Because he brute force hacked the IMEI's and downloaded information for specific users. He was convicted because he used IMEI's that did not belong to him and therefore masqueraded as the phone owner to gain the information.
In this case the police used standard P2P queries to get the information. It is not hacking when one does not fraudulently misidentify one's self.
A public, unauthenticated internet service is a public, unauthenticated internet service.
Weev did not make a standard query to a server and get information. He had scripts that sent millions of possible imei's to the server to get information for that specific user. He was convicted because he use IMEI's that did not belong to him and therefore masqueraded as the owners of those phones to download the information.
This is about money and without money the Olympics will not survive.
Look at it this way, the hosting country is signing on for the following: 1. Massive infrastructure build. 2. Massive security costs. Thanks PLO and others. 3. Massive costs for accommodations and food. 4. Massive costs for transportation. Add all that together and then realize that it all has to be recouped within the few weeks of the Olympics. It is easy to see why the IOC is very watchful of people infringing on their income streams. If you want the Olympics to continue the broadcast rights need to be worth paying for.
And you are more comfortable with a technology you can't interact with or direct in any way intruding into your eyes and ears?
I can look in another direction and I have seen nowhere that it mentions audio advertising.
I mentioned that secret courts would prevent your knowledge of collusion,
So the presence of secret courts justifies you lack of proof? That is a cop out and you know it.
Do you really believe the bullshit line put out by the company as to "why" it was being done?
I really don't care if the "line" was true or false. All I care about was that it was found and stopped and that there is no evidence that any government organization was involved.
Asking a question is not an attack, it's a question.
The question proposes that if I do not agree with you I must be daft. Someone does not have to be daft to disagree with you.
Would you not be better served by a worker that you can say "no thanks" to as opposed to a CCTV
No as I am a polite person and feel an obligation to interact with someone trying to interact with me. I can ignore computers just fine.
The Information Commissioner's Office has nothing to do with the GCHQ so why are you mixing them together? Also, none of your links have anything to so with placing wifi trackers in the street. I ask again, do you have any proof that the government has anything to do with placing WiFi trackers in the street?
By the way, personal attacks,such as calling someone "daft", just shows that your arguments are weak and your tact is lacking.
Useful? No, it's not useful. If you believe that it's useful shame on you for having such short vision. I would not claim it's useless, but rather that it is harmful. It takes away the need for a store to have people doing the same job.
I get bored in lines and if there are advertising that I am interesded in displayed I will be more entertained. I can do without adds for tampons and justin bieber albums. That is the usefulness to me.
It infers that discrimination is fine as long as it's a TV monitor discriminating against you and not a person. (If I'm giving Joe a benefit due to age, I'm denying that same benefit to Harry).
What benefit are some people being denied. The benefit of seeing ads they are not interested in?
We see that in the UK this works so well against the GCHQ right? Secret medical courts also have a grand track record right?
References? I did a quick look at the GCHQ and the issue with them is foreign surveillance. I can't find anything on secret medical courts.
You are denying that information was collaborated with the UK Government?
Reference please. Where is your proof that the government was involved when it was the government that found it and stopped it.
You are claiming that as long as nobody gets caught it's okay to continue?
No, I am claiming that they will be easily caught and stopped if they tried it.
The main issue with the future scenarios is that you are banning something useful now because, after many changes , it may be bad in the future. You completely ignore organizations like the Information Commissioner's Office who are watching every change to ensure that the bad changes do not happen.
Could the Government refuse to let the company serve you because you didn't pay your taxes?
That would mean that the company would know whether or not a specific person paid their taxes which is confidential information and the government would be breaking at least one law by releasing that information. They would be taken to court by the many privacy watchdog organizations.
We have already seen that certain companies are not against this, nor are the Governments (see UK trash bins tracking peoples mobile devices).
That was not a government program and the government stopped it when they found out.
all that needs to happen is a quick link up of those systems and they have you.
