Who are you... to tell me what my expectations are. Of course I have an expectation of privacy on the street, in a restaraunt, where ever.
Obviously you don't know what the phrase "expectation of privacy" means. In legal terms, it means that you expect to be unobserved. In public (particularly a restaurant, sheesh), by definition, you can't expect to be unobserved.
I expect not to be constantly monitored by the police
So then, do you think that all police should be banned from the streets, unless there is a crime in progress? No policeman should be allowed to view you in public? Obviously, that's absurd. So please tell me the difference between a policeman observing you and a camera observing you giving more eyes to the police.
they are slowly giving up every shred of personal freedom they have.
You have yet to say exactly how having cameras in public is different from having police in public, or tourists carrying cameras that might happen to record you, or store security cameras, etc. There simply are no rights being given away here.
These things are the equivalent of having checkpoints out on the street where you have to prove you're innocent. I refuse to put up with that.
How so? How is this different from just having more police on the street walking the beat? I agree that checkpoints are a pretty gray area, but in no way do the cameras impede your progress.
Perhaps you disagree, but I've never viewed getting pulled out of work by the police for crimes I didn't commit, in front of my co-workers and my BOSS no less, as something I'd enjoy or benefit from...
Obviously no one wants that to happen to them, and we want to minimize it as much as possible. That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of cameras... mistakes happen because of a lack of knowledge, not more knowledge. Public cameras give us more knowledge of the crime so we can put the right people in jail, not someone pegged by an 80 year old lady peeking out her window in the dark.
And don't forget the cameras can work both ways... they will help identify police abuse.
Two ways to look at it, mistakes are bad PR for the police and this software or, and more important to me, if this guy had been accused of a sex crime. He's done, innocent or not.
Well, I agree there. That's one of the reasons that rape is so hard to get prosecuted, because the police don't want to go throwing the accusation unless there is hard evidence, but hard evidence is difficult to come by.
I don't worry about my privacy. I do worry about finding my way into a database whose users are not answerable to the same public that they are supposed to be protecting. What happened in the article above is a clear indication that it's not going to be pretty.
Except you don't make any argument as to why this is different than ANYTHING we have now. Police make the same mistakes. People videotape in public now, and can turn over those tapes to the police if they thought they saw a criminal.
No one has given a satisfactory answer as to why extending the eyes of the police is any different to putting more police on the street.
If the cops came to my work and wanted to talk to me about mistaken identity based on photos taken by street cameras... [blah vengence]
So you think that there should be absolutely zero possibiliy of mistaken interrogations? What about if a tourist video tapes you and they happen to see someone that looks similar on America's Most Wanted? Should we ban all cameras in public? What's the difference?
...then plastered on the pages of US News and World Report.
This is a difference issue, and I agree with you here. There is no excuse for publishing someone's photo in this context, although the problem is not with the cameras, it's with the news agencies.
Can I make the prosecution track down every developer and engineer and bring them to the stand?
You seem to be assuming that this will be an automatic guilt machine just because you have been identified by the camera. This is no different than if a tourist happens to catch you on tape committing a crime. It's just one piece of evidence. It still has be reviewed by a jury along with all the other evidence.
the problem is that he looks guilty infront of his coworkers, his boss, and anyone else that saw him get interrogated. He has lost respect.
Only if he had zero respect among his peers in the first place could he suffer any damage. I don't know about you, but if this happened to me, I would simply tell people "mistaken identity". My peers, knowing me, would instantly accept it. Case closed.
If our standard for the police is never making a mistake, not even the most minor, as in this case, we might as well as close them down.
How is this different from walking down the street, and having a police officer misidentify you as some who is wanted? Mistakes happen. But what's the alternative? The police never pick anybody up unless they are observed in the process of committing a crime? [And then the ACLU lawyer says that the police should get permission from a judge in order to stop the crime].
Milliron, who says he plans to retain an attorney, hopes the software system will be removed. "I don't think it's right," he said. "They made me feel like a criminal."
Yet another greedy SOB hoping to win the legal lottery. Waaaah! They made me feel bad. Barf me.
Count me as one of those people who would love to see a camera on every public street corner. Key word: "public". You have no expectation of privacy in public. Deal with it. The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught. Well, my public safety is more important than your ability to get to your motel room unobserved.
