What I'm against is mindlessly spewing any and all data about myself to anyone that asks
A friend of mine told me about four categories of people when dealing with any subject; 1. Those who know and care; I believe you would fall in this category. You seem to believe that no one should collect any information the relates to you unless you see it as useful. It does not matter if others may see that information gathering useful but that if you don't then it shouldn't happen for anyone. I do not know for sure but it looks like you exclusively look at the risk side of the equation. It seems that the only question you ask when looking at new data collection is "How can this be used for evil?".I believe I can sum up your stance as "all inessential data collection is bad and should be banned". I, on the other hand, take the view that data that can be useful enough and not of high risk should be collected and used. In the case of smart meters I believe that the data is essential for the smooth operation of a system that is becoming much more complex. When the grid was designed there were no wind turbines, solar cells on people's houses, electric cars feeding into the grid, electricity thieves, etc. These items make the grid much more complex as power generation fluctuates much more as as wind and solar is not consistent and load fluctuates as sinks change to sources throughout the day. Another issue to me is that meter readers are archaic. In an age when we can use the internet to send money around the world we still have people visiting every electricity meter so they can type in a few numbers and we can be billed. This is the 21st century and that is unnecessary. 2. Those who don't know and don't care; these are the mindless ones. Their motto is ignorance is bliss. 3. Those who don't know and care; these are the ones who usually take the position of the first article they read. Since sensation sells more papers and garners more publicity, that usually hear the negative issues first. They are easily swayed by dire scenarios of how their lives could be ruined and their health damaged by new technology or policy. Most of these articles use the term "possible" but never define the probability. Yes it is possible to be hit by a metiorite but I am not worried about it as the probability is extremely low. These are the most annoying as that are very zealous in their positions even though the facts can be completely different. A good example of this is the health concerns about the RF transmissions from smart meters. This issue is usually linked to the EU calling RF transmissions a possible carcinogen. They ignore the fact that the EU is talking about long term, high usage of cell phones close to the ear and the a smart meter is completely different. 4. Those who know and don't care; I flip between this category and category 1. When I look at any data collection I do a risk/reward analysis. I look at both sides of the equation and add up all the pluses and minuses. I give each attribute two values; strength and probability. For example, my data may be leaked by an employee. To me that is a 30(not all that important) on the strength and a 2(very low) on the probability. Multiplied together I get 60. Another aspect of the smart meter is the ability to find and diagnose power outages; 60 (moderately useful) on the strength and 10 (not very often) on the probability which gives a value of 600. So far the sum would be 600-60 which is 540 for smart meters. I do this for every aspect I can think of (believe me I can think of a lot) or read about(yes I take other's concerns into account and I read a lot). If the sum is for, I stay in this category. If the sum is against, I move to category one.
In the end, I am not "mindlessly spewing" any data. I am actually very mindful of the data I send out and do not care about most of it.
And more accurate readings(human meter readers make mistakes), quicker power outage reporting and diagnosis, fewer people traipsing around your yard(no more meter readers), better reporting of electricity theft, better integration to sell power to the grid In the future you may be given access to your data stream so you can track your own electricity use. We already have that now in BC.
Poor security, ignorant and unscrupulous employees do exist and are a real phenomenon.
True, and there are at least as many smart and scrupulous employees working to weed them out and send them to jail. The point you seem to miss is that those "ignorant and unscrupulous employees" already have access to a lot of sensitive personal information and that will not change. As one of the millions of electricity subscribers in BC I feel that my data is pretty safe.
loyalty cards are an example of exactly this sort of problem - giving people tracking info for no good reason.
I like loyalty cards so the companies can stock the items I buy near me and I can get deals on the items I buy. Those are good enough reasons for me.
Basically, take off your tin hat; your data is not that important to a thief.
Sure it is possible that there will be a data leak in any database. By that logic I guess you don't have a bank account, credit card, telephone, library card, highway toll pass, medical record,customer loyalty card, etc. All of these are related to data stored in a database somewhere that could leak information about you. The electric utility database is no different. By the way, there is quite a bit of personal information in the utility's database without having smart meters. Why are you not worried now?
You know as well as anyone that one can not say that a database will never leak. There is always a possibility for a dedicated person or group to get information from anywhere; just ask the US government about wikileaks. Why would someone go through the trouble of cracking the utility database to get you daily habits when it is much simpler to set up a wireless camera to watch your house?
I would ask the California Utilities Commission. There may be a law that grants access to the meters that is different than the one in BC. Counties have no authority over state institutes. The California Utilities Commission governs what the utilities can and can not do. That is to stop the creation of patchwork laws that govern utilities. A county can make any law it wants but if it a state matter then the county laws are unenforceable.
I think that would be a great idea. Every hour shut off 10% of the AC units and one decreases power usage from AC units by 10% with the discomfort spread over a large number of people. That could decrease peak usage significantly. The caviets are that it should be voluntary and well recorded.
