Not that I disagree (much the opposite, modern copyright law has become an unwieldy behemoth that hardly resembles the concept it was meant to enshrine, in desperate need of aggressive pruning), but that still doesn't justify theft.
The way I see it, if some product has an obscene copyright (like, say, Mickey Mouse), the only right kind of protest is to boycott. Stealing it via piracy or other means not only proves that the product has value, it also serves to give ammunition to the copyright Gestapo on their next visit to Capital Hill.
Regardless of how you try and rationalize it, taking something that is not yours, without permission of the owner, and without payment, is theft. Even if it's "just a copy."
Are you saying that distributing a copy of your item would somehow deprive you of the original item? Copying doesn't "take it away" - it just lets more people enjoy it.
Just like counterfeiting money, right? Or art?
Shay-zuz, but the ways people rationalize their own fucked-up behavior...
Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself.
Says Who?
Uh, how about everyone?
Example: In my hypothetical view of morals, I think it would be immoral for every hot chick who gets married to not fuck me first.
Ridiculous, right? Yes, it is, and it serves as a perfect example of why I'm correct - morals are subjective, and cannot be reasonably predicted (and thus, anticipated) by anyone other than the individual who holds said morals.
Because you've concluded that "Morality is subjective" it is only Immoral to you.
So, you would be cool with being a slave? Because, whether you realize it or not, that's what you're arguing.
From your logic I could easily conclude that is it Immoral for you to impose your view that it is immoral for me to program a moral machine.
Non-sequitur - I never said it would be "immoral for [you] to program a moral machine." What I said was that it is universally immoral to force your moral set on everyone else.
See above reference to slavery.
Subjective morality may or may-not be real, but it sure is a bitch if you use it.
As a business owner, why the hell would I want sensitive company data to be stored locally on the personal device of an employee? What guarantee do I have that said employee won't try to access the information without permission, or better yet, take the phone and try to sell it to one of my competitors?
If you're that distrustful of your employees then you have other things to worry about.
Right, because company loyalty is such a common attribute these days.
I'm gonna guess you don't actually run anything more complex than a gas station cash register, so I'll give you this important business tip as a freebie - blindly trust someone to guard your gold, and it will be stolen, for all men have their price.
So until we eliminate all independent thought, we can not have morality.
FTFY.
Contrary to what is commonly posited here on Slashdot, not following a religion doesn't magically give a person moral high ground over someone that does.
I don't understand who this would be attractive to, outside control-freak American corporations.
As a private citizen, why the hell would I want my personal phone to be designed in a way that allows the company I work for to take control of it and access my personal data (separate partitions be damned - when they take the device out of your view for "updates," what guarantee do you have they aren't hacking or imaging it? None)?
As a business owner, why the hell would I want sensitive company data to be stored locally on the personal device of an employee? What guarantee do I have that said employee won't try to access the information without permission, or better yet, take the phone and try to sell it to one of my competitors?
Now, say I was one of those aforementioned control-freak corporations - I would find this a wonderful idea! Not only would it give me an excuse and method to constantly track employees during their off time (oh, see, we're only monitoring the business partition of your phone, so it's totally legit!), it would also be one more frond on the proverbial cat-O-nine that I use to subjugate and mentally manipulate the people who work for me into docile compliance!
Perhaps I'm being excessively cynical, but I fail to see any positive value to such a system.
Take out the pedestrians illegally crossing the street? This does a few things. Punishes the morons for breaking the law, mitigates the cost of repairing your vehicle, and maybe even cleanses the gene pool. What's the downside?
Having to hose pedestrian off the massive saw blades you mounted to the grill, duh.
Or perhaps I've been playing a bit too much Carmageddon....
What they are undoubtedly requesting is a CDR or equivalent
Commission on Dietetic Registration?
Child Development Resources?
Crash Data Retrieval?
Critical Design Review?
If you're going to use an acronym, you should always spell it out the first time. Otherwise the reader will have no idea what the heck you're on about. But, I digress.
What TFA is referring to is almost certainly a race condition: The victim reports the theft to both (a) the police and (b) the cell company, and then gets a new cell phone and has the number transferred to it. The police eventually request call records from the cell company, and the cell company eventually services the request. The servicing of the request can easily take place after the number in question has been transferred to a new phone controlled by the victim, so necessarily, the requested logs will include calls made by the victim on his new phone.