Re:this thing is fascinating
on
Code Redux
·
· Score: 2
Here's my hit graph:
Aug 1: 17 hits (to default.ida)
Aug 2: 37 hits
Aug 3: 31 hits
Aug 4: 305 hits (boom!)
Aug 5: 474 hits
Aug 6: 501 hits
Aug 7: 256 hits (so far at 16:00)
At least the trend seems to be a little down today.:)
Just for the record, the dramatic quality difference between VHS and Beta is a well documented myth (although, the question is a little more complicated than that, as usual). You are right, however that VHS killed Beta primarily because of the recording length issue.
I'm one of those "chumps" that would say something like this. Quite frankly, "Artificial Intelligence" is an abject failure.
Just because there isn't "strong AI" yet doesn't mean the field has failed.
Ah, there we are. If you don't want your field to be called an "abject failure", then don't call it AI. If you want to say that pattern recognition has made some strides, say it. Or pick your particular problem. But when you use the words "artificial intelligence", then I expect intelligence created artificially. Not "very sophisticated algorithms".
Physics doesn't have a grand unified theory, medicine can't make people live forever, etc. & we don't consider those fields failures.
No. But comparing an AI scientist to a physicist is like comparing Aristotle to Einstein. Both brilliant people, both made huge contributions to their field, but immense differences in knowledge.
I'm not saying AI will never get there, but I think a dose of reality is needed here.
Hmm. Apparently you missed this sentence: "Finding enough capable programmers and system administrators proved to be the primary obstacle for the project."
I figured that no one would actually write 'but what part of "Linux wouldn't run on their hardware" did you not understand?' if they had actually read the article.
What is your team's ultimate goal? Your web site states that you want to have "manned rockets", but do you want to achieve orbital space ships? Just ships to fly to 7-11 and back? Moon flights?
And is this just a hobby to you? What about the future? Can you ever see rolling your current hobby into a future aerospace company?
Agreed. Unfortunately, the "Science Fiction/Fantasy" section in the bookstore is about 98% fantasy nowadays (WHY do they throw those two together???) Good, hard science fiction is pretty rare nowadays, although not unheard of. I particularly like the Uplift series of books by Brin, who is a relatively young guy.
I've come to the point where I pretty much hate fantasy. I simply can't read another unicorn/elf/wizard book with the same plot about "geeky guy becomes hero" that basically tried to fill some geeky writer's personality holes.:)
Memo to bookstore owners: Separate the sections!!!
In the situation we are talking about, YOU are not modifying the content for your personal use, they (or in the example, I) are modifying it for your use, and making a profit off of it. That is copyright violation when done without permission.
Wrong. If I want to hire people to come over and rewrite Stephen King's latest novel to my specifications, I can do it all day -- as long as I don't redistribute the work. Just like I could hire someone to read the novel to me, except interperse random commentary. Could King sue me because the reader I hired isn't reading it "the way it was intended"? Hell no. It's my book, I can read it any damn way I please, including paying someone to read it any way I please.
According to your 'reasoning', a movie theatre can splice ads and product placements into a movie, charge the beneficiaries of it, and then display it for others.
No, because the theatre 1) has contractural obligations, and 2) is displaying it for commercial purposes using particular licensing. My fair use rights are a totally difference concept.
Bzzzt. Try again. Try paying attention this time.
Indeed.
Sure you can do whatever you want with a book when you are the sole reader, but when you then attempt to make a profit off of it, by selling it to others, or selling modifications of it for other people, you have gone out of the realm of personal use.
Except that I, as the reader with my full fair-use rights, am not making a profit off the work. I have decided to use a device to view the work that enhances it in a way that I have chosen to use. How that company makes money is irrelevent.
By your logic, using JunkBuster and programs like it are illegal copyright violations because they are modifying the content by removing the ads (oh, but that's different).
Even if it is your choice to use their program, it's a company that you're getting it from, not through your own means.
I do get it through my own means. I choose whether to install and use the program or not, just like the book reader.
Even if the person wants Company X, still not allowed, because Company X is doing it.