To shut off the power the wardriver would have to break the Wifi encryption and the data encryption. By the way, In British Columbia, Canada a wardriver couldn't do it because the meter does can not cut off the house power as it does not have the capability. In BC it is a meter only and does not control the power.
In British Columbia Canada we are installing smart meters. All data transmission is encrypted. Here is a quote from their site;
BC Hydro's smart meters use multiple layers of security, starting with the data being encrypted, transmitted through secure channels, processed in secured facilities, and managed by rigorous access control policies.
With these measure it would be almost impossible for someone other than BCHydro to read my meter. Yes the encryption could be cracked but it would probably cost more than everything I own. As far as I am concerned "proper safeguards [have been] introduced".
Most, if not all, electricity contracts which are required to receive service have clauses in them that allow the utility to access their property. Here is the one for British Columbia.
9.5. Access to Premises BC Hydro's agents and employees shall have, at all reasonable times, free access to the equipment supplied with Electricity, and to BC Hydro's meters, wires and apparatus on the Customer's Premises, for the purpose of reading meters and testing, installing, removing, repairing or replacing any of BC Hydro's equipment, and to ascertain the quantity or method of use of service and the amount of Electricity consumed. If access to meter rooms or other locations where BC Hydro equipment is installed is restricted, the Customer shall supply BC Hydro with lockbox keys or other keys or means of access as may be necessary to provide BC Hydro with ready access to those locations. In no case will BC Hydro accept keys to private residential Premises. If free access to BC Hydro's equipment on the Customer's Premises is denied or obstructed in any manner, including by debris, unsafe walkways or other means of access, or the presence of animals, and the Customer does not remedy the problem upon being requested by BC Hydro to do so, service may be suspended and not reconnected until the problem is corrected;
Basically if the property owner does not let BC Hydro install a smart meter (it falls under "replacing any of BC Hydro's equipment") the electrical service can be cut off. No access, no electricity.
Of course its a crime, but its not not a given that the user know how bit torrent work or that they are aware of how other are involved. The minimum is they started a torrent on an installed torrent client possibly by just clicking once on a link on the internet and don't know how to stop it. The question is should rights holders be able to send notices to a person who possibly authorized the transfer for little cost and properly and fairly interpreting the law is it lawful for them to do this?
Here are the issues with these statements; 1. Ignorance of how Bit Torrents is no protection under the law. The person downloading the file knows they are downloading copyright material. 2. It is up to a court of law to decide if the download was deliberate or accidental and the determination can only be made once a suit is filed. 3. There is a $350 filing fee + lawyer's fees for filing a suit. The issue you seem to miss is that the copyright holder attempted to file one suit which encompasses a number of John Does instead of filling a suit for each John Doe That is called "joining" suits. So instead of filing a hundred separate suits the rights holder wants to file one suit. John Doe #4 is seeking to sever his suit so the rights holder must pay another filing fee and attend another trial.
But do I interact with you? You appear to avoid answering the question.
To use my example John Doe A interacts with John Doe B and John Doe C but John Doe B does not interact with John Doe C and therefor John Doe B can not be in the same suit as John Doe C. The questions are as follows; 1. What suit can John Doe A be named in. Answer; Because John Doe A indirectly interacted with both John Doe B and John Doe C he can be named in both suits.. 2. What suit can John Doe B be named in. Answer; Because John Doe B indirectly interacted with only John Doe A he can only be in a suit with John Doe A. 3. What suit can John Doe C be named in. Answer; Because John Doe C indirectly interacted with only John Doe A he can only be in a suit with John Doe A. This requires filing two suits which doubles the rights holders legal costs and that is the right thing to do.
It's not implicit that i intend to effect any other user or that it does.
I think you mean explicit and not implicit. When one uses a torrent where does one think the data comes from? Everyone knows the data comes from someone's computer.
It is defiantly not a given that the owner of the computer, who gets sued, has authorized or been interacted with.
That is why there are courts to find the facts of the case. A plaintiff files a case and then has to prove it. The allegations do not have to be "a given" before a suit is filled.
So your intent is to break the law by uploading and downloading copyright material. The other person in the transfer has the same intent. Since you are both in the same transfer transaction you both get named in the same suit. What can not be done is people in different transfer transactions, even though they relate to the same file, being named in the same suit. Even if you did not intend to interact with a specific user you authorized you computer to interact on your behalf with any computer that has what you want and/or any computer that wants what you have.The other user has made the same authorization to his computer to interact on his behalf.
Though not the issue you can't even get the infringing computer from an IP much less the user who authorized the infringement.
Not necessarily true. If the IP address is associated with a modem that has no wireless access and that modem is connected to one computer that does not have a wireless card that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the computer is the only one accessing the internet through that IP address. If the computer is in an area that is only accessed by one person then it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is the only one who controls the computer. This would be a special case but it is possible. If one adds a router, especially a wireless router, to the picture then there is no way to prove what computer used the torrent system.
