What are you talking about? Everyone i know -- even, say, my parents or non-techinal friends, complains about spam. I bet if i asked them to name one complaint about the Internet, it would be spam.
no one really does anything about it
What would you suggest they do? Should i tell my mom to use procmail? Should i tell her to try to opt out when spam offers the opportunity? (Hell no -- spammers use that to verify the address, which means you'll get a lot -more- spam)
No one does anything about it because they have no idea how. All they know is that they and their ten-year-old are inundated with ads for porn sites, and they can't make them stop.
You can be damn sure that they would notice if it was gone.
Blah. The telemarketers should have to begin their phone calls with, "Hi, i'm calling you because Yahoo sold us your personal information. If you'd like to opt-out of Yahoo's database, press 1 now."
Then we'll see how many people want to stay on the list.
I have a life. You should look into getting one, too.
Schiraldi's Law: As a discussion on Slashdot proceeds, the probability that someone will challenge another's social life approaches 1. At this point, the discussion is over, and they have lost.
And none of them read it, because it looked like every other piece of spam and crap they get from companies like Yahoo every day. I certainly don't remember getting a message from Yahoo, because it was lost in all the other crap i get in my mailbox.
It sounds like you're pissed because too many see the trade, realize it, recognize its effects, and just don't care.
My whole point is that people do care. However, it becomes a full-time job and requires the skills of a lawyer and a computer scientist to keep up with all the scum out there. Most people can't handle this. They do care, though -- they fume about all the spam, junk mail, and telemarketer phone calls they get.
1. Yahoo! did something that some people mind and some people don't.
Yahoo did something that some people know about and most people do not. Virtually all of them would mind.
2. Yahoo! competes in a fierce marketplace filled with alternatives.
People aren't going to switch to an alternative if they don't know Yahoo is doing this.
3. The people who didnt like Yahoo!'s actions have stopped using the service and either (a) gone without the service or (b) switched to the competition.
The people who actually knew about Yahoo's actions have (etc)
4. The people for whom this is not a big deal continue to be happy using Yahoo!.
The people who don't know about this continue to be happy using Yahoo.
Tell me again why this is a big deal? Tell me again why this is news?
"Soylent Green is made of people!"
"Oh, come off it. People happily eat Soylent Green, and what they don't know won't hurt them. Soylent Green participates in an extremely competitive market. If people didn't like eating human flesh, they would switch to a competitor. Obviously some people care about cannibalism and others don't. The people who care have moved to another product. This is a free market: The people who don't will continue eating Soylent Green. Stop pouting."
The problem is that the vast majority of users don't know anything happened. A free market relies on an informed base of consumers. If you were to call up each Yahoo customer (which, of course, would be ironic since this story is about the evils of telemarketing) and tell them what was going on, i'm willing to bet at least 95% of them would want to opt-out.
But by doing this quietly, nobody will notice. They'll just get another piece of spam, another piece of junk mail, and another phone call during dinner, and curse about all the scum-sucking direct markers out there. They won't realize that Yahoo was the one who stabbed them in the back.
There are consumer laws that force McDonald's to clean their kitchen, even though most customers wouldn't notice. There are laws that regulate how many bugs can be present in your peanut butter, even though they could grind up a few more and you wouldn't notice. There are laws that keep your doctor from sharing your personal information with your nosy neighbor, even if you would never know one way or the other.
There should be laws that prohibit Yahoo from doing this.
Video games affecting people? Come on. When my generation was growing up, Pac Man was the big thing. If video games affected us, by today we'd all be hanging out in dark rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive electronic music.
Using a Mac (or, in my case, Linux) isn't going to help you. The problem isn't that you get infected with the virus, it's that other people who are infected are going to either:
1. Send you tons of mail with huge attachments
or
2. Send other people tons of mail with huge attachments and list you as the return address
This was very well done. While i'm more or less anti-troll, i liked this one.
You made a common mistake, though -- you misspelled "Hilary Rosen" both in a clue and in the grid. One "l".
Hillary Clinton is one of the only Hil(l)aries who spells it that way, but because of her fame, thousands of women named Hilary are cursed to have their names misspelled for the rest of their lives.
Key escrow is something that can and will be compromised. And because it is a technology that can and will infiltrated everything, it will allow complete access to your privacy by anyone who wants it.
Who said anything about key escrow?
I'd imagine this sort of system would use public key technology. The Carnivore boxes would not be able to decrypt the stuff it encrypts. There's nothing to compromise.
The private key needed to decode it would be kept in a secure location. As long as RSA doesn't have some fatal flaw, i'm confident the key won't be compromised.
The problem with the Clipper Chip was that it would allow the government a way to read messages that we had encrypted. Carnivote doesn't do that. It's purpose is to allow the government to read message that we were too stupid or lazy to encrypt.
Except for the fact that sex.prn will probably be hosted at a place like akamai.net. Just like, for example, Slashdot.org really falls under osdn.net, and microsoft.com is actually part of msft.net.
What do you think a car theif does with a stolen car? They bring it somewhere. And then what happens? Someone else brings it somewhere else. Eventually it winds up in a chop shop. Just as they're getting ready to rip it apart, every link in the chain gets busted.
Then you grab their address books and check out their phone logs and see who they associate with...
What i'm saying is, this proposed law would not stop people like whitehouse.com. They could, for example, leave their index.html the way it is and just change their image links to use IPs instead of domain names.
So then pass a law to prohibit displaying porn images on.com sites? What happens to, say, Google.com then? Or Hotmail.com? If you type and click the right things, you can get those sites to display porn images.
