Non compliance is about more than transaction fees. It also who determines pays when there is a breach. If Target is non-compliant, they are 100% responsible for all investigation and remediation costs (as well as any fraud committed using the compromised card numbers). In this case, according to TFA, that's up to $420 million, with only $160 million in insurance. A $260 million write-off probably won't put Target out of business, but it'll sure piss off the shareholders when it shows up in the annual report.
On the other hand, if they are compliant, they're not responsible for any of that.
The executive summary is that the cost of putting ink on paper and shipping it to the store isn't much of the final retail price, and if you expect to buy ebooks for more than about 10% less than paper books, you expect lower quality.
You don't remember the fiasco all that well, either. The books (there were two, not one) was uploaded legally in the country in which it was uploaded (Canada, IIRC), as it was in the public domain there. It was offered for sale in the US (where it was still under copyright) by mistake - whose mistake, nobody knows - and deleted when the US copyright holder objected.
The real point is that Amazon initially responded to criticism about Kindles being a book rental system, not a purchase system, by saying that they couldn't delete stuff remotely without your permission, then demonstrated that simply wasn't true by deleting stuff remotely without permission.
This is, of course, a completely different situation, since this will apparently not affect books already bought on existing devices. What it will do, if this editorial rant is accurate, and we don't know that it is, is kill ebook sales until publishers agree to either go DRM free or switch to something else. And they will, when someone like Barnes & Noble says, "You know, we don't really make any money off of ebook sales anyway, so we'll just stop selling anything with DRM on it and rely on brick & mortar sales instead. That's where our profits are anyway."
Unless you have personally done the research, you also have a cognitive bias to accept one of the largest bodies of modern scientific research. It's only a matter of which side you believe, in the end.
Both sides act like drunken schoolyard bullies beating up the smaller kids for their lunch money.
There isn't a passenger aircraft operating anywhere in the world today without a live pilot. And there is considerable resistance at all levels to there ever being one. Liability is one of the reasons.
What'll really make the news is the legal fight over liability. Car manufacturer blames manufacturer who made the self-driving system. Manufacturer blames the software company who wrote the software, or the manufacturer of the subsystem that failed. Software company/subcontractor blames "hackers," government blames "terrorists," and in the end, the guy with the least amount of money for lawyers gets the bill - and that'd the be the passenger.
What you describe is not much different than taxis today. And yet, in most places, everybody has their own car. Self-driving cars are cheaper, sure, by the cost of a taxi driver, but that's not that big a savings, really. The reason people don't rely on taxis now is that you don't "call a car on your "smart device" get in, it takes you wherever." It's "call a car on your "smart device," wait until it arrives get in, it takes you wherever". That missing part is the big one. Particularly if the self-driving taxi service is for-profit, giving a considerable incentive to minimize costs (which is to say, number of vehicles - keep every one of them working 100% of the time). It will not be just as fast. Hell, today, you can book a taxi days in advance, and you can't count on them being there on time.
As for cleaning, would you really want to ride any distance in a car that can be "power hosed down"? I'd rather have something a little more comfortable.
And for everything you don't need - insurance, maintenance, etc., you have an increase in cost in the taxi service, because those things still have to be done.
So your high tech utopia is, instead of jumping in your jalopy and going where you want to go immediately, will be call for the taxi, wait for it to arrive, pay fares at least as high as a taxi now, and probably have to pay extra to keep from having to share it with someone else going the same direction.
Did you even read you replied to? Let me recap: I suggested doing to them exactly what they're doing to the Google guy. Track them to their home, post it all online, etc. If they want to complain. etc.
And California has some pretty specific laws about "protesting" outside someone's home, as well as some pretty strict anti-stalking laws (because Hollywood owns this state). That have withstood challenges many times in the past.
Filing a police report is done under penalty of perjury. These protestors/stalkers can whine, and would, about being treated the way they treat others, but any actual complaint will, indeed, be under penalty of perjury. To complain about being counter-stalked, they will have to admit they know that the behavior they have publicly engages in is illegal.