The point that you seem to miss is that the human started the process by downloading a torrent file and loading it into a program that a human knew would go out and get segments from other computers. The computer did not decide to select a file and download it using a specific protocol; that was the choice of a human. Just because a human gives commands to a computer does not mean that the human is free from criminal or civil charges.
If there is no interaction this is an arbitrary way of doing it, why not save time and get everyone with the same torrent hash. I think everyone downloading and uploading the torrent is committing separate crimes.
Some copyright holders have tried to do just that and have been sanctioned for it. We actually agree on this in that every upload download pair should be a separate trial.
Hypothetically if we were in the same swarm how do I (not something I own) interact with you?
When you load a torrent file you are authorizing you computer to look for another computer that has been authorized by another human to make the parts of the file the other computer has available for download. By authorizing the torrent program to seed a file a human is authorizing other computers who are authorized by a human to download parts of that file. The interaction comes in the human authorizing the action. That being said, there is no interaction between computers, and their authorizing humans, that do not transmit data between them. In my example there is not data transfer between John Doe B and John Doe C therefore the cases can not be joined. To put it succinctly as possible: A human authorizes the upload and a human authorizes the download so when a download takes place both humans are culpable.
Do you know you are interacting with me (not my computer actually me)?
You know there is someone who has authorized the action the computer is taking. To me it is like sending an email to a technical support address. You know that someone will respond but you do not know exactly who will.
The level of interaction between us is so low people could charged for tiny unintentional involvement with other serious crimes.
When one load a torrent file or seeds a data file there is definite intent to transfer pieces of the file between people. Whether the transfer takes place hand to hand or through a program the same intent is there.
But one would download piece of a song. To me, downloading a part of a song is very similar to handing someone a car part. In both cases the part will not function independently and must be joined to other parts.
Also "shady dealer" is a pleonasm.
Considering that
dealer
is anyone who buys or sells without altering an object. It give no reference to whether or not the transaction is legal hence the word "shady". Not all dealers handle stolen property; many do but not all.
It seems that your premise is that the presence of two computers interacting with each other negates any interaction between the people who enabled the computers. I disagree with that. Try a slightly different scenario; 1. I post to a mailing list of conspirators; 2. The mailing list then forwards my posts to all others. Does the fact that I have not directly emailed the other conspirators negate conspiracy. I know the email will be read by someone and I know I will receive email as I am on the list. There is no direct interaction between my computer and the other conspirators' computers but there is still interaction between the conspirators.
By putting up a Torrent one is intending to give access to other torrent users. By using a torrent reader one is intending to read segments from someone else's computer. The issue with Bit Torrent is as follows; 1.John Doe A, through his computer, starts a torrent download 2. John Doe A, through his computer, downloads segments from John Doe B. 3. At this point there could be a case involving John Doe A and John Doe B. 4. John Doe A , through his computer, downloads segments from John Doe C. 3. At this point there could be a case involving John Doe A and John Doe C. The bone of contention is whether or not these two cases can be joined, Separate cases require more paperwork, filling fees and separate trials. Having a separate trial for each source is not economically feasible for the copyright holder so the want cases joined. The fact that John Doe B does not know the actions of or even the existence of John Doe C makes joining those two cases invalid. The fact that the computers actually transferred the information is irrelevant; the true test is did everyone interact. When BitTorrents are used the sources do not interact with each other and need to be in separate cases.
If the fact that a computer sent and received the information negates possibility of interaction then it would be easy to get around a conspiracy charge simply by using a computerized answering machine. 1. Each conspirator calls the machine and reads any messages on the machine.but does not delete them. 2. They then, if nesessisary, leave a message on the machine. Each conspirator only "interacts" with the machine but there still is a conspiracy going on because everyone gets all the messages.
I think I have a very good analogy; 1. There is a parts dealer who buys stolen parts. 2. There is a number of parts thieves who do not know each other but happen to steal from the same parts distributor. 3. At different times the shady dealer buys parts from these thieves. 4. The shady dealer does not identify the other thieves but tells each thief to supply the parts they have. 5. When the shady dealer has enough parts he build a car.
Because the parts were stolen and supplied by thieves who did not know each other and the purchases by the shady dealer took place without the knowledge of the other thieves there must be a case for each thief. The thieves did not interact with each other; the only interaction was between one downloader and one uploader though there were many such interactions.
Another analogy; 1. An item is stolen and repeatedly sold. 2. In any of the sale transaction only the seller and buyer know each other In this case there is no interaction between the initial thief and the current possessor of the item as they never communicated. Each sale transaction would be a separate case even though it is the same item bough and sold.
Read a couple of my other posts on this subject but I will summarize here; 1. The US Forest service uses the military channels on some of their equipment. 2. There is a defense against the spoofing that is not implemented on all receivers. 3. There is a replacement for the currennt channel that uses 3 frequencies and can not be spoofed by the current technology.
Ground based equipment is a bit different than an aircraft as ground based equipment can just use vision to pull over to the side of the road. Thay can also move slower to use vision and inertial navigation to get to their destinations. Neither options are really possible for an aircraft.