Just because something can be done does not mean it will be done. The Information Commissioner's Office seems to be doing a pretty good job monitoring the situation and is requiring the store to post how they are using the video. If they ever do match face with name by the computer they will be required to post that fact as well. That will allow customers to decide to use that store or another. Many people will chose another store. Sales will drop and the system will be removed.
The defining thing about slippery slope is the assumption of inevitability. Very few things are inevitable and moving from facial classification to full facial recognition is not one of those.. Stopping something good now because it may be turned to bad in the future is invalid. If it starts turning bad that is when one stops it. Personally, if I never saw another Justin Beiber release ad I would be happier.
Is it really the employee's responsibility to remember each and every password and keep records of them indefinitely after employment?
No but it is a requirement to hand them over on the last day of work to one's replacement. This is the same as changing the combination on a bank vault and not telling anyone.
He did not just refuse in that one instance. He was then fired and still refused to give the passwords to his duly authorized replacement. Had he felt he was improperly fire a wrongful dismissal suit was in order not withholding passwords.
There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male"... yes... right up until they tie in the date/time on the video with the swiping of your loyalty and/or credit card at the till. And glasses, masks... won't be much help there.
If they wre doing this then there would be a problem but they are not. The moment they proposed doing this they would be stopped with the same kind or process that is going on now.
Besides which, isn't it a bit presumptious,...
That is called advertising. Different ads are created for different demographic and it is an advantage to display those ad to the correct demographic. Are they always exact? No, but they are effective enough. For example, are there middle aged men who like Justin Bieber? Yes, but there are more middle aged men who would prefer to see an ad for a classic rock album. Are twenty year old girls interested in fishing gear?.It is much more effective to display an ad that 80% of the viewer's demographic is interested in rather than an ad the 20% are interested in.
If they used the information to discriminate. Showing different advertisement is not discrimination. Frankly, I would prefer not to see an ad for the latest Justin Bieber album.
Technically you are correct but this version of facial recognition does not match a name to a face. If there is no database to facilitate that all that can be done is match a face to a demographic.
More bullshit! The clerk can only see and refer to a single customer at a time, and will deal with so many people that they can't remember them all beyond the duration of a few days. The computer has indefinite memory and can deal with numerous people simultaneously.
Lots more assumptions. Is the computer ever told what that person's name is? Is that specific information ever stored?
"Joe makes 50.00 per hour, so gets a multiplier on purchases"
Where would they get that information if they didn't match a name to a face and have access to my income information?
When you continually see that people offer candy to kids to get them into the van, you should stop trusting that all these people are doing is handing out candy.
We also should not ban the practice of giving out candy.
Because of what, unicorns? Ethics? A sudden desire to protect your privacy?
How about a desire not to lose business.
There is a fairly bright line between scanning for person type and identifying a person by name. There are many people who, like me, are fine with identifying a person by class to be able to target adds. There are also many people who will not tolerate be identified by facial recognition. Those people will vote with their feet and shop somewhere else. Facial recognition will not fly because it is not universal and will decrease traffic, and therefore sales, in stores that use it.
The Information Commissioner's Office seems to be doing a pretty good job right now looking into and questioning the idea. Why would they suddenly fail in the future on something that are already watching? There is a balance between Naïveté and paranoia and you seem to be far on the paranoia side.
Exactly what it is doing now; getting the tech community aroused so they will contact people who can either do something about it or publicize it further.
Bullshit. Because the companies have the ability to pay lobbyists to ensure it doesn't get turned off.
By that logic they have lobbyists to to ensure it gets turned on now so why are we even talking.
Slashdot Mirror
Because he brute force hacked the IMEI's and downloaded information for specific users. He was convicted because he used IMEI's that did not belong to him and therefore masqueraded as the phone owner to gain the information.
In this case the police used standard P2P queries to get the information. It is not hacking when one does not fraudulently misidentify one's self.
A public, unauthenticated internet service is a public, unauthenticated internet service.
