hands (running up call charges, etc). Thus at all times, it is either on my person (e.g. in a pocket) or in the building in which I am currently in (on my desk at work or at home, etc). It is never more than a few metres away from me. Combine the device ID with the device's location, and you are tracking me to within a few metres (+/- the resolution of the location, of course). If that's not a privacy issue I don't know what is.
They do it at Elm Park too, though in the ticket hall not on the platforms.
You're measuring the value of x (and so it's "less than"), not counting the number of xs (which would be "fewer than").
The hypocrisy, of course, is that we're meant to accept their God on faith (i.e. without evidence), while they demand evidence of the safety wifi.
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion
I was once told, to my face, on a train station platform, that the necklaces I was wearing (a Celtic cross and a rune stone) meant that I was "worshipping a false god and would go to hell". She was very nice about it, but there you go.
I've also had Jehova's witnesses knock on my door, on occasion I've been stopped in the street and invited to talk about religion, I've seen people standing in the street with a megaphone proselytizing at passers by, I've even been approached in a pub by someone from a group meeting in a room upstairs inviting us to join them.
That's ignoring the references in popular culture - movies and music especially contain numerous references to Christianity, God, etc, the evangelical pastors and groups, etc.
On the other hand, I've never had an atheist approach me and push their non-belief on me. (And it's not like I have "atheist" tattooed on my forehead, although I am one)
Heh, I was going to reply to say almost exactly that (except for me it's 8 months and we're both in two minds about kids) - OkCupid seems to work really well, much better than any other dating site I've used. There are some truly awful ones out there (as with anything else), but tarring them all with the same brush is counter-productive (again, as with anything else).
Children have fully adult brain function at an average of age eight.
That may be neurologically true (though I doubt it), but they most certainly do not have the experience to make informed decisions or a real grasp of the concept of consequence and how their actions can lead to consequences which may be unpleasant or dangerous.
No company will hire this guy or anyone else that is going to quit because of selection of software.
Actually, as far as reasons to quit go "I didn't like the technical direction that the company was going in" seems perfectly fair enough to me.
After all facebook doesn't need you to tag yourself, they have already identified you and just wait for your confirmation.
Their facial recognition software is impressive, but certainly not perfect. I don't have any hard data but in my experience while it does correctly identify people quite often, there are still significant false positives and negatives.
Well now, my employer already knows where I live and who I am (duh), my sexual orientation (and I know my boss's - I'm straight, he's gay, who cares?), I don't care who knows my political leanings (left of centre, from a UK perspective). That only leaves medical problems, which a) Google most certainly does not know, and b) currently amount to a mild case of psoriasis on my scalp and a mild strain injury to my right wrist/hand (from DIY). The former is visible, while the latter I have certainly moaned about to anyone within earshot enough times that the people I work closely with (including my boss) know about it, even if the wrist strap didn't give it away.
I can see that people wouldn't want all and sundry knowing all of that, especially the medical stuff. However, as for things like political leanings, sexual orientation, whether or not I enjoy a drink now and again, etc, while it's nobody's business I really don't care who knows and if an employer is going to object to any of it, I'd rather know before I waste time applying for a job with them as I wouldn't want to work for that sort of person anyway.
So personally, while I am a relatively private person (I have a Facebook account, but I don't share everything with everyone), I tend to agree with both you and the OP - sure, it's abusable, but in my case meh.
What jpapon said, plus when replying to a post it's already filled in for you, so why not just leave it as it is?
Yeah, I was going to say something along those lines - if the parent company doesn't want to sell, you have to buy it instead.
The sites want it as it's free advertising. I'm really not sure why the users want it though - what do I care if people know that I read a given news article? If I think it's good and worth their time, I'll post a link myself.
Perhaps, but not the enemy that it was aimed at - the projectile will get there before the sound does.
That fixes it for him. Banning FMV ads fixes it for everyone.
Why would they have to be doing it illegally? I'm sure if they waved enough money at Apple they'd get a licence - Apple would have no reason not to licence it to them, even if they withheld it from competitors.
If it's a lake, it has a shoreline.
In my experience smartphones do, yes.
I wish the EU would drop the sanity hammer and force OEMs to offer all computers with an option for no operating system at a full OEM license discount for said OS. What reason is there not to?
One possible reason is that the cost would need to be the OEM licence cost less the kickbacks the manufacturer gets for installing crap like trial versions of Norton, etc - there's no way that they're not being paid to do that, and it's possible that the effective cost to them of the licence is fairly close to zero.
That said in principle I agree, it should be possible to buy a computer without an OS. I just don't think the discount would be as high as people seem to think it would be.
no matter how abhorrent the law, it was still the law, and he knew that - I disagree with the law against assisted suicide but it doesn't mean anyone should go and break it JUST because they disagree with it
I think Rosa Parks would disagree with you. Disobeying an unjust law is the basis of civil disobedience; some would say that it is in fact your moral duty as a citizen. Of course, just because someone doesn't like a law doesn't make it unjust, but in cases like Turing's civil disobedience is absolutely justified.
I get creating replacement organs (whether "printed", grown in a lab or harvested from a pig or similar donor animal), but I'm confused about the "no scars" claim. Surely you still need to make an incision large enough to get the old organ out and the new one in - why would that not leave a scar?