Sounds like a perfect excuse to spy on innocent people to me.
My guess is insurance fraud reasons. So you want a new phone, report the old one stolen, get the official theft report from the cops, but are dumb enough to keep using the old phone to call the same people until you visit the local dealer (phone dealer, just another branch of organized crime) to get a replacement under your theft insurance contract.
RTFA:
The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred
Apparently, if you transfer your number to a new phone before the subpoena runs out, you run the risk of having that exact same hypothetical happen anyway.
But hey, I'm certain that if you asked the cops how long the subpoena was for, they'd happily tell you, right?
Presumably "subpoena" means "DA office asked the person whose phone was stolen for permission to acquire the phone records from day of theft onward". Seeing as the victim willingly gave up their phone records to catch the thief and has likely already received a new phone whose call log is not being forwarded to the police, I don't see this as an issue. These are all legally collected records and they are only affecting the criminals who stole the phone, or the people who were stupid enough to buy a iPhone from a street vendor for $100.
Seriously, does anyone besides me RTFA anymore?
The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred
Everybody in this database is there because they've used a stolen cell phone. Thus, every one of them is guilty of receiving stolen property, at the very elast.
Incorrect - according to the LEOs running the show (who are always, always completely honest and forthcoming with the public), everyone in this database is there because their phone number was, at some point, linked to a reportedly stolen phone.
Say, for example, that your phone is stolen. You report it, head to the Verizon store, and have your number ported to a new one. Guess what? All your calls on your new phone are included in the police database, because they associate the database with the phone number, not the IMEI.
From TFA:
According to documents reviewed by The New York Times, the police subpoenas seek call records associated with the telephone number of the stolen phone.
As a result, three detectives said in interviews, the phone companies’ response sometimes includes call records for not only the stolen phone, but also the victim’s new phone, depending on variables like how quickly the victim transfers the old phone number to a new handset and how many days of calls the subpoena seeks.
There's a gap between when the phone is stolen and when the IMEI is blacklisted. At the very least, this gap must exist since you can't report the phone stolen at exactly the same time someone stole it. They can make calls during this time.
Sounds logical.
Call records are strictly retrospective -- they're not a monitoring of future calls, but a record of past calls. So you report your phone stolen, the police request a call log for the stolen phone, and they get a log of calls made before the IMEI was blacklisted. In theory, the ones of interest are those in the window between the time that you claim it was stolen and the time service was cut off.
Not according to TFA:
The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred, three detectives said in interviews.
Does it even matter to a Christian if one is "white magic" and one is the other kind?
No, I suppose it doesn't.
And the best I know of, a Pentacle is a Pentagram ON something else (tool, inside "circle" etc). So, Pentagram is more generalized and does include Pentacle. In some cases, the definitions say "synonym" (Webster's 1912).
Pentacle - star pointing up, classically used as a symbol of Wicca.
Pentagram - star pointing down, often with the head of Baphomet superimposed over it, symbol of Satanism and the occult.
Both are often used in "magic" ceremonies, hence the synonymous definition.
But still, that doesn't help. I'm still not sure that most Christians would find that shit "holy".
Yea, that's a big part of the reason I've been practicing my micro-soldering, and trying to get my hands on a wave soldering station...
Since computers are reaching a point of ir-repairability (sp?), I think I would be remiss if I didn't try to hop on the "pocket computer" bandwagon, ala Clone-Duino's, Clone-berry Pis, and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I disagree (much the opposite, modern copyright law has become an unwieldy behemoth that hardly resembles the concept it was meant to enshrine, in desperate need of aggressive pruning), but that still doesn't justify theft.
The way I see it, if some product has an obscene copyright (like, say, Mickey Mouse), the only right kind of protest is to boycott. Stealing it via piracy or other means not only proves that the product has value, it also serves to give ammunition to the copyright Gestapo on their next visit to Capital Hill.
Sorry, but thieves steal things.
Copying is not, nor can it ever be, stealing.
One word debunking:
Counterfeiting.
Regardless of how you try and rationalize it, taking something that is not yours, without permission of the owner, and without payment, is theft. Even if it's "just a copy."
Err, so do you not have printers at your office?
Print queues can be monitored.
Do you squirt epoxy into all the USB ports?
USB ports can be disabled administratively.
How do you keep your employees from looking at corporate data on their monitors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege
This is first-year stuff.