That's absolutely untrue. I can hire a company to do anything I want. I can hire a company to come over to my house and rewrite Stephen King's latest novel and make any number of changes I want -- for my own personal use. They would not be allowed to redistribute it, however. That would be a copyright violation.
They're technically stealing content from a person and delivering to another person.
Nope. The content is already in my computer, and I am the one using a tool on the content. I can do anything I want with it, as long as its for my own personal use. Once it has entered my control, fair use kicks in and it's none of anyone's business what I do with it or who I hire to do anything with it.
But this is another company using their own methods to change the content of a site. Not YOU. It would be like a movie producer making a movie, selling it, and select stores modify the tapes and sell them to you.
Nope. That would be the case if my ISP was inserting the links, and I would be extremely upset if that was the case.
But it's not. This is software that I choose to run, and I am using it in the privacy of my own computer. To use your analogy, should it be illegal for me to take movies that I own and insert ads wherever I want them?
Let's say I had machine with a transparent screen that I hold over a book that underlines words and makes links available. Should that be illegal because I am not reading the book the way the author intended it?
You have the right to not look at my writings, but you do not have the right to modify them, and place advertisements in them, especially by embedding links within them, without my expreess permission. To do so is copyright violation.
Absolutely, positively, wrong. Not only can I take your writings, I can rewrite them to say exactly the opposite of what they mean. I rewrite it to make you look like you're admitting to being a child molester. I can make it so you admit to cheating on your wife.
I can do all of that and more -- for my own private use. That is what "fair use" is all about.
Once a document leaves your computer and enters my computer, it becomes my sole perogative how I want to view it.
Then, the viewers in Seattle, see product placements in there you never intended, due to some cool technology that was installed in the projector.
So are you saying I should be unable to use this projector technology in my own home to view a movie? And that is the fundamental point. There is a difference between two commercial entities with contractual obligations, and my fair-use rights as an individual.
Slashdot and TopText are going to contractually enter into a mutually satisfying consensual agreement concerning TopText's program's treatment of slashdot's page, while the consumer is fully enabled to (if they so choose) stop using TopText, stop using Slashdot's services, or even to (with some difficulty, true) hack
So, in other words, if the recording industry enters into a "mutually satisfying consensual agreement" with an encryption company that keeps you from being able to copy your music for your own personal use, you have no problem with that?
That's exactly what Slashdot is doing. Slashdot has nothing to do with the relationship here. The relationship is between TopText and myself... and whether I want to use their technology when *I* view web pages on *MY* browser. Slashdot is interfering with that relationship, and it's none of their business if I decide to use their page with their technology. Again, Fair Use.
I believe that there is a common set of ideas that "we" support. These include but are not limited to: technology
"Technology" is not a platform (if you'll pardon the pun). You say there is a "common set of ideas", yet you are afraid to name them. Elimination of patents? Elimination of copyright? Ban by law encryption of music/video media? More computers in schools? Less computers in schools? Library filtering yes or no? More tech spending in Defense? And what about non-tech issues? Abortion? Federal funding for education?
Every one of those issues you will find extreme polarization.
There simply is no such thing as a "technology platform" that a geek could run on.
what toptext is doing is changing slashdot, and giving you the impression that slashdot has a link for you..
Wrong. I am under no illusions that these links are from Slashdot. If you want to argue "public confusion", that's a different issue. If I want to view Slashdot with extra links from a program I CHOOSE TO USE, that's my right.
When people here complain about fair use, they're complaining about where and what you use to view/listen to your legally purchased copyrighted material.
Exactly. If I want to use a viewer that analyzes the content and makes suggestions for other content, that's my right. Not anyone elses.
You can turn the ads off by using some sort of ad stopper, and they won't come and throw you in jail.
Yes, they won't interfere with you if you view their page in an "approved manner". But apparently they want to interfere with my right to use software that finds links based on their story. What are they afraid of?
It's none of their business how I choose to view their web site. It's my browser. It's my computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Misuse of police data for political purposes eg is a practice that is fairly common even in democratic countries.
Which is exactly why cameras are a Good Thing. Done right, it will cut down on police abuse, because the camera records everything.
Who are you... to tell me what my expectations are. Of course I have an expectation of privacy on the street, in a restaraunt, where ever.