Gotta love someone who stoops to insults to get a point across. If it could mean the life and death of thousands of people, a drone crashing into a building, the government may be persuaded to allow limited civilian use of military channels.. The US Forrest Service uses military GPS receivers. After a look into this a bit further, there is a new GPS system going into operation called L5. It uses two existing frequencies plus the new frequency to create a triple redundant system. It would be very difficult to spoof all three channels. If they all go down then the drone would revert to other systems like inertial navigation and or radio beacons..
So it was programmed to auto-land when the control signal was jammed? Seems pretty dumb as it would be landing in enemy territory.
That is why most military drones that are flown over enemy territory have a self destruct mechanism which is armed at by the pilot. At sufficient levels of damage or malfunction the drone will destroy itself. During missions over friendly territory this mechanism is never armed. It looks like the pilot did not arm the self destruct when the aircraft entered enemy territory.
So someone would trust a drone that has the video jammed and the military GPS channel jammed to fly back to base? I highly doubt that.
How about this paper which shows how the spoofing works (exactly as I stated) and the defense against it.
Fed Ex does not have drones right now. When and if they get autonomous drones they can open themselves up to billions of dollars of lawsuits by using the civilian channels which can be spoofed or they can do their fiduciary duty and use the military channels. Since no one has made the decision as to which course to take, all we can do is speculate. I speculate they will want to protect their company and use the military channels.
No autonomous aircraft would ever be allowed to fly using only one source of location information. What happens if the GPS system goes out for some reason like s solar storm or massive hacking by a belligerent country? Would it be acceptable for all GPS only autonomous aircraft to fall out of the sky? There will always be backup navigation devices and if they do not agree to a certain degree an alarm will go off and the aircraft will be remotely piloted. There is no way an autonomous aircraft will be allowed to have a single point of failure that is this important.
We only care about what is real, which you have told us nothing about.
If you "care what is real" then do your own research. There is this thing called Google that can help you with that.
The civilian signal signal has the ability to use selective availability . It is turned off right now but can be turned on at any time and has in times of war to deny GPS information to the enemy. The military channel is also transmitted as accurate as possible but is not available to civilians because it is encrypted.
Had the Iraqis been able to hack the military GPS signal it would have happened a lot more than once. The US did not stop using drones after the one went down. If Iraq could hack a drone what didn't they do it again? Answer; they didn't do it in the first place.
one guy has to take care of tens of drones at once where most of them are simply on autopilot.
Care to cite anything that verifies this assumption that there are multiple drones being controlled by a single pilot in service now?
I have heard of possibilities of this occurring but have never heard of it being in use today. Where this approach hass been proposed it is more of as a swarm where multiple drones communicate and coordinate with each other to perform a task. There is always someone looking after the swarm. If a few drones are spoofed it would be obvious to the controller.
This would only work if the drone was using only GPS to fly from place to place. Most drones have a pilot who direct them most of the time and uses GPS to find it's location. A pilot would notice the discrepancy between what the GPS plot shows and what he sees in the camera monitor and assume the GPS screwed up.
This next statement is just stupid;
But the big worry is — it also means that it wouldn't be too hard for [a very skilled person] to work out how to un-encrypt military drones and spoof them, and that could be extremely dangerous because they could turn them on the wrong people."
The way the current system probably works is that it transmits signals similar to the ones from the satellites. To spoof an encrypted drone one can not "unencrypt" it. That would be equivalent to convincing the drone to accept un-encrypted GPS signals. That should be impossible. If someone could send out false data that is encrypted using the same keys and algorithms as the satellites that would ba a major issue as cruise missiles could be spoofed. That kind of spoofing is not something that can be done by "a very skilled person" as it would require knowing the encryption keys.
The following statement is also bunk;
The same method may have been used to bring down a US drone in Iran in 2011.
One can speculate all one wants but that does not make it true. It is much more likely that the drone lost contact with the pilot center and auto landed. Lets use a real life unverifiable incident to support our FUD.
They also talk about hijacking drones delivering FedEx packages. Fred Smith, CEO of Fed Ex says he wants them but he is nowhere near getting them. Even if they did use drones I bet Fed EX would use the encrypted channel and they would rely on navigation aid other than GPS as verification.. If you want to scare us at least talk about something real.
We have plenty of real things to worry about rather than to fall for FUD.
I am surprised that no one else has posted about Azimov's reason behind writing the book. Its main theme was that simple, all inclusive rules are not sufficient to govern interactions between complex beings. Lets take the first rule; "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." People harm themselves all the time. Will the phone do any of the following? 1. Shut off 8 hours before one has to get up so that the phone owner is not tired at work. 2. Not allow searching for drug paraphernalia because drugs are harmful. 3. Not allow contact with known criminals because such contact is dangerous and could be harmful. 4. Not allow calls to pizza joints late at night because late night eating is harmful. There are many harmful things facilitated by cell phones that are chosen to do by their users. We have enough of a nanny state without our phones being one too.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm against is mindlessly spewing any and all data about myself to anyone that asks
A friend of mine told me about four categories of people when dealing with any subject;
1. Those who know and care; I believe you would fall in this category. You seem to believe that no one should collect any information the relates to you unless you see it as useful. It does not matter if others may see that information gathering useful but that if you don't then it shouldn't happen for anyone. I do not know for sure but it looks like you exclusively look at the risk side of the equation. It seems that the only question you ask when looking at new data collection is "How can this be used for evil?".I believe I can sum up your stance as "all inessential data collection is bad and should be banned". I, on the other hand, take the view that data that can be useful enough and not of high risk should be collected and used.