Are you saying that distributing a copy of your item would somehow deprive you of the original item? Copying doesn't "take it away" - it just lets more people enjoy it.
Just like counterfeiting money, right? Or art?
Shay-zuz, but the ways people rationalize their own fucked-up behavior...
Well then, don't get upset when the other end doesn't think your price is worth the value and finds other ways to get it.
Hmm, there's a word for people like that...
Oh yea - it's thief. Filthy, worthless, scum-of-the earth thief.
Word of advice, thief - if you think it has enough value to be worth stealing, it has enough value for you to fucking pay for it.
Question: Does anyone know if this exploit could be used to alter/remove the tracking dots every color laser printer marks its documents with?
No need. Following a link from the page you posted shows Samsung doesn't have tracking dots.
Have to take your word for it, as the firewall here blocks the EFF's website...
Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself.
Says Who?
Uh, how about everyone?
Example: In my hypothetical view of morals, I think it would be immoral for every hot chick who gets married to not fuck me first.
Ridiculous, right? Yes, it is, and it serves as a perfect example of why I'm correct - morals are subjective, and cannot be reasonably predicted (and thus, anticipated) by anyone other than the individual who holds said morals.
Because you've concluded that "Morality is subjective" it is only Immoral to you.
So, you would be cool with being a slave? Because, whether you realize it or not, that's what you're arguing.
From your logic I could easily conclude that is it Immoral for you to impose your view that it is immoral for me to program a moral machine.
Non-sequitur - I never said it would be "immoral for [you] to program a moral machine." What I said was that it is universally immoral to force your moral set on everyone else.
See above reference to slavery.
Subjective morality may or may-not be real, but it sure is a bitch if you use it.
I'm sorry, you lost me there.
Question: Does anyone know if this exploit could be used to alter/remove the tracking dots every color laser printer marks its documents with?
As a business owner, why the hell would I want sensitive company data to be stored locally on the personal device of an employee? What guarantee do I have that said employee won't try to access the information without permission, or better yet, take the phone and try to sell it to one of my competitors?
If you're that distrustful of your employees then you have other things to worry about.
Right, because company loyalty is such a common attribute these days.
I'm gonna guess you don't actually run anything more complex than a gas station cash register, so I'll give you this important business tip as a freebie - blindly trust someone to guard your gold, and it will be stolen, for all men have their price.
So until we eliminate all independent thought, we can not have morality.
FTFY.
Contrary to what is commonly posited here on Slashdot, not following a religion doesn't magically give a person moral high ground over someone that does.
I don't understand who this would be attractive to, outside control-freak American corporations.
As a private citizen, why the hell would I want my personal phone to be designed in a way that allows the company I work for to take control of it and access my personal data (separate partitions be damned - when they take the device out of your view for "updates," what guarantee do you have they aren't hacking or imaging it? None)?
As a business owner, why the hell would I want sensitive company data to be stored locally on the personal device of an employee? What guarantee do I have that said employee won't try to access the information without permission, or better yet, take the phone and try to sell it to one of my competitors?
Now, say I was one of those aforementioned control-freak corporations - I would find this a wonderful idea! Not only would it give me an excuse and method to constantly track employees during their off time (oh, see, we're only monitoring the business partition of your phone, so it's totally legit!), it would also be one more frond on the proverbial cat-O-nine that I use to subjugate and mentally manipulate the people who work for me into docile compliance!
Perhaps I'm being excessively cynical, but I fail to see any positive value to such a system.
Take out the pedestrians illegally crossing the street? This does a few things. Punishes the morons for breaking the law, mitigates the cost of repairing your vehicle, and maybe even cleanses the gene pool. What's the downside?
Having to hose pedestrian off the massive saw blades you mounted to the grill, duh.
Or perhaps I've been playing a bit too much Carmageddon....
Whose morality are we talking about ? christian? islam?
Hopefully, not yours...
Morality is subjective.
To "program morality" would be to engender a machine with the specific moral subset imbued upon it by its programmer.
Thus, "machine morality" is actually "programmer morality."
We each determine our own morals, which will occasionally conflict with one another.
Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself.
Thus, "moral machines" aren't really moral at all.
What they are undoubtedly requesting is a CDR or equivalent
Commission on Dietetic Registration?
Child Development Resources?
Crash Data Retrieval?
Critical Design Review?
If you're going to use an acronym, you should always spell it out the first time. Otherwise the reader will have no idea what the heck you're on about. But, I digress.
