Read the fucking paper before commenting on the methodology. The name "Privacy Finder" was changed to "Shopping Finder." Participants were given no information about the nature of our research (our lab is in a nondescript room, in a building occupied by multiple departments), and were certainly not told this was a privacy study. Do you honestly believe that if all the results could be attributed to the Milgram effect this paper would have been accepted into any major peer-reviewed conferences?
The privacy information used in this study was gleaned from website P3P policies (machine readable privacy policies). The users state their privacy preferences to the user agent so that the user agent can make an automatic determination of whether or not the privacy policy complies with user preferences. Currently a little over 10% of the whole Internet uses P3P, whereas over 20% of online shopping sites use P3P (http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/icec06.html).
Maybe you should read the actual paper before making comments on it. Subjects were not told this was a privacy study. Nor was any mention of the tool made. Subjects were told this was a study about online purchasing behavior. The privacy information was presented to them without any explanation; they were left to figure out what the privacy icons meant on their own. Some of the subjects correctly figured it out and used that information to make their purchases, while a few did not understand/notice the privacy information. Thus the Milgram effect (that's what you're thinking of) had little to do with the exhibited behaviors.
Actually, the ChoicePoint (and many other similar incidents) incident occurred because the U.S. does not have any comprehensive data privacy laws. ChoicePoint never even violated its own privacy policy (much less any laws) when it gave that data away.
You don't. That's why we have government. If a company says something in their privacy policy, and their practices don't reflect that, there's a name for that--fraud. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is charged with prosecuting companies for unfair practices (fraud falls under that). If it becomes apparent that a company has violated its privacy policy, the FTC will and does go after them.
Maybe you should actually, you know, read the paper rather than drawing conclusions from what some monkey posted on a website/blog/what-have-you after reading another website/blog/what-have-you. The $0.60 premium was not an exact value. The conclusive point was that people were willing to pay more for privacy; we were unable to infer exactly how much they would pay--that's another experiment entirely. Thus, people do care about privacy and are willing to pay more for it.
The privacy rating was not conspicuously flashed at them. It was a small icon in the margin, and the users were left to themselves to figure out what it meant (think SSL icons).
I'm starting to remember why I haven't read slashdot for six years now.
Actually, if you bothered to read the paper, you'd find that that's not the case. Privacy information was provided in the margins. No one was actually forced to read any privacy policies before purchasing.
Welcome to the real world. Most of the companies that provide "free" services to you online only do so because they're getting your personal information which can be resold. Few people are aware of this. For instance, American Express is rated as one of the most trusted companies, yet they have one of the most egregious privacy policies. Providing people with clear information on how their personal details are used allows them to make better decisions, as opposed to just their perceptions of the company.
While I am one of the authors of this study, previous studies have shown that people often state fairly conservative privacy preferences, yet their actions often conflict. Providing easy to understand privacy information allows people to make choices that agree with their inherent privacy instincts.
Yes, yes it would. I think I might have found a loophole though: they list a few dozen counties as being in the Washington metropolitan area, I'm going through the list seeing if any are in my area code (I'm pretty sure a few are). Then I should be able to get a mailbox in one of them, change my billing address to that address, and then move the number over. Since I'll technically be in the Washington area then, they'll be required to move my number over!
I spent six hours on the phone with T-Mobile and Sprint. The process is NOT painless. I finally gave up. I'm switching from Sprint, and was convinced last night to do it regardless of whether or not they let me keep my number. I wrote a long account of this agony here: http://www.guanotronic.com/~serge/main.php
Umm, yeah, a well designed RISC platform will always be faster at a single instruction than a well designed CISC platform. Comparing clock speeds across two different architectures is no different than comparing the execution time of a single instruction across two different platforms; it says absolutely *NOTHING* about real-world performance.
The SPEC benchmarks are completely meaningless when you're looking at two completely different instruction sets. The only way of comparing the new PPC chip to an x86 chip is by comparing the execution times of two identical (before compilation) programs. Even then it's hard to get an accurate result, since there are still many other factors (compilation tools, OS, other hardware, etc.).
"Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
So in order to have a strong case, the other party has to know that the recipient is under 16. However, IANAL, but I'd bet that if you showed that they made no attempt to confirm the age of the recipient, you might also have a case.
Virginia has had an anti-spam law since 1997, which is part of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VA Code 18.2-152). It makes spam with forged headers illegal: http://www.spamlaws.com/state/va.html
AOL, Verizon, and other large ISPs based in VA have been suing under this law for years (though they almost always go to federal court, pursuant to U.S.C. 85 1332). I have burninated a few spammers in small claims court under this law as well (I was actually in court today suing etracks.com). The law allows the recipient to seek civil relief for the lesser of $10/message or $25,000/day. For ISPs, it's the greater of the two.
IANAL, but since this was in Michigan small claims court (which is a division of the general district court), it can only be used as a precedent in Michigan. What is needed now is a case to be tried in federal court (which should be fairly straightforward since it's a federal law).
I'm starting my third year as a CpE major at UVA (though I'm more of a CS major, and most of my friends are CS majors). I really haven't had much exposure to the greek system here. I mean, yeah, I know where the frat houses are mostly located, and could probably find a few hundred drunk fratboys on a friday night, but I know and associate with very few of them. There really aren't all that many in the engineering school either, they're mainly in the college of arts and sciences.
I'm on the University of Virginia team, and we're one of two teams to qualify representing the US for the simulation league (which doesn't use real robots, and is thus a lot more fast paced). The other team being AT&T Research Labs.
We're actually in the process of looking for sponsors so that we can get to go to Japan for the competition.....
Re:anyone expect any better from Cassavetes?
on
Movie Review: John Q
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, I did expect better from Cassavetes, given that his father is John Cassavetes. Though I'm sure you already know that John Cassavetes was one of the founders of the New American Cinema Group, which was largely responsible for making American independent cinema what it is today.
I completely agree that without seeing any of the other top 250 films, LoTR can't be compared to them. However, I don't think that people were consciously comparing it to any of the other movies when they voted for it. Maybe they should have.
They saw the movie, and really liked it, so they gave it a 10 without thinking that this would displace a better film on the top 250. Maybe in the future when voting they should think long and hard about how this movie compares to others before giving it a 10, or any other number for this matter.
Anyway, I saw it and liked it. I've seen and can appreciate most of the films that are on the top 250 (there are 3 in the top 20 that I haven't seen), and comparing LoTR to them, it most certainly does not come in first, I'm not even sure if it should be in the top 50.
Most movies made today are made mostly for pure entertainment value, it's not an art anymore. Because it's so much easier to make good special effects, the director doesn't spend as much time conveying information or emotions with the camera alone.
Being eight years behind the curve has its advantages.....like not being susceptible to this!
It's like using a KPro for your primary workstation, it's so old that no one will spending a lot of time finding new ways to crack it. And if they do, that's ummm, *really* pathetic.
I have way too many devices on my SCSI bus, and all of my IDE controllers are filled up too. So just the other day I was wondering how I'd put a new hard drive in my system, I was debating getting a firewire controller.
Thanks to Sony, now I don't have to worry about that! I can get this new PS/2 hard drive and plug it right into the jack with a pass-through cable to my keyboard or mouse! This sounds great and all, I'm just not sure that the PS/2 bus could sustain enough bandwidth for that.
I've had this kind of support as an end user with a Cisco 804 ISDN router. The same quality of support that we were getting on our support contract with a 7206, at my previous job.
The main reason that they're so prompt, is that they have a global network for phone support. When you call them, your call gets transferred to a technician who has just arrived at work (ie, if you're in the US and call at 3am, you'll probably end up speaking to a technician in central or western Asia).
Slashdot Mirror
Read the fucking paper before commenting on the methodology. The name "Privacy Finder" was changed to "Shopping Finder." Participants were given no information about the nature of our research (our lab is in a nondescript room, in a building occupied by multiple departments), and were certainly not told this was a privacy study. Do you honestly believe that if all the results could be attributed to the Milgram effect this paper would have been accepted into any major peer-reviewed conferences?