In the case of smart meters I believe that the data is essential for the smooth operation of a system that is becoming much more complex. When the grid was designed there were no wind turbines, solar cells on people's houses, electric cars feeding into the grid, electricity thieves, etc. These items make the grid much more complex as power generation fluctuates much more as as wind and solar is not consistent and load fluctuates as sinks change to sources throughout the day.
Another issue to me is that meter readers are archaic. In an age when we can use the internet to send money around the world we still have people visiting every electricity meter so they can type in a few numbers and we can be billed. This is the 21st century and that is unnecessary.
2. Those who don't know and don't care; these are the mindless ones. Their motto is ignorance is bliss.
3. Those who don't know and care; these are the ones who usually take the position of the first article they read. Since sensation sells more papers and garners more publicity, that usually hear the negative issues first. They are easily swayed by dire scenarios of how their lives could be ruined and their health damaged by new technology or policy. Most of these articles use the term "possible" but never define the probability. Yes it is possible to be hit by a metiorite but I am not worried about it as the probability is extremely low. These are the most annoying as that are very zealous in their positions even though the facts can be completely different. A good example of this is the health concerns about the RF transmissions from smart meters. This issue is usually linked to the EU calling RF transmissions a possible carcinogen. They ignore the fact that the EU is talking about long term, high usage of cell phones close to the ear and the a smart meter is completely different.
4. Those who know and don't care; I flip between this category and category 1. When I look at any data collection I do a risk/reward analysis. I look at both sides of the equation and add up all the pluses and minuses. I give each attribute two values; strength and probability. For example, my data may be leaked by an employee. To me that is a 30(not all that important) on the strength and a 2(very low) on the probability. Multiplied together I get 60. Another aspect of the smart meter is the ability to find and diagnose power outages; 60 (moderately useful) on the strength and 10 (not very often) on the probability which gives a value of 600. So far the sum would be 600-60 which is 540 for smart meters. I do this for every aspect I can think of (believe me I can think of a lot) or read about(yes I take other's concerns into account and I read a lot). If the sum is for, I stay in this category. If the sum is against, I move to category one.
In the end, I am not "mindlessly spewing" any data. I am actually very mindful of the data I send out and do not care about most of it.
And more accurate readings(human meter readers make mistakes), quicker power outage reporting and diagnosis, fewer people traipsing around your yard(no more meter readers), better reporting of electricity theft, better integration to sell power to the grid
In the future you may be given access to your data stream so you can track your own electricity use. We already have that now in BC.
Poor security, ignorant and unscrupulous employees do exist and are a real phenomenon.
True, and there are at least as many smart and scrupulous employees working to weed them out and send them to jail. The point you seem to miss is that those "ignorant and unscrupulous employees" already have access to a lot of sensitive personal information and that will not change. As one of the millions of electricity subscribers in BC I feel that my data is pretty safe.
loyalty cards are an example of exactly this sort of problem - giving people tracking info for no good reason.
I like loyalty cards so the companies can stock the items I buy near me and I can get deals on the items I buy. Those are good enough reasons for me.
Basically, take off your tin hat; your data is not that important to a thief.
Sure it is possible that there will be a data leak in any database. By that logic I guess you don't have a bank account, credit card, telephone, library card, highway toll pass, medical record,customer loyalty card, etc. All of these are related to data stored in a database somewhere that could leak information about you. The electric utility database is no different. By the way, there is quite a bit of personal information in the utility's database without having smart meters. Why are you not worried now?
You know as well as anyone that one can not say that a database will never leak. There is always a possibility for a dedicated person or group to get information from anywhere; just ask the US government about wikileaks. Why would someone go through the trouble of cracking the utility database to get you daily habits when it is much simpler to set up a wireless camera to watch your house?
I would ask the California Utilities Commission. There may be a law that grants access to the meters that is different than the one in BC.
Counties have no authority over state institutes. The California Utilities Commission governs what the utilities can and can not do. That is to stop the creation of patchwork laws that govern utilities. A county can make any law it wants but if it a state matter then the county laws are unenforceable.
I think that would be a great idea. Every hour shut off 10% of the AC units and one decreases power usage from AC units by 10% with the discomfort spread over a large number of people. That could decrease peak usage significantly. The caviets are that it should be voluntary and well recorded.
To shut off the power the wardriver would have to break the Wifi encryption and the data encryption. By the way, In British Columbia, Canada a wardriver couldn't do it because the meter does can not cut off the house power as it does not have the capability. In BC it is a meter only and does not control the power.