Obviously you don't know what the phrase "expectation of privacy" means. In legal terms, it means that you expect to be unobserved. In public (particularly a restaurant, sheesh), by definition, you can't expect to be unobserved.
I expect not to be constantly monitored by the police
So then, do you think that all police should be banned from the streets, unless there is a crime in progress? No policeman should be allowed to view you in public? Obviously, that's absurd. So please tell me the difference between a policeman observing you and a camera observing you giving more eyes to the police.
they are slowly giving up every shred of personal freedom they have.
You have yet to say exactly how having cameras in public is different from having police in public, or tourists carrying cameras that might happen to record you, or store security cameras, etc. There simply are no rights being given away here.
These things are the equivalent of having checkpoints out on the street where you have to prove you're innocent. I refuse to put up with that.
How so? How is this different from just having more police on the street walking the beat? I agree that checkpoints are a pretty gray area, but in no way do the cameras impede your progress.
Perhaps you disagree, but I've never viewed getting pulled out of work by the police for crimes I didn't commit, in front of my co-workers and my BOSS no less, as something I'd enjoy or benefit from...
Obviously no one wants that to happen to them, and we want to minimize it as much as possible. That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of cameras... mistakes happen because of a lack of knowledge, not more knowledge. Public cameras give us more knowledge of the crime so we can put the right people in jail, not someone pegged by an 80 year old lady peeking out her window in the dark.
And don't forget the cameras can work both ways... they will help identify police abuse.
Two ways to look at it, mistakes are bad PR for the police and this software or, and more important to me, if this guy had been accused of a sex crime. He's done, innocent or not.
Well, I agree there. That's one of the reasons that rape is so hard to get prosecuted, because the police don't want to go throwing the accusation unless there is hard evidence, but hard evidence is difficult to come by.
I don't worry about my privacy. I do worry about finding my way into a database whose users are not answerable to the same public that they are supposed to be protecting. What happened in the article above is a clear indication that it's not going to be pretty.
Except you don't make any argument as to why this is different than ANYTHING we have now. Police make the same mistakes. People videotape in public now, and can turn over those tapes to the police if they thought they saw a criminal.
No one has given a satisfactory answer as to why extending the eyes of the police is any different to putting more police on the street.
If the cops came to my work and wanted to talk to me about mistaken identity based on photos taken by street cameras... [blah vengence]
So you think that there should be absolutely zero possibiliy of mistaken interrogations? What about if a tourist video tapes you and they happen to see someone that looks similar on America's Most Wanted? Should we ban all cameras in public? What's the difference?
This is a difference issue, and I agree with you here. There is no excuse for publishing someone's photo in this context, although the problem is not with the cameras, it's with the news agencies.
Can I make the prosecution track down every developer and engineer and bring them to the stand?
You seem to be assuming that this will be an automatic guilt machine just because you have been identified by the camera. This is no different than if a tourist happens to catch you on tape committing a crime. It's just one piece of evidence. It still has be reviewed by a jury along with all the other evidence.
the problem is that he looks guilty infront of his coworkers, his boss, and anyone else that saw him get interrogated. He has lost respect.
Only if he had zero respect among his peers in the first place could he suffer any damage. I don't know about you, but if this happened to me, I would simply tell people "mistaken identity". My peers, knowing me, would instantly accept it. Case closed.
If our standard for the police is never making a mistake, not even the most minor, as in this case, we might as well as close them down.
How is this different from walking down the street, and having a police officer misidentify you as some who is wanted? Mistakes happen. But what's the alternative? The police never pick anybody up unless they are observed in the process of committing a crime? [And then the ACLU lawyer says that the police should get permission from a judge in order to stop the crime].
Milliron, who says he plans to retain an attorney, hopes the software system will be removed. "I don't think it's right," he said. "They made me feel like a criminal."
Yet another greedy SOB hoping to win the legal lottery. Waaaah! They made me feel bad. Barf me.
Count me as one of those people who would love to see a camera on every public street corner. Key word: "public". You have no expectation of privacy in public. Deal with it. The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught. Well, my public safety is more important than your ability to get to your motel room unobserved.