I have formed my opinion based on the words of OWS "protestors" in the news, generally quoted on programs with a distinctively friendly approach to reporting on them. I actively avoid Faux News, in fact, and all their kin.
California doesn't hate tech companies. California hates all companies, all forms of business, period. The second stupidest legislature in the US has the state more and more hostile to any form of business whatsoever for years, because it is a one party system (and even the governor is now irrelevant with the Democrats having a super majority in both houses), and that party is populated by lunatics.
My employer now has state inspectors come to our stores on a regular basis to look for light bulbs in the trash cans.
I think they are, indeed, essentially OWS hippies (probably the same people, certainly the same lack-of-philosophy). What they are protesting is a) nobody gives them free shit, and b) they haven't had enough attention lately.
They'd protest outside the offices of Google, but I suspect they have, and been completely ignored by Google, the authorities, and the press. And they can't stand being ignored. So instead, they start stalking individuals, in as threatening a way as they can without being arrested (cuz they can't smoke weed in the jail, even with a prescription), because the individual can't ignore them. They get a reaction, they make someone afraid of them, and that means they get to feel important. They feel, for a little while, like they matter, even though they know they really don't.
Were I the guy who lived in that house, I'd be out there with my Google Glass, taking pictures of their faces for my blog, to see if anybody can identify them, and their street addresses. They can't even complain about it without admitting, under penalty of perjury, that they knew what they were doing was wrong.
A web page that is blank with JavaScript turned off is equally devoid of content with it turned on, even if you can technically see words and pictures.
If you want me to look at (and ignore) your ads, make them less offensive, and do some testing to ensure they don't make the page literally unreadable.
I think it's far more likely that some city somewhere, desperate for money, will realize they can subpoena these records and mail out speeding tickets to everyone who did so in their city. Sure, it'll cost hundreds of thousands in legal fees, but it will net them millions. And under the current state of the law, Ford will have zero choice, and the city will win.
It depends on what was compromised. Normally, debit card stuff is encrypted on the pad you swipe the card in. If the pad was wasn't what was compromised, then the key wasn't on what was, because that's the only place the key is kept.
(Earlier reports claimed the pads had been compromised, but that smelled like bullshit then, and even more like it now.)
And everything I have described meets PCI compliance. I suppose you were expecting something more out of government regulation
Er, dude, PCI isn't a government regulation, it's a voluntary industry standard, defined and imposed by card issuers (specifically, Visa, MasterCard and Discover, though Amex uses the same standards).
is that the people most affected by it - beekeepers and farmers who rent their colonies - aren't worked up over it. Colonies die off every winter, and always have. CCD means that more do, but replacing failed colonies is a routine part of the business.. The price of queen bees, which can apparently be produced on demand very quickly, hasn't gone up appreciably. The price of food that relies on rented bee colonies for pollination hasn't gone up appreciably. Almonds, one of the crops most sensitive to the availability of bees, have seen a price increase (attributable to increase cost of renting bee colonies) of less than 3 cents a pound.
CCD is a problem, but one that is well in hand. The only crisis is that there is taxpayer money that some researcher somewhere wants to do a study, and they haven't gotten it yet.
You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.
Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy violation to publish the photos. That's a civil matter, but when you demand money to not commit a civil privacy violation, that's criminal extortion (as has been charged in this case).
The reason tabloids can get away with their nonsense is that a) they take their photos from public places, and there is a well established principle that what can be seen from a public place can be photographed from a public place, and b) celebrities are public figures - people who have chosen to thrust themselves in to the public limelight. What is perfectly legal regarding a photo of a movie star is a privacy violation with a photo of Joe Sixpack, because the movie star are, in and of themselves, inherently newsworthy.
Very complicated body of law, variable (a lot) by state, but this case is pretty clear cut. This guy's going away.
(And the revenge porn law isn't going anywhere. Current iteration might have problems due to being written poorly, but those will get cleared up. It's entirely consistent with centuries of common law regarding privacy and the right to exploit.)
And then it would turn out the sister/daughter voluntarily posed for the pictures, was paid as a professional model, and signed a release. But claimed it was something else when her brother/father turned out to subscribe to the site and found the pics.