In British Columbia Canada we are installing smart meters. All data transmission is encrypted. Here is a quote from their site;
BC Hydro's smart meters use multiple layers of security, starting with the data being encrypted, transmitted through secure channels, processed in secured facilities, and managed by rigorous access control policies.
With these measure it would be almost impossible for someone other than BCHydro to read my meter. Yes the encryption could be cracked but it would probably cost more than everything I own. As far as I am concerned "proper safeguards [have been] introduced".
I thought that was exactly what I said.
Most, if not all, electricity contracts which are required to receive service have clauses in them that allow the utility to access their property. Here is the one for British Columbia.
9.5. Access to Premises
BC Hydro's agents and employees shall have, at all reasonable times, free access to the equipment supplied with Electricity, and to BC Hydro's meters, wires and apparatus on the Customer's Premises, for the purpose of reading meters and testing, installing, removing, repairing or replacing any of BC Hydro's equipment, and to ascertain the quantity or method of use of service and the amount of Electricity consumed. If access to meter rooms or other locations where BC Hydro equipment is installed is restricted, the Customer shall supply BC Hydro with lockbox keys or other keys or means of access as may be necessary to provide BC Hydro with ready access to those locations. In no case will BC Hydro accept keys to private residential Premises.
If free access to BC Hydro's equipment on the Customer's Premises is denied or obstructed in any manner, including by debris, unsafe walkways or other means of access, or the presence of animals, and the Customer does not remedy the problem upon being requested by BC Hydro to do so, service may be suspended and not reconnected until the problem is corrected;
Basically if the property owner does not let BC Hydro install a smart meter (it falls under "replacing any of BC Hydro's equipment") the electrical service can be cut off. No access, no electricity.
Of course its a crime, but its not not a given that the user know how bit torrent work or that they are aware of how other are involved. The minimum is they started a torrent on an installed torrent client possibly by just clicking once on a link on the internet and don't know how to stop it. The question is should rights holders be able to send notices to a person who possibly authorized the transfer for little cost and properly and fairly interpreting the law is it lawful for them to do this?
Here are the issues with these statements;
1. Ignorance of how Bit Torrents is no protection under the law. The person downloading the file knows they are downloading copyright material.
2. It is up to a court of law to decide if the download was deliberate or accidental and the determination can only be made once a suit is filed.
3. There is a $350 filing fee + lawyer's fees for filing a suit. The issue you seem to miss is that the copyright holder attempted to file one suit which encompasses a number of John Does instead of filling a suit for each John Doe That is called "joining" suits. So instead of filing a hundred separate suits the rights holder wants to file one suit. John Doe #4 is seeking to sever his suit so the rights holder must pay another filing fee and attend another trial.
But do I interact with you? You appear to avoid answering the question.
To use my example John Doe A interacts with John Doe B and John Doe C but John Doe B does not interact with John Doe C and therefor John Doe B can not be in the same suit as John Doe C. The questions are as follows;
1. What suit can John Doe A be named in. Answer; Because John Doe A indirectly interacted with both John Doe B and John Doe C he can be named in both suits..
2. What suit can John Doe B be named in. Answer; Because John Doe B indirectly interacted with only John Doe A he can only be in a suit with John Doe A.
3. What suit can John Doe C be named in. Answer; Because John Doe C indirectly interacted with only John Doe A he can only be in a suit with John Doe A.
This requires filing two suits which doubles the rights holders legal costs and that is the right thing to do.
It's not implicit that i intend to effect any other user or that it does.
I think you mean explicit and not implicit. When one uses a torrent where does one think the data comes from? Everyone knows the data comes from someone's computer.
It is defiantly not a given that the owner of the computer, who gets sued, has authorized or been interacted with.
That is why there are courts to find the facts of the case. A plaintiff files a case and then has to prove it. The allegations do not have to be "a given" before a suit is filled.
So your intent is to break the law by uploading and downloading copyright material. The other person in the transfer has the same intent. Since you are both in the same transfer transaction you both get named in the same suit. What can not be done is people in different transfer transactions, even though they relate to the same file, being named in the same suit. Even if you did not intend to interact with a specific user you authorized you computer to interact on your behalf with any computer that has what you want and/or any computer that wants what you have.The other user has made the same authorization to his computer to interact on his behalf.
Though not the issue you can't even get the infringing computer from an IP much less the user who authorized the infringement.
Not necessarily true. If the IP address is associated with a modem that has no wireless access and that modem is connected to one computer that does not have a wireless card that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the computer is the only one accessing the internet through that IP address. If the computer is in an area that is only accessed by one person then it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is the only one who controls the computer. This would be a special case but it is possible. If one adds a router, especially a wireless router, to the picture then there is no way to prove what computer used the torrent system.
The point that you seem to miss is that the human started the process by downloading a torrent file and loading it into a program that a human knew would go out and get segments from other computers. The computer did not decide to select a file and download it using a specific protocol; that was the choice of a human. Just because a human gives commands to a computer does not mean that the human is free from criminal or civil charges.