Here's my hit graph:
Aug 1: 17 hits (to default.ida)
Aug 2: 37 hits
Aug 3: 31 hits
Aug 4: 305 hits (boom!)
Aug 5: 474 hits
Aug 6: 501 hits
Aug 7: 256 hits (so far at 16:00)
At least the trend seems to be a little down today. :)
Just for the record, the dramatic quality difference between VHS and Beta is a well documented myth (although, the question is a little more complicated than that, as usual). You are right, however that VHS killed Beta primarily because of the recording length issue.
AI hasn't progressed in 50 years. Its a failure.
I'm one of those "chumps" that would say something like this. Quite frankly, "Artificial Intelligence" is an abject failure.
Just because there isn't "strong AI" yet doesn't mean the field has failed.
Ah, there we are. If you don't want your field to be called an "abject failure", then don't call it AI. If you want to say that pattern recognition has made some strides, say it. Or pick your particular problem. But when you use the words "artificial intelligence", then I expect intelligence created artificially. Not "very sophisticated algorithms".
Physics doesn't have a grand unified theory, medicine can't make people live forever, etc. & we don't consider those fields failures.
No. But comparing an AI scientist to a physicist is like comparing Aristotle to Einstein. Both brilliant people, both made huge contributions to their field, but immense differences in knowledge.
I'm not saying AI will never get there, but I think a dose of reality is needed here.
Hmm. Apparently you missed this sentence: "Finding enough capable programmers and system administrators proved to be the primary obstacle for the project."
I figured that no one would actually write 'but what part of "Linux wouldn't run on their hardware" did you not understand?' if they had actually read the article.
But I guess I was wrong.
Since you say that you have read the article.
This morning.
--
No, it's because Linux wouldn't run on their hardware.
Did you actually read the article? Thought not.
Bottom line, it was the administrative costs and lack of people who understood it that did it in.
--
Because I know he's reading. :)
What is your team's ultimate goal? Your web site states that you want to have "manned rockets", but do you want to achieve orbital space ships? Just ships to fly to 7-11 and back? Moon flights?
And is this just a hobby to you? What about the future? Can you ever see rolling your current hobby into a future aerospace company?
--
Agreed. Unfortunately, the "Science Fiction/Fantasy" section in the bookstore is about 98% fantasy nowadays (WHY do they throw those two together???) Good, hard science fiction is pretty rare nowadays, although not unheard of. I particularly like the Uplift series of books by Brin, who is a relatively young guy.
I've come to the point where I pretty much hate fantasy. I simply can't read another unicorn/elf/wizard book with the same plot about "geeky guy becomes hero" that basically tried to fill some geeky writer's personality holes. :)
Memo to bookstore owners: Separate the sections!!!
--
In the situation we are talking about, YOU are not modifying the content for your personal use, they (or in the example, I) are modifying it for your use, and making a profit off of it. That is copyright violation when done without permission.
Wrong. If I want to hire people to come over and rewrite Stephen King's latest novel to my specifications, I can do it all day -- as long as I don't redistribute the work. Just like I could hire someone to read the novel to me, except interperse random commentary. Could King sue me because the reader I hired isn't reading it "the way it was intended"? Hell no. It's my book, I can read it any damn way I please, including paying someone to read it any way I please.
According to your 'reasoning', a movie theatre can splice ads and product placements into a movie, charge the beneficiaries of it, and then display it for others.
No, because the theatre 1) has contractural obligations, and 2) is displaying it for commercial purposes using particular licensing. My fair use rights are a totally difference concept.
Bzzzt. Try again. Try paying attention this time.
Indeed.
Sure you can do whatever you want with a book when you are the sole reader, but when you then attempt to make a profit off of it, by selling it to others, or selling modifications of it for other people, you have gone out of the realm of personal use.
Except that I, as the reader with my full fair-use rights, am not making a profit off the work. I have decided to use a device to view the work that enhances it in a way that I have chosen to use. How that company makes money is irrelevent.
By your logic, using JunkBuster and programs like it are illegal copyright violations because they are modifying the content by removing the ads (oh, but that's different).
--
Even if it is your choice to use their program, it's a company that you're getting it from, not through your own means.
I do get it through my own means. I choose whether to install and use the program or not, just like the book reader.