What TFA is referring to is almost certainly a race condition: The victim reports the theft to both (a) the police and (b) the cell company, and then gets a new cell phone and has the number transferred to it. The police eventually request call records from the cell company, and the cell company eventually services the request. The servicing of the request can easily take place after the number in question has been transferred to a new phone controlled by the victim, so necessarily, the requested logs will include calls made by the victim on his new phone.
Sounds like a perfect excuse to spy on innocent people to me.
My guess is insurance fraud reasons. So you want a new phone, report the old one stolen, get the official theft report from the cops, but are dumb enough to keep using the old phone to call the same people until you visit the local dealer (phone dealer, just another branch of organized crime) to get a replacement under your theft insurance contract.
RTFA:
The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred
Apparently, if you transfer your number to a new phone before the subpoena runs out, you run the risk of having that exact same hypothetical happen anyway.
But hey, I'm certain that if you asked the cops how long the subpoena was for, they'd happily tell you, right?
Right?
anyone?
Thank $deity for you, man.
I was starting to think I was the only person here today who actually read the fucking article.
Presumably "subpoena" means "DA office asked the person whose phone was stolen for permission to acquire the phone records from day of theft onward". Seeing as the victim willingly gave up their phone records to catch the thief and has likely already received a new phone whose call log is not being forwarded to the police, I don't see this as an issue. These are all legally collected records and they are only affecting the criminals who stole the phone, or the people who were stupid enough to buy a iPhone from a street vendor for $100.
Seriously, does anyone besides me RTFA anymore?
The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred
Everybody in this database is there because they've used a stolen cell phone. Thus, every one of them is guilty of receiving stolen property, at the very elast.
Incorrect - according to the LEOs running the show (who are always, always completely honest and forthcoming with the public), everyone in this database is there because their phone number was, at some point, linked to a reportedly stolen phone.
Say, for example, that your phone is stolen. You report it, head to the Verizon store, and have your number ported to a new one. Guess what? All your calls on your new phone are included in the police database, because they associate the database with the phone number, not the IMEI.
From TFA:
According to documents reviewed by The New York Times, the police subpoenas seek call records associated with the telephone number of the stolen phone.
As a result, three detectives said in interviews, the phone companies’ response sometimes includes call records for not only the stolen phone, but also the victim’s new phone, depending on variables like how quickly the victim transfers the old phone number to a new handset and how many days of calls the subpoena seeks.
Or you're the family of someone shady.
Or, you had your phone stolen by a shady person, then ported your number to a new (non-stolen) phone:
Banish your ignorance - RTFA.
Holy shit! That works with anything!
Indeed it does, Captain Obvious.
Almost didn't recognize you without the mask and cape.
There's a gap between when the phone is stolen and when the IMEI is blacklisted. At the very least, this gap must exist since you can't report the phone stolen at exactly the same time someone stole it. They can make calls during this time.
Sounds logical.
Call records are strictly retrospective -- they're not a monitoring of future calls, but a record of past calls. So you report your phone stolen, the police request a call log for the stolen phone, and they get a log of calls made before the IMEI was blacklisted. In theory, the ones of interest are those in the window between the time that you claim it was stolen and the time service was cut off.
Not according to TFA:
The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred, three detectives said in interviews.
Sounds like a continually running capture to me.
Well met.
Does it even matter to a Christian if one is "white magic" and one is the other kind?
No, I suppose it doesn't.
And the best I know of, a Pentacle is a Pentagram ON something else (tool, inside "circle" etc). So, Pentagram is more generalized and does include Pentacle. In some cases, the definitions say "synonym" (Webster's 1912).
Pentacle - star pointing up, classically used as a symbol of Wicca.
Pentagram - star pointing down, often with the head of Baphomet superimposed over it, symbol of Satanism and the occult.
Both are often used in "magic" ceremonies, hence the synonymous definition.
But still, that doesn't help. I'm still not sure that most Christians would find that shit "holy".
Indeed, you are 100% correct there.
Yea, that's a big part of the reason I've been practicing my micro-soldering, and trying to get my hands on a wave soldering station...
Since computers are reaching a point of ir-repairability (sp?), I think I would be remiss if I didn't try to hop on the "pocket computer" bandwagon, ala Clone-Duino's, Clone-berry Pis, and the like.
Like a shark - always move forward