Weev did not make a standard query to a server and get information. He had scripts that sent millions of possible imei's to the server to get information for that specific user. He was convicted because he use IMEI's that did not belong to him and therefore masqueraded as the owners of those phones to download the information.
IOC couldn't give a fuck so long as they get their billions
Which they then spend on the next Olympics.
This is about money and without money the Olympics will not survive.
Look at it this way, the hosting country is signing on for the following:
1. Massive infrastructure build.
2. Massive security costs. Thanks PLO and others.
3. Massive costs for accommodations and food.
4. Massive costs for transportation.
Add all that together and then realize that it all has to be recouped within the few weeks of the Olympics. It is easy to see why the IOC is very watchful of people infringing on their income streams. If you want the Olympics to continue the broadcast rights need to be worth paying for.
Google Is Testing a Program That Tracks Your Purchases In the Real World
And 22 of them died in one incident in 1995.
you can rely on those in charge to squeeze the most amount of data out of a system as possible.
They may try but there are enough governmental and non-governmental watchdogs to not allow it.
And you are more comfortable with a technology you can't interact with or direct in any way intruding into your eyes and ears?
I can look in another direction and I have seen nowhere that it mentions audio advertising.
I mentioned that secret courts would prevent your knowledge of collusion,
So the presence of secret courts justifies you lack of proof? That is a cop out and you know it.
Do you really believe the bullshit line put out by the company as to "why" it was being done?
I really don't care if the "line" was true or false. All I care about was that it was found and stopped and that there is no evidence that any government organization was involved.
Asking a question is not an attack, it's a question.
The question proposes that if I do not agree with you I must be daft. Someone does not have to be daft to disagree with you.
Would you not be better served by a worker that you can say "no thanks" to as opposed to a CCTV
No as I am a polite person and feel an obligation to interact with someone trying to interact with me. I can ignore computers just fine.
The Information Commissioner's Office has nothing to do with the GCHQ so why are you mixing them together? Also, none of your links have anything to so with placing wifi trackers in the street. I ask again, do you have any proof that the government has anything to do with placing WiFi trackers in the street?
By the way, personal attacks ,such as calling someone "daft", just shows that your arguments are weak and your tact is lacking.
Useful? No, it's not useful. If you believe that it's useful shame on you for having such short vision. I would not claim it's useless, but rather that it is harmful. It takes away the need for a store to have people doing the same job.
I get bored in lines and if there are advertising that I am interesded in displayed I will be more entertained. I can do without adds for tampons and justin bieber albums. That is the usefulness to me.
It infers that discrimination is fine as long as it's a TV monitor discriminating against you and not a person. (If I'm giving Joe a benefit due to age, I'm denying that same benefit to Harry).
What benefit are some people being denied. The benefit of seeing ads they are not interested in?
We see that in the UK this works so well against the GCHQ right? Secret medical courts also have a grand track record right?
References? I did a quick look at the GCHQ and the issue with them is foreign surveillance. I can't find anything on secret medical courts.
You are denying that information was collaborated with the UK Government?
Reference please. Where is your proof that the government was involved when it was the government that found it and stopped it.
You are claiming that as long as nobody gets caught it's okay to continue?
No, I am claiming that they will be easily caught and stopped if they tried it.
The main issue with the future scenarios is that you are banning something useful now because, after many changes , it may be bad in the future. You completely ignore organizations like the Information Commissioner's Office who are watching every change to ensure that the bad changes do not happen.
Could the Government refuse to let the company serve you because you didn't pay your taxes?
That would mean that the company would know whether or not a specific person paid their taxes which is confidential information and the government would be breaking at least one law by releasing that information. They would be taken to court by the many privacy watchdog organizations.
We have already seen that certain companies are not against this, nor are the Governments (see UK trash bins tracking peoples mobile devices).
That was not a government program and the government stopped it when they found out.
all that needs to happen is a quick link up of those systems and they have you.