If there is no interaction this is an arbitrary way of doing it, why not save time and get everyone with the same torrent hash. I think everyone downloading and uploading the torrent is committing separate crimes.
Some copyright holders have tried to do just that and have been sanctioned for it. We actually agree on this in that every upload download pair should be a separate trial.
Hypothetically if we were in the same swarm how do I (not something I own) interact with you?
When you load a torrent file you are authorizing you computer to look for another computer that has been authorized by another human to make the parts of the file the other computer has available for download. By authorizing the torrent program to seed a file a human is authorizing other computers who are authorized by a human to download parts of that file. The interaction comes in the human authorizing the action. That being said, there is no interaction between computers, and their authorizing humans, that do not transmit data between them. In my example there is not data transfer between John Doe B and John Doe C therefore the cases can not be joined.
To put it succinctly as possible: A human authorizes the upload and a human authorizes the download so when a download takes place both humans are culpable.
Do you know you are interacting with me (not my computer actually me)?
You know there is someone who has authorized the action the computer is taking. To me it is like sending an email to a technical support address. You know that someone will respond but you do not know exactly who will.
The level of interaction between us is so low people could charged for tiny unintentional involvement with other serious crimes.
When one load a torrent file or seeds a data file there is definite intent to transfer pieces of the file between people. Whether the transfer takes place hand to hand or through a program the same intent is there.
You wouldn't download a car
But one would download piece of a song. To me, downloading a part of a song is very similar to handing someone a car part. In both cases the part will not function independently and must be joined to other parts.
Also "shady dealer" is a pleonasm.
Considering that
dealer
is anyone who buys or sells without altering an object. It give no reference to whether or not the transaction is legal hence the word "shady". Not all dealers handle stolen property; many do but not all.
It seems that your premise is that the presence of two computers interacting with each other negates any interaction between the people who enabled the computers. I disagree with that.
Try a slightly different scenario;
1. I post to a mailing list of conspirators;
2. The mailing list then forwards my posts to all others.
Does the fact that I have not directly emailed the other conspirators negate conspiracy. I know the email will be read by someone and I know I will receive email as I am on the list. There is no direct interaction between my computer and the other conspirators' computers but there is still interaction between the conspirators.
By putting up a Torrent one is intending to give access to other torrent users. By using a torrent reader one is intending to read segments from someone else's computer. The issue with Bit Torrent is as follows;
1.John Doe A, through his computer, starts a torrent download
2. John Doe A, through his computer, downloads segments from John Doe B.
3. At this point there could be a case involving John Doe A and John Doe B.
4. John Doe A , through his computer, downloads segments from John Doe C.
3. At this point there could be a case involving John Doe A and John Doe C.
The bone of contention is whether or not these two cases can be joined, Separate cases require more paperwork, filling fees and separate trials. Having a separate trial for each source is not economically feasible for the copyright holder so the want cases joined. The fact that John Doe B does not know the actions of or even the existence of John Doe C makes joining those two cases invalid. The fact that the computers actually transferred the information is irrelevant; the true test is did everyone interact. When BitTorrents are used the sources do not interact with each other and need to be in separate cases.
If the fact that a computer sent and received the information negates possibility of interaction then it would be easy to get around a conspiracy charge simply by using a computerized answering machine.
1. Each conspirator calls the machine and reads any messages on the machine.but does not delete them.
2. They then, if nesessisary, leave a message on the machine.
Each conspirator only "interacts" with the machine but there still is a conspiracy going on because everyone gets all the messages.
I think I have a very good analogy;
1. There is a parts dealer who buys stolen parts.
2. There is a number of parts thieves who do not know each other but happen to steal from the same parts distributor.
3. At different times the shady dealer buys parts from these thieves.
4. The shady dealer does not identify the other thieves but tells each thief to supply the parts they have.
5. When the shady dealer has enough parts he build a car.
Because the parts were stolen and supplied by thieves who did not know each other and the purchases by the shady dealer took place without the knowledge of the other thieves there must be a case for each thief. The thieves did not interact with each other; the only interaction was between one downloader and one uploader though there were many such interactions.
Another analogy;
1. An item is stolen and repeatedly sold.
2. In any of the sale transaction only the seller and buyer know each other
In this case there is no interaction between the initial thief and the current possessor of the item as they never communicated. Each sale transaction would be a separate case even though it is the same item bough and sold.
Read a couple of my other posts on this subject but I will summarize here;
1. The US Forest service uses the military channels on some of their equipment.
2. There is a defense against the spoofing that is not implemented on all receivers.
3. There is a replacement for the currennt channel that uses 3 frequencies and can not be spoofed by the current technology.
Ground based equipment is a bit different than an aircraft as ground based equipment can just use vision to pull over to the side of the road. Thay can also move slower to use vision and inertial navigation to get to their destinations. Neither options are really possible for an aircraft.