Then, the young lady, and the brother/father would all go to prison, and everything they own auctioned off and the money given to their victim.
There's a reason civilized people prefer a rule of law to blood feud justice.
That's not true, or at least it's not legally clear. The photo itself is made by a government agency which automatically makes it public domain, however the subject is a private citizen so it runs afoul of privacy laws which can vary from state to state.
That the person has been charged with a crime is newsworthy in and of itself. That brings the first amendment in to play. To say the web sites cannot post the photos is, legally, the same as saying the New York Times cannot publish the name of the defendant.
This is a bit different though, as it appears the pictures are made by a private person, not a government agency, so the ownership of the photo is retained by the individual who took the shot. Which begs an interesting IP question; if it's a nude shot of a woman taken by her boyfriend, does he own the copyright of the picture, and is therefore legally allowed to publish it if he chooses to do so?
The copyright goes to the person who made the photograph. There are no copyright issues there. There are privacy issues, and right to commercially exploit one's own image issues, both of which are pretty strongly protected in many states.
Aside from criminal issues, as in this case.
Regardless though, that's not this guy's deal. The photos were posted and he charged women money to have them taken down; that's extortion laws, not public domain or IP laws. Mug shot websites can post in the public domain and likely the subject would have to go to court to get it removed and challenge the whole privacy/public domain law conflict.
IP laws are not in play in any way. The difference between mug shot sites and this is that mug shots are part of a criminal arrest, which is a public event and inherently newsworthy. Posing in (or out of) a French maid's costume in one's own bedroom is neither public nor newsworthy. That's why this guy can be arrested for posting these photos and demanding money for taking them down, and a mug shot site (or the New York Times) can't be arrested for posting a mug shot photo and demanding money to take it down (if they were to do so).
The posited advantage of an hereditary monarchy is not so much that the new is the son of the old ruler, it's that he is raised from birth to rule adn the responsibilities that this entails.
The ability to rule well is in no way related to the ability to teach how to rule well. Given historical examples, they may well be mutually exclusive. It may well be impossible for a good dictator to deliberately teach their offspring to be a good dictator.
That tends to be the tradeoff, when monarchies work well they work really well, and when they work badly they work really badly. Democracy tend to pull things more to the center, so things never work all that well, but they do not get nearly as bad either.
The more asbolute the dictatorship, the more efficient the government will run. If it's an enlightened dicatatorship, it will very efficiently improve the lives of its subjects. If it's one of the other 99% of dictatorships, it will very efficiently go to hell in a handbasket. Not that Greece isn't already halfway there.
That is based on the assumption that intelligence, fitness and handsomness are genetically based.
Which brings in to question whether or not the neoreactionaries are intellectually qualified to offer an opinion on what to have for dinner, since the first two are, at best, only vaguely genetic in nature, and that third isn't a qualification for governing (except in Hollywood, and do you really want Hollywood running your country?)
Maybe they could get the UK to send them Prince Chuck. Be a win/win situation. Greece gets their King, UK gets rid of Chuck, and probably pays Greece enough to take him that they'll be able to clear their national debt.
"Look, I know you're a criminal trying to scam me. You're not getting any money from me, ever. If this is a real debt, sue me, so that the court will make you obey the law, but it's no, its' a scam, and you're a criminal, so you don't dare do that."
Make it clear they're wasting their time, and they'll go elsewhere. The scam is a business, and lost time isn't profitable.
Aside from that, this is the outlet to all your frustrations. When you're dealing with a criminal to begin with, you can say anything, be as abusive as you want, and there's nothing they can do about it. If you threatened to firebomb their office, they wouldn't dare report you (and the NSA doesn't share).
Had a bad day? Scream obscenities in to the phone. Didn't get laid last night? Tell them you're masturbating while you talk to them. Relatives giving you a bad time? Question their mother's mating habits. Take out every frustration you have on the criminal. I will personally send you real money if you post a recording of you making the scammer cry.