Here, educate yourself: http://weis2007.econinfosec.org/papers/57.pdf
The privacy information used in this study was gleaned from website P3P policies (machine readable privacy policies). The users state their privacy preferences to the user agent so that the user agent can make an automatic determination of whether or not the privacy policy complies with user preferences. Currently a little over 10% of the whole Internet uses P3P, whereas over 20% of online shopping sites use P3P (http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/icec06.html).
Maybe you should read the actual paper before making comments on it. Subjects were not told this was a privacy study. Nor was any mention of the tool made. Subjects were told this was a study about online purchasing behavior. The privacy information was presented to them without any explanation; they were left to figure out what the privacy icons meant on their own. Some of the subjects correctly figured it out and used that information to make their purchases, while a few did not understand/notice the privacy information. Thus the Milgram effect (that's what you're thinking of) had little to do with the exhibited behaviors.
Actually, the ChoicePoint (and many other similar incidents) incident occurred because the U.S. does not have any comprehensive data privacy laws. ChoicePoint never even violated its own privacy policy (much less any laws) when it gave that data away.
You don't. That's why we have government. If a company says something in their privacy policy, and their practices don't reflect that, there's a name for that--fraud. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is charged with prosecuting companies for unfair practices (fraud falls under that). If it becomes apparent that a company has violated its privacy policy, the FTC will and does go after them.
Maybe you should actually, you know, read the paper rather than drawing conclusions from what some monkey posted on a website/blog/what-have-you after reading another website/blog/what-have-you. The $0.60 premium was not an exact value. The conclusive point was that people were willing to pay more for privacy; we were unable to infer exactly how much they would pay--that's another experiment entirely. Thus, people do care about privacy and are willing to pay more for it.
The privacy rating was not conspicuously flashed at them. It was a small icon in the margin, and the users were left to themselves to figure out what it meant (think SSL icons).
I'm starting to remember why I haven't read slashdot for six years now.
Actually, if you bothered to read the paper, you'd find that that's not the case. Privacy information was provided in the margins. No one was actually forced to read any privacy policies before purchasing.
But thanks for playing!
Welcome to the real world. Most of the companies that provide "free" services to you online only do so because they're getting your personal information which can be resold. Few people are aware of this. For instance, American Express is rated as one of the most trusted companies, yet they have one of the most egregious privacy policies. Providing people with clear information on how their personal details are used allows them to make better decisions, as opposed to just their perceptions of the company.
While I am one of the authors of this study, previous studies have shown that people often state fairly conservative privacy preferences, yet their actions often conflict. Providing easy to understand privacy information allows people to make choices that agree with their inherent privacy instincts.
Wha??
Are you saying that Fox News is not really fair and balanced??
I'm so confused!
Yes, yes it would. I think I might have found a loophole though: they list a few dozen counties as being in the Washington metropolitan area, I'm going through the list seeing if any are in my area code (I'm pretty sure a few are). Then I should be able to get a mailbox in one of them, change my billing address to that address, and then move the number over. Since I'll technically be in the Washington area then, they'll be required to move my number over!
I spent six hours on the phone with T-Mobile and Sprint. The process is NOT painless. I finally gave up. I'm switching from Sprint, and was convinced last night to do it regardless of whether or not they let me keep my number. I wrote a long account of this agony here: http://www.guanotronic.com/~serge/main.php
Umm, yeah, a well designed RISC platform will always be faster at a single instruction than a well designed CISC platform. Comparing clock speeds across two different architectures is no different than comparing the execution time of a single instruction across two different platforms; it says absolutely *NOTHING* about real-world performance.
The SPEC benchmarks are completely meaningless when you're looking at two completely different instruction sets. The only way of comparing the new PPC chip to an x86 chip is by comparing the execution times of two identical (before compilation) programs. Even then it's hard to get an accurate result, since there are still many other factors (compilation tools, OS, other hardware, etc.).