Gotta love someone who stoops to insults to get a point across.
If it could mean the life and death of thousands of people, a drone crashing into a building, the government may be persuaded to allow limited civilian use of military channels.. The US Forrest Service uses military GPS receivers.
After a look into this a bit further, there is a new GPS system going into operation called L5. It uses two existing frequencies plus the new frequency to create a triple redundant system. It would be very difficult to spoof all three channels. If they all go down then the drone would revert to other systems like inertial navigation and or radio beacons..
So it was programmed to auto-land when the control signal was jammed? Seems pretty dumb as it would be landing in enemy territory.
That is why most military drones that are flown over enemy territory have a self destruct mechanism which is armed at by the pilot. At sufficient levels of damage or malfunction the drone will destroy itself. During missions over friendly territory this mechanism is never armed. It looks like the pilot did not arm the self destruct when the aircraft entered enemy territory.
So someone would trust a drone that has the video jammed and the military GPS channel jammed to fly back to base? I highly doubt that.
How about this paper which shows how the spoofing works (exactly as I stated) and the defense against it.
Fed Ex does not have drones right now. When and if they get autonomous drones they can open themselves up to billions of dollars of lawsuits by using the civilian channels which can be spoofed or they can do their fiduciary duty and use the military channels. Since no one has made the decision as to which course to take, all we can do is speculate. I speculate they will want to protect their company and use the military channels.
No autonomous aircraft would ever be allowed to fly using only one source of location information. What happens if the GPS system goes out for some reason like s solar storm or massive hacking by a belligerent country? Would it be acceptable for all GPS only autonomous aircraft to fall out of the sky? There will always be backup navigation devices and if they do not agree to a certain degree an alarm will go off and the aircraft will be remotely piloted. There is no way an autonomous aircraft will be allowed to have a single point of failure that is this important.
We only care about what is real, which you have told us nothing about.
If you "care what is real" then do your own research. There is this thing called Google that can help you with that.
There is also a defense against such hacking.
The civilian signal signal has the ability to use selective availability . It is turned off right now but can be turned on at any time and has in times of war to deny GPS information to the enemy. The military channel is also transmitted as accurate as possible but is not available to civilians because it is encrypted.
Had the Iraqis been able to hack the military GPS signal it would have happened a lot more than once. The US did not stop using drones after the one went down. If Iraq could hack a drone what didn't they do it again? Answer; they didn't do it in the first place.
one guy has to take care of tens of drones at once where most of them are simply on autopilot.
Care to cite anything that verifies this assumption that there are multiple drones being controlled by a single pilot in service now?
I have heard of possibilities of this occurring but have never heard of it being in use today. Where this approach hass been proposed it is more of as a swarm where multiple drones communicate and coordinate with each other to perform a task. There is always someone looking after the swarm. If a few drones are spoofed it would be obvious to the controller.
This would only work if the drone was using only GPS to fly from place to place. Most drones have a pilot who direct them most of the time and uses GPS to find it's location. A pilot would notice the discrepancy between what the GPS plot shows and what he sees in the camera monitor and assume the GPS screwed up.
This next statement is just stupid;
But the big worry is — it also means that it wouldn't be too hard for [a very skilled person] to work out how to un-encrypt military drones and spoof them, and that could be extremely dangerous because they could turn them on the wrong people."
The way the current system probably works is that it transmits signals similar to the ones from the satellites. To spoof an encrypted drone one can not "unencrypt" it. That would be equivalent to convincing the drone to accept un-encrypted GPS signals. That should be impossible. If someone could send out false data that is encrypted using the same keys and algorithms as the satellites that would ba a major issue as cruise missiles could be spoofed. That kind of spoofing is not something that can be done by "a very skilled person" as it would require knowing the encryption keys.
The following statement is also bunk;
The same method may have been used to bring down a US drone in Iran in 2011.
One can speculate all one wants but that does not make it true. It is much more likely that the drone lost contact with the pilot center and auto landed. Lets use a real life unverifiable incident to support our FUD.
They also talk about hijacking drones delivering FedEx packages. Fred Smith, CEO of Fed Ex says he wants them but he is nowhere near getting them. Even if they did use drones I bet Fed EX would use the encrypted channel and they would rely on navigation aid other than GPS as verification.. If you want to scare us at least talk about something real.
We have plenty of real things to worry about rather than to fall for FUD.
I am surprised that no one else has posted about Azimov's reason behind writing the book. Its main theme was that simple, all inclusive rules are not sufficient to govern interactions between complex beings. Lets take the first rule; "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." People harm themselves all the time. Will the phone do any of the following?
1. Shut off 8 hours before one has to get up so that the phone owner is not tired at work.
2. Not allow searching for drug paraphernalia because drugs are harmful.
3. Not allow contact with known criminals because such contact is dangerous and could be harmful.
4. Not allow calls to pizza joints late at night because late night eating is harmful.
There are many harmful things facilitated by cell phones that are chosen to do by their users. We have enough of a nanny state without our phones being one too.