Slashdot Mirror
Non compliance is about more than transaction fees. It also who determines pays when there is a breach. If Target is non-compliant, they are 100% responsible for all investigation and remediation costs (as well as any fraud committed using the compromised card numbers). In this case, according to TFA, that's up to $420 million, with only $160 million in insurance. A $260 million write-off probably won't put Target out of business, but it'll sure piss off the shareholders when it shows up in the annual report.
On the other hand, if they are compliant, they're not responsible for any of that.
The big cost in publishing is the printing, shipping, warehousing, distribution of the dead trees
That isn't really all that true, actually. Charlie Stross has written quite a bit about the subject.
The executive summary is that the cost of putting ink on paper and shipping it to the store isn't much of the final retail price, and if you expect to buy ebooks for more than about 10% less than paper books, you expect lower quality.
You don't remember the fiasco all that well, either. The books (there were two, not one) was uploaded legally in the country in which it was uploaded (Canada, IIRC), as it was in the public domain there. It was offered for sale in the US (where it was still under copyright) by mistake - whose mistake, nobody knows - and deleted when the US copyright holder objected.
The real point is that Amazon initially responded to criticism about Kindles being a book rental system, not a purchase system, by saying that they couldn't delete stuff remotely without your permission, then demonstrated that simply wasn't true by deleting stuff remotely without permission.
This is, of course, a completely different situation, since this will apparently not affect books already bought on existing devices. What it will do, if this editorial rant is accurate, and we don't know that it is, is kill ebook sales until publishers agree to either go DRM free or switch to something else. And they will, when someone like Barnes & Noble says, "You know, we don't really make any money off of ebook sales anyway, so we'll just stop selling anything with DRM on it and rely on brick & mortar sales instead. That's where our profits are anyway."
Unless you have personally done the research, you also have a cognitive bias to accept one of the largest bodies of modern scientific research. It's only a matter of which side you believe, in the end.
Both sides act like drunken schoolyard bullies beating up the smaller kids for their lunch money.
There isn't a passenger aircraft operating anywhere in the world today without a live pilot. And there is considerable resistance at all levels to there ever being one. Liability is one of the reasons.
What'll really make the news is the legal fight over liability. Car manufacturer blames manufacturer who made the self-driving system. Manufacturer blames the software company who wrote the software, or the manufacturer of the subsystem that failed. Software company/subcontractor blames "hackers," government blames "terrorists," and in the end, the guy with the least amount of money for lawyers gets the bill - and that'd the be the passenger.
What you describe is not much different than taxis today. And yet, in most places, everybody has their own car. Self-driving cars are cheaper, sure, by the cost of a taxi driver, but that's not that big a savings, really. The reason people don't rely on taxis now is that you don't "call a car on your "smart device" get in, it takes you wherever." It's "call a car on your "smart device," wait until it arrives get in, it takes you wherever". That missing part is the big one. Particularly if the self-driving taxi service is for-profit, giving a considerable incentive to minimize costs (which is to say, number of vehicles - keep every one of them working 100% of the time). It will not be just as fast. Hell, today, you can book a taxi days in advance, and you can't count on them being there on time.
As for cleaning, would you really want to ride any distance in a car that can be "power hosed down"? I'd rather have something a little more comfortable.
And for everything you don't need - insurance, maintenance, etc., you have an increase in cost in the taxi service, because those things still have to be done.
So your high tech utopia is, instead of jumping in your jalopy and going where you want to go immediately, will be call for the taxi, wait for it to arrive, pay fares at least as high as a taxi now, and probably have to pay extra to keep from having to share it with someone else going the same direction.
No thanks.
Did you even read you replied to? Let me recap: I suggested doing to them exactly what they're doing to the Google guy. Track them to their home, post it all online, etc. If they want to complain. etc.
And California has some pretty specific laws about "protesting" outside someone's home, as well as some pretty strict anti-stalking laws (because Hollywood owns this state). That have withstood challenges many times in the past.
Filing a police report is done under penalty of perjury. These protestors/stalkers can whine, and would, about being treated the way they treat others, but any actual complaint will, indeed, be under penalty of perjury. To complain about being counter-stalked, they will have to admit they know that the behavior they have publicly engages in is illegal.