Even if the person wants Company X, still not allowed, because Company X is doing it.
That's absolutely untrue. I can hire a company to do anything I want. I can hire a company to come over to my house and rewrite Stephen King's latest novel and make any number of changes I want -- for my own personal use. They would not be allowed to redistribute it, however. That would be a copyright violation.
They're technically stealing content from a person and delivering to another person.
Nope. The content is already in my computer, and I am the one using a tool on the content. I can do anything I want with it, as long as its for my own personal use. Once it has entered my control, fair use kicks in and it's none of anyone's business what I do with it or who I hire to do anything with it.
--
But this is another company using their own methods to change the content of a site. Not YOU. It would be like a movie producer making a movie, selling it, and select stores modify the tapes and sell them to you.
Nope. That would be the case if my ISP was inserting the links, and I would be extremely upset if that was the case.
But it's not. This is software that I choose to run, and I am using it in the privacy of my own computer. To use your analogy, should it be illegal for me to take movies that I own and insert ads wherever I want them?
Let's say I had machine with a transparent screen that I hold over a book that underlines words and makes links available. Should that be illegal because I am not reading the book the way the author intended it?
--
You have the right to not look at my writings, but you do not have the right to modify them, and place advertisements in them, especially by embedding links within them, without my expreess permission. To do so is copyright violation.
Absolutely, positively, wrong. Not only can I take your writings, I can rewrite them to say exactly the opposite of what they mean. I rewrite it to make you look like you're admitting to being a child molester. I can make it so you admit to cheating on your wife.
I can do all of that and more -- for my own private use. That is what "fair use" is all about.
Once a document leaves your computer and enters my computer, it becomes my sole perogative how I want to view it.
Then, the viewers in Seattle, see product placements in there you never intended, due to some cool technology that was installed in the projector.
So are you saying I should be unable to use this projector technology in my own home to view a movie? And that is the fundamental point. There is a difference between two commercial entities with contractual obligations, and my fair-use rights as an individual.
--
So, in other words, you are in favor of JunkBuster software having an "opt out" for sites that don't want you to eliminate their advertising?
--
Slashdot and TopText are going to contractually enter into a mutually satisfying consensual agreement concerning TopText's program's treatment of slashdot's page, while the consumer is fully enabled to (if they so choose) stop using TopText, stop using Slashdot's services, or even to (with some difficulty, true) hack
So, in other words, if the recording industry enters into a "mutually satisfying consensual agreement" with an encryption company that keeps you from being able to copy your music for your own personal use, you have no problem with that?
That's exactly what Slashdot is doing. Slashdot has nothing to do with the relationship here. The relationship is between TopText and myself ... and whether I want to use their technology when *I* view web pages on *MY* browser. Slashdot is interfering with that relationship, and it's none of their business if I decide to use their page with their technology. Again, Fair Use.
--
I believe that there is a common set of ideas that "we" support. These include but are not limited to: technology
"Technology" is not a platform (if you'll pardon the pun). You say there is a "common set of ideas", yet you are afraid to name them. Elimination of patents? Elimination of copyright? Ban by law encryption of music/video media? More computers in schools? Less computers in schools? Library filtering yes or no? More tech spending in Defense? And what about non-tech issues? Abortion? Federal funding for education?
Every one of those issues you will find extreme polarization.
There simply is no such thing as a "technology platform" that a geek could run on.
--
what toptext is doing is changing slashdot, and giving you the impression that slashdot has a link for you..
Wrong. I am under no illusions that these links are from Slashdot. If you want to argue "public confusion", that's a different issue. If I want to view Slashdot with extra links from a program I CHOOSE TO USE, that's my right.
When people here complain about fair use, they're complaining about where and what you use to view/listen to your legally purchased copyrighted material.
Exactly. If I want to use a viewer that analyzes the content and makes suggestions for other content, that's my right. Not anyone elses.
You can turn the ads off by using some sort of ad stopper, and they won't come and throw you in jail.
Yes, they won't interfere with you if you view their page in an "approved manner". But apparently they want to interfere with my right to use software that finds links based on their story. What are they afraid of?
It's none of their business how I choose to view their web site. It's my browser. It's my computer.
--