Sure its voluntary, but its a first step. Now there is no real excuse for tracking people except wanting to.
TFA says that there are more users who turned on 'do not track' than are using adblock, which means there are lots of people who don't want to be tracked. What the next step will be depends, since we now know that tracking them isn't an 'accident because I was unable to'.
Maybe an addon will create a blacklist so you know what to avoid, maybe some country will make it illegal to track people who don't want to be tracked (Probably not in the US, but I'm sure the EU might). Everything is in place now.
I think this sort of information should be forced to be disclosed legally.
How are people supposed to know who to blame for the mess of legislation if this sort of thing is done under wraps? I'm sure this guy wouldn't see another term in office if this sort of thing was known earlier.
I realise doing it in secret was the whole point of it, but these people should be held accountable, they are meant to represent the people, and the people need to know what they're doing.
Not really, you can find specfic examples to everything, which means that technically everything would be amoral.
Which then heralds the collapse of a moral/immoral system and goes for a purely consequentialist approach.
Ex: Killing puppies by putting them into a blender in front of orphans is ok if its done to appease a giant creature which is going to destroy the earth unless puppies are blended for its amusement.
Since we're discussing whether a specific thing is amoral or not, I think we can safely say its not the intention.
Computer Science can be proper science. Algorithms, Formal Languages et cetera are ultimately based on mathematics and scientific principles. So Computer Science is forgivable.
I'm getting very confused as to what the password is reused for. According to the/. story posted last:
"The embassy cables were shared with the Guardian through a secure server for a period of hours, after which the server was taken offline and all files removed, as was previously agreed by both parties. [...]the same file with the same password was republished later on BitTorrent, a network typically used to distribute films and music."
He gave the password to the Insurance file. That part was wrong. True. Not sure why he gave him that password, but that's his mistake.
The files were ENCRYPTED and public. The idea was that if wikileaks was pulled down by the government, or shut down by the ISP or whatever - which was VERY probable, lots of people would have the files. Think of it as a guarantee. Its useless pulling down the site, because the data will still be there. Two factor authentication would be useless for this purpose.
Now, HOW WOULD YOU delete the files? Pull down the torrent? Ask everyone nicely? Hack everyone's computers and delete the files?
There was nothing he could do after the leak. Nothing.
While that's true, its the impression of the act which is damning. Yes I realise the cow is out of the barn, but the solution isn't to knock another door. The solution is to give the impression that you didn't want this to happen, and try some ineffective damage control. Sure you won't do much, but it at least shows your intentions - someone screwed up and we didn't want this to happen.
Also it won't be long before this act is taken out of context as Wikileaks being the bad guy. In fact some of the comments around here are to this effect.
Not really, not just. Free market depends on the concept of "Perfect Competition".
To give a good example - assume I dislike car company's lack of care for the enivornment. The free market would tell me that I should enter the market myself, and my superior ways will draw others away and the problem will be solved. I can't however realistically pull a car factory, and all the technology to compete out of thin air. Free market works when you have a bunch of farmers selling produce and there's no communication between them.
"defying the typical knee-jerk reaction to Zynga-style use of microtransactions as a cynical tool designed to siphon the maximum amount of money from your wallet"
This is a negative thing. In the free market (TM) negative things are solved through boycott. Boycotts result in companies suffering until they improve.
Zynga isn't suffering. Zynga isn't improving..: The free market doesn't exist, through contradiction.
Why would he then do something like this? If his top secret plan was to get all the info out by secret, why would he PUBLICLY RELEASE THEM? He could have just waited, or stoked the fire by using the Streisland effect.
You could make a hotel where everything cost a tiny bit of money but the average expenditure for the basics added up to the average cost of a room. You could then charge for things like: taking a shower, having hot water in the shower, access to toiletries, access to towels, heating the room at night, watching TV, etc. You could do this with some kind of swipe card system. Would people enjoy staying in a hotel like that? Probably not.
Apparently some Retirement homes work that way in this country. Just wanted to point that out.
What planet are you living in? There's no real free market, because free markets work on a number of premisses which are unrealistic.
According to wikipedia - Zynga, which is famous for these microtranscations...made $850 million last year and has ~250 million users. That's the free market for you eh.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure its voluntary, but its a first step. Now there is no real excuse for tracking people except wanting to.
TFA says that there are more users who turned on 'do not track' than are using adblock, which means there are lots of people who don't want to be tracked. What the next step will be depends, since we now know that tracking them isn't an 'accident because I was unable to'.
Maybe an addon will create a blacklist so you know what to avoid, maybe some country will make it illegal to track people who don't want to be tracked (Probably not in the US, but I'm sure the EU might). Everything is in place now.
Allright, lets both camp outside of apple stores and ask people why they're buying macs.
Alternativly we could look at the sales of those 3 programs, and compare them to the Mac userbase.
And from that fraction most would be fine with an Open Source Alternative.
However apple looks 'cool' and 'fashionable' and most people who I know have macs don't use any of those.
Same here. I'm on Firefox 7.0. I'll see if there's a difference with aurora.