I have formed my opinion based on the words of OWS "protestors" in the news, generally quoted on programs with a distinctively friendly approach to reporting on them. I actively avoid Faux News, in fact, and all their kin.
California doesn't hate tech companies. California hates all companies, all forms of business, period. The second stupidest legislature in the US has the state more and more hostile to any form of business whatsoever for years, because it is a one party system (and even the governor is now irrelevant with the Democrats having a super majority in both houses), and that party is populated by lunatics.
My employer now has state inspectors come to our stores on a regular basis to look for light bulbs in the trash cans.
I think they are, indeed, essentially OWS hippies (probably the same people, certainly the same lack-of-philosophy). What they are protesting is a) nobody gives them free shit, and b) they haven't had enough attention lately.
They'd protest outside the offices of Google, but I suspect they have, and been completely ignored by Google, the authorities, and the press. And they can't stand being ignored. So instead, they start stalking individuals, in as threatening a way as they can without being arrested (cuz they can't smoke weed in the jail, even with a prescription), because the individual can't ignore them. They get a reaction, they make someone afraid of them, and that means they get to feel important. They feel, for a little while, like they matter, even though they know they really don't.
Were I the guy who lived in that house, I'd be out there with my Google Glass, taking pictures of their faces for my blog, to see if anybody can identify them, and their street addresses. They can't even complain about it without admitting, under penalty of perjury, that they knew what they were doing was wrong.
Is The FTC a credible enough source for you?
Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
A web page that is blank with JavaScript turned off is equally devoid of content with it turned on, even if you can technically see words and pictures.
If you want me to look at (and ignore) your ads, make them less offensive, and do some testing to ensure they don't make the page literally unreadable.
I think it's far more likely that some city somewhere, desperate for money, will realize they can subpoena these records and mail out speeding tickets to everyone who did so in their city. Sure, it'll cost hundreds of thousands in legal fees, but it will net them millions. And under the current state of the law, Ford will have zero choice, and the city will win.
It depends on what was compromised. Normally, debit card stuff is encrypted on the pad you swipe the card in. If the pad was wasn't what was compromised, then the key wasn't on what was, because that's the only place the key is kept.
(Earlier reports claimed the pads had been compromised, but that smelled like bullshit then, and even more like it now.)
And everything I have described meets PCI compliance. I suppose you were expecting something more out of government regulation
Er, dude, PCI isn't a government regulation, it's a voluntary industry standard, defined and imposed by card issuers (specifically, Visa, MasterCard and Discover, though Amex uses the same standards).
is that the people most affected by it - beekeepers and farmers who rent their colonies - aren't worked up over it. Colonies die off every winter, and always have. CCD means that more do, but replacing failed colonies is a routine part of the business.. The price of queen bees, which can apparently be produced on demand very quickly, hasn't gone up appreciably. The price of food that relies on rented bee colonies for pollination hasn't gone up appreciably. Almonds, one of the crops most sensitive to the availability of bees, have seen a price increase (attributable to increase cost of renting bee colonies) of less than 3 cents a pound.
CCD is a problem, but one that is well in hand. The only crisis is that there is taxpayer money that some researcher somewhere wants to do a study, and they haven't gotten it yet.
You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.
Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy violation to publish the photos. That's a civil matter, but when you demand money to not commit a civil privacy violation, that's criminal extortion (as has been charged in this case).
The reason tabloids can get away with their nonsense is that a) they take their photos from public places, and there is a well established principle that what can be seen from a public place can be photographed from a public place, and b) celebrities are public figures - people who have chosen to thrust themselves in to the public limelight. What is perfectly legal regarding a photo of a movie star is a privacy violation with a photo of Joe Sixpack, because the movie star are, in and of themselves, inherently newsworthy.
Very complicated body of law, variable (a lot) by state, but this case is pretty clear cut. This guy's going away.
(And the revenge porn law isn't going anywhere. Current iteration might have problems due to being written poorly, but those will get cleared up. It's entirely consistent with centuries of common law regarding privacy and the right to exploit.)