Just because something can be done does not mean it will be done. The Information Commissioner's Office seems to be doing a pretty good job monitoring the situation and is requiring the store to post how they are using the video. If they ever do match face with name by the computer they will be required to post that fact as well. That will allow customers to decide to use that store or another. Many people will chose another store. Sales will drop and the system will be removed.
It is the same as changing the combination on a bank vault and not giving that combination to the company.
this might help you understand.
Yet another saying that assumes inevitability. Facial categorizing does not inevitably lead to matching names with faces.
The defining thing about slippery slope is the assumption of inevitability. Very few things are inevitable and moving from facial classification to full facial recognition is not one of those.. Stopping something good now because it may be turned to bad in the future is invalid. If it starts turning bad that is when one stops it. Personally, if I never saw another Justin Beiber release ad I would be happier.
Childs would have destroyed the envelope before leaving as he did not trust anyone with the passwords.
Is it really the employee's responsibility to remember each and every password and keep records of them indefinitely after employment?
No but it is a requirement to hand them over on the last day of work to one's replacement. This is the same as changing the combination on a bank vault and not telling anyone.
He did not just refuse in that one instance. He was then fired and still refused to give the passwords to his duly authorized replacement. Had he felt he was improperly fire a wrongful dismissal suit was in order not withholding passwords.
There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male"... yes ... right up until they tie in the date/time on the video with the swiping of your loyalty and/or credit card at the till. And glasses, masks... won't be much help there.
If they wre doing this then there would be a problem but they are not. The moment they proposed doing this they would be stopped with the same kind or process that is going on now.
Besides which, isn't it a bit presumptious, ...
That is called advertising. Different ads are created for different demographic and it is an advantage to display those ad to the correct demographic. Are they always exact? No, but they are effective enough. For example, are there middle aged men who like Justin Bieber? Yes, but there are more middle aged men who would prefer to see an ad for a classic rock album. Are twenty year old girls interested in fishing gear?.It is much more effective to display an ad that 80% of the viewer's demographic is interested in rather than an ad the 20% are interested in.
If they used the information to discriminate. Showing different advertisement is not discrimination. Frankly, I would prefer not to see an ad for the latest Justin Bieber album.
Technically you are correct but this version of facial recognition does not match a name to a face. If there is no database to facilitate that all that can be done is match a face to a demographic.
More bullshit! The clerk can only see and refer to a single customer at a time, and will deal with so many people that they can't remember them all beyond the duration of a few days. The computer has indefinite memory and can deal with numerous people simultaneously.
Lots more assumptions. Is the computer ever told what that person's name is? Is that specific information ever stored?
"Joe makes 50.00 per hour, so gets a multiplier on purchases"
Where would they get that information if they didn't match a name to a face and have access to my income information?
When you continually see that people offer candy to kids to get them into the van, you should stop trusting that all these people are doing is handing out candy.
We also should not ban the practice of giving out candy.
Because of what, unicorns? Ethics? A sudden desire to protect your privacy?
How about a desire not to lose business.
There is a fairly bright line between scanning for person type and identifying a person by name. There are many people who, like me, are fine with identifying a person by class to be able to target adds. There are also many people who will not tolerate be identified by facial recognition. Those people will vote with their feet and shop somewhere else. Facial recognition will not fly because it is not universal and will decrease traffic, and therefore sales, in stores that use it.
The Information Commissioner's Office seems to be doing a pretty good job right now looking into and questioning the idea. Why would they suddenly fail in the future on something that are already watching? There is a balance between Naïveté and paranoia and you seem to be far on the paranoia side.
And WTF would posting it on Slashdot do?
Exactly what it is doing now; getting the tech community aroused so they will contact people who can either do something about it or publicize it further.
Bullshit. Because the companies have the ability to pay lobbyists to ensure it doesn't get turned off.
By that logic they have lobbyists to to ensure it gets turned on now so why are we even talking.
Excellent as it allows those who like that kind of customer service to have it as it does not impose your choice on all people..