Most acts of terrorism are therefore art.
If I bomb an orphanage many people will feel an emotional response and talk about it. Art!
That's not communism.
WHich is why you play a game to get away from it all.
If I wanted games to be just like real life I'd just turn my computer off.
From what I understood, next time they do something like that it'd be paid for. People who applied now are the guinea pigs.
How DOES one become a trusted CA? Shouldn't there at least be some sort of procedure to check that they can be trusted?
Their bribes are much smaller than the ones they'll get from going proprietary.
The country can take care of itself, the new car won't wait.
I think this sort of information should be forced to be disclosed legally.
How are people supposed to know who to blame for the mess of legislation if this sort of thing is done under wraps? I'm sure this guy wouldn't see another term in office if this sort of thing was known earlier.
I realise doing it in secret was the whole point of it, but these people should be held accountable, they are meant to represent the people, and the people need to know what they're doing.
I'm trying to work out the point of this mud slinging.
Visit Site
Get code, visit site on mobile
Download their own webstore...
I think its much faster to compile from source...
Not really, you can find specfic examples to everything, which means that technically everything would be amoral.
Which then heralds the collapse of a moral/immoral system and goes for a purely consequentialist approach.
Ex: Killing puppies by putting them into a blender in front of orphans is ok if its done to appease a giant creature which is going to destroy the earth unless puppies are blended for its amusement.
Since we're discussing whether a specific thing is amoral or not, I think we can safely say its not the intention.
Well it depends.
Computer Science can be proper science. Algorithms, Formal Languages et cetera are ultimately based on mathematics and scientific principles. So Computer Science is forgivable.
"fails to slam the US for its practice of applying the 'engineer' label to sanitation workers, building janitors, boiler operators, "
I knew a woman who used to demand the title of "Domestic Engineer". Also known as "housewife"
I'm getting very confused as to what the password is reused for. According to the /. story posted last:
"The embassy cables were shared with the Guardian through a secure server for a period of hours, after which the server was taken offline and all files removed, as was previously agreed by both parties. [...]the same file with the same password was republished later on BitTorrent, a network typically used to distribute films and music."
So it wasn't root password was it?
You are so wrong over here.
He gave the password to the Insurance file. That part was wrong. True. Not sure why he gave him that password, but that's his mistake.
The files were ENCRYPTED and public. The idea was that if wikileaks was pulled down by the government, or shut down by the ISP or whatever - which was VERY probable, lots of people would have the files. Think of it as a guarantee. Its useless pulling down the site, because the data will still be there. Two factor authentication would be useless for this purpose.
Now, HOW WOULD YOU delete the files? Pull down the torrent? Ask everyone nicely? Hack everyone's computers and delete the files?
There was nothing he could do after the leak. Nothing.
While that's true, its the impression of the act which is damning. Yes I realise the cow is out of the barn, but the solution isn't to knock another door. The solution is to give the impression that you didn't want this to happen, and try some ineffective damage control. Sure you won't do much, but it at least shows your intentions - someone screwed up and we didn't want this to happen.
Also it won't be long before this act is taken out of context as Wikileaks being the bad guy. In fact some of the comments around here are to this effect.
Not really, not just. Free market depends on the concept of "Perfect Competition".
To give a good example - assume I dislike car company's lack of care for the enivornment. The free market would tell me that I should enter the market myself, and my superior ways will draw others away and the problem will be solved. I can't however realistically pull a car factory, and all the technology to compete out of thin air. Free market works when you have a bunch of farmers selling produce and there's no communication between them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
See how many unrealistic premisses you can spot.
"defying the typical knee-jerk reaction to Zynga-style use of microtransactions as a cynical tool designed to siphon the maximum amount of money from your wallet"
This is a negative thing. In the free market (TM) negative things are solved through boycott. Boycotts result in companies suffering until they improve.
Zynga isn't suffering. Zynga isn't improving. .: The free market doesn't exist, through contradiction.
Assuming I accept your premiss.
Why would he then do something like this? If his top secret plan was to get all the info out by secret, why would he PUBLICLY RELEASE THEM? He could have just waited, or stoked the fire by using the Streisland effect.
The guardian password thing was a mistake. A big mistake.
The solution however is NOT to go all in and betray the trust of the sources. This sort of thing is just what you'd need to kill Wikileaks forever.
If it was due to a mistake, an accident or hacking, we might move on, but this is big stuff.
You could make a hotel where everything cost a tiny bit of money but the average expenditure for the basics added up to the average cost of a room. You could then charge for things like: taking a shower, having hot water in the shower, access to toiletries, access to towels, heating the room at night, watching TV, etc. You could do this with some kind of swipe card system. Would people enjoy staying in a hotel like that? Probably not.
Apparently some Retirement homes work that way in this country. Just wanted to point that out.
What planet are you living in? There's no real free market, because free markets work on a number of premisses which are unrealistic.
According to wikipedia - Zynga, which is famous for these microtranscations...made $850 million last year and has ~250 million users. That's the free market for you eh.