And then it would turn out the sister/daughter voluntarily posed for the pictures, was paid as a professional model, and signed a release. But claimed it was something else when her brother/father turned out to subscribe to the site and found the pics.
Then, the young lady, and the brother/father would all go to prison, and everything they own auctioned off and the money given to their victim.
There's a reason civilized people prefer a rule of law to blood feud justice.
That's not true, or at least it's not legally clear. The photo itself is made by a government agency which automatically makes it public domain, however the subject is a private citizen so it runs afoul of privacy laws which can vary from state to state.
That the person has been charged with a crime is newsworthy in and of itself. That brings the first amendment in to play. To say the web sites cannot post the photos is, legally, the same as saying the New York Times cannot publish the name of the defendant.
This is a bit different though, as it appears the pictures are made by a private person, not a government agency, so the ownership of the photo is retained by the individual who took the shot. Which begs an interesting IP question; if it's a nude shot of a woman taken by her boyfriend, does he own the copyright of the picture, and is therefore legally allowed to publish it if he chooses to do so?
The copyright goes to the person who made the photograph. There are no copyright issues there. There are privacy issues, and right to commercially exploit one's own image issues, both of which are pretty strongly protected in many states.
Aside from criminal issues, as in this case.
Regardless though, that's not this guy's deal. The photos were posted and he charged women money to have them taken down; that's extortion laws, not public domain or IP laws. Mug shot websites can post in the public domain and likely the subject would have to go to court to get it removed and challenge the whole privacy/public domain law conflict.
IP laws are not in play in any way. The difference between mug shot sites and this is that mug shots are part of a criminal arrest, which is a public event and inherently newsworthy. Posing in (or out of) a French maid's costume in one's own bedroom is neither public nor newsworthy. That's why this guy can be arrested for posting these photos and demanding money for taking them down, and a mug shot site (or the New York Times) can't be arrested for posting a mug shot photo and demanding money to take it down (if they were to do so).
The posited advantage of an hereditary monarchy is not so much that the new is the son of the old ruler, it's that he is raised from birth to rule adn the responsibilities that this entails.
The ability to rule well is in no way related to the ability to teach how to rule well. Given historical examples, they may well be mutually exclusive. It may well be impossible for a good dictator to deliberately teach their offspring to be a good dictator.
That tends to be the tradeoff, when monarchies work well they work really well, and when they work badly they work really badly. Democracy tend to pull things more to the center, so things never work all that well, but they do not get nearly as bad either.
The more asbolute the dictatorship, the more efficient the government will run. If it's an enlightened dicatatorship, it will very efficiently improve the lives of its subjects. If it's one of the other 99% of dictatorships, it will very efficiently go to hell in a handbasket. Not that Greece isn't already halfway there.
That is based on the assumption that intelligence, fitness and handsomness are genetically based.
Which brings in to question whether or not the neoreactionaries are intellectually qualified to offer an opinion on what to have for dinner, since the first two are, at best, only vaguely genetic in nature, and that third isn't a qualification for governing (except in Hollywood, and do you really want Hollywood running your country?)
Maybe they could get the UK to send them Prince Chuck. Be a win/win situation. Greece gets their King, UK gets rid of Chuck, and probably pays Greece enough to take him that they'll be able to clear their national debt.
"Look, I know you're a criminal trying to scam me. You're not getting any money from me, ever. If this is a real debt, sue me, so that the court will make you obey the law, but it's no, its' a scam, and you're a criminal, so you don't dare do that."
Make it clear they're wasting their time, and they'll go elsewhere. The scam is a business, and lost time isn't profitable.
Aside from that, this is the outlet to all your frustrations. When you're dealing with a criminal to begin with, you can say anything, be as abusive as you want, and there's nothing they can do about it. If you threatened to firebomb their office, they wouldn't dare report you (and the NSA doesn't share).
Had a bad day? Scream obscenities in to the phone. Didn't get laid last night? Tell them you're masturbating while you talk to them. Relatives giving you a bad time? Question their mother's mating habits. Take out every frustration you have on the criminal. I will personally send you real money if you post a recording of you making the scammer cry.