Well, according to U.S.C. Title 18, Section 1470:
"Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
So in order to have a strong case, the other party has to know that the recipient is under 16. However, IANAL, but I'd bet that if you showed that they made no attempt to confirm the age of the recipient, you might also have a case.
Virginia has had an anti-spam law since 1997, which is part of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VA Code 18.2-152). It makes spam with forged headers illegal: http://www.spamlaws.com/state/va.html
AOL, Verizon, and other large ISPs based in VA have been suing under this law for years (though they almost always go to federal court, pursuant to U.S.C. 85 1332). I have burninated a few spammers in small claims court under this law as well (I was actually in court today suing etracks.com). The law allows the recipient to seek civil relief for the lesser of $10/message or $25,000/day. For ISPs, it's the greater of the two.
IANAL, but since this was in Michigan small claims court (which is a division of the general district court), it can only be used as a precedent in Michigan. What is needed now is a case to be tried in federal court (which should be fairly straightforward since it's a federal law).
I'm a bit confused. You say you run 8 miles each day, and then you also say that you use Unix? I think I must be reading something wrong.
I don't know about you, but I'm going to be checking the temperature of my pizza rather more carefully in future...
Who in the world microwaves pizza? It gets very soggy and loses almost any redeeming qualities.
I'm starting my third year as a CpE major at UVA (though I'm more of a CS major, and most of my friends are CS majors). I really haven't had much exposure to the greek system here. I mean, yeah, I know where the frat houses are mostly located, and could probably find a few hundred drunk fratboys on a friday night, but I know and associate with very few of them. There really aren't all that many in the engineering school either, they're mainly in the college of arts and sciences.
clarification? I said right there that this was the simulation league. I see no reason for *another* clarification.
I'm on the University of Virginia team, and we're one of two teams to qualify representing the US for the simulation league (which doesn't use real robots, and is thus a lot more fast paced). The other team being AT&T Research Labs.
We're actually in the process of looking for sponsors so that we can get to go to Japan for the competition.....
Yeah, I did expect better from Cassavetes, given that his father is John Cassavetes. Though I'm sure you already know that John Cassavetes was one of the founders of the New American Cinema Group, which was largely responsible for making American independent cinema what it is today.
I completely agree that without seeing any of the other top 250 films, LoTR can't be compared to them. However, I don't think that people were consciously comparing it to any of the other movies when they voted for it. Maybe they should have.
They saw the movie, and really liked it, so they gave it a 10 without thinking that this would displace a better film on the top 250. Maybe in the future when voting they should think long and hard about how this movie compares to others before giving it a 10, or any other number for this matter.
Anyway, I saw it and liked it. I've seen and can appreciate most of the films that are on the top 250 (there are 3 in the top 20 that I haven't seen), and comparing LoTR to them, it most certainly does not come in first, I'm not even sure if it should be in the top 50.
Most movies made today are made mostly for pure entertainment value, it's not an art anymore. Because it's so much easier to make good special effects, the director doesn't spend as much time conveying information or emotions with the camera alone.
Being eight years behind the curve has its advantages.....like not being susceptible to this!
It's like using a KPro for your primary workstation, it's so old that no one will spending a lot of time finding new ways to crack it. And if they do, that's ummm, *really* pathetic.
I have way too many devices on my SCSI bus, and all of my IDE controllers are filled up too. So just the other day I was wondering how I'd put a new hard drive in my system, I was debating getting a firewire controller.
Thanks to Sony, now I don't have to worry about that! I can get this new PS/2 hard drive and plug it right into the jack with a pass-through cable to my keyboard or mouse! This sounds great and all, I'm just not sure that the PS/2 bus could sustain enough bandwidth for that.
I've had this kind of support as an end user with a Cisco 804 ISDN router. The same quality of support that we were getting on our support contract with a 7206, at my previous job.
The main reason that they're so prompt, is that they have a global network for phone support. When you call them, your call gets transferred to a technician who has just arrived at work (ie, if you're in the US and call at 3am, you'll probably end up speaking to a technician in central or western Asia).