What's to stop whitehouse.com from saying, "If you're looking for porn, click any of the following links", and having the links go to sites designated by IP, not domain name?
Security through obscurity is bad when you're dealing with a system that could theoretically be 100% secure. For example, an encryption algorithm or a web server. At least it theory, it is possible to remove absolutely all bugs from sshd and have a perfectly secure program with no exploitable holes. (spare me replies talking about stupid administrators making their own holes)
When you're talking about physical security, it's impossible to be perfectly secure -- given a large enough army, it's possible to break into Fort Knox.
So, if car companies were trying to shut down used car dealerships, i suppose you would say something like this:
The point is that they are upset with the prominent placement these used cars are getting on the lot, because people will generally prefer the cheaper used edition to the new one. This will prevent the manufacturer from getting that second or third new car sold, and thus 1/2 or 1/3 of the potential money. They are not trying to restrict your rights in any way at all, so stop being so sensationalist about it.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? Everyone i know -- even, say, my parents or non-techinal friends, complains about spam. I bet if i asked them to name one complaint about the Internet, it would be spam.
no one really does anything about it
What would you suggest they do? Should i tell my mom to use procmail? Should i tell her to try to opt out when spam offers the opportunity? (Hell no -- spammers use that to verify the address, which means you'll get a lot -more- spam)
No one does anything about it because they have no idea how. All they know is that they and their ten-year-old are inundated with ads for porn sites, and they can't make them stop.
You can be damn sure that they would notice if it was gone.
Blah. The telemarketers should have to begin their phone calls with, "Hi, i'm calling you because Yahoo sold us your personal information. If you'd like to opt-out of Yahoo's database, press 1 now."
Then we'll see how many people want to stay on the list.
I have a life. You should look into getting one, too.
Schiraldi's Law: As a discussion on Slashdot proceeds, the probability that someone will challenge another's social life approaches 1. At this point, the discussion is over, and they have lost.
And none of them read it, because it looked like every other piece of spam and crap they get from companies like Yahoo every day. I certainly don't remember getting a message from Yahoo, because it was lost in all the other crap i get in my mailbox.
It sounds like you're pissed because too many see the trade, realize it, recognize its effects, and just don't care.
My whole point is that people do care. However, it becomes a full-time job and requires the skills of a lawyer and a computer scientist to keep up with all the scum out there. Most people can't handle this. They do care, though -- they fume about all the spam, junk mail, and telemarketer phone calls they get.
To respond to this point-by-point:
1. Yahoo! did something that some people mind and some people don't.
Yahoo did something that some people know about and most people do not. Virtually all of them would mind.
2. Yahoo! competes in a fierce marketplace filled with alternatives.
People aren't going to switch to an alternative if they don't know Yahoo is doing this.
3. The people who didnt like Yahoo!'s actions have stopped using the service and either (a) gone without the service or (b) switched to the competition.
The people who actually knew about Yahoo's actions have (etc)
4. The people for whom this is not a big deal continue to be happy using Yahoo!.
The people who don't know about this continue to be happy using Yahoo.
Tell me again why this is a big deal? Tell me again why this is news?
"Soylent Green is made of people!"
"Oh, come off it. People happily eat Soylent Green, and what they don't know won't hurt them. Soylent Green participates in an extremely competitive market. If people didn't like eating human flesh, they would switch to a competitor. Obviously some people care about cannibalism and others don't. The people who care have moved to another product. This is a free market: The people who don't will continue eating Soylent Green. Stop pouting."
The problem is that the vast majority of users don't know anything happened. A free market relies on an informed base of consumers. If you were to call up each Yahoo customer (which, of course, would be ironic since this story is about the evils of telemarketing) and tell them what was going on, i'm willing to bet at least 95% of them would want to opt-out.
But by doing this quietly, nobody will notice. They'll just get another piece of spam, another piece of junk mail, and another phone call during dinner, and curse about all the scum-sucking direct markers out there. They won't realize that Yahoo was the one who stabbed them in the back.
There are consumer laws that force McDonald's to clean their kitchen, even though most customers wouldn't notice. There are laws that regulate how many bugs can be present in your peanut butter, even though they could grind up a few more and you wouldn't notice. There are laws that keep your doctor from sharing your personal information with your nosy neighbor, even if you would never know one way or the other.
There should be laws that prohibit Yahoo from doing this.
I didn't write this, but...
Video games affecting people? Come on. When my generation was growing up, Pac Man was the big thing. If video games affected us, by today we'd all be hanging out in dark rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive electronic music.
I always thought he was saying "Fun Liquor"
It's spelled "pickle"
Where is this image? I can't find it on your web site.
Using a Mac (or, in my case, Linux) isn't going to help you. The problem isn't that you get infected with the virus, it's that other people who are infected are going to either:
1. Send you tons of mail with huge attachments
or
2. Send other people tons of mail with huge attachments and list you as the return address
This was very well done. While i'm more or less anti-troll, i liked this one.
You made a common mistake, though -- you misspelled "Hilary Rosen" both in a clue and in the grid. One "l".
Hillary Clinton is one of the only Hil(l)aries who spells it that way, but because of her fame, thousands of women named Hilary are cursed to have their names misspelled for the rest of their lives.
What's "liestochildren"? I can't find anything on Google.
Liesto Children?
Lies to Children?
Well, if i remember correctly, the last one was made out of some kind of celery.
Key escrow is something that can and will be compromised. And because it is a technology that can and will infiltrated everything, it will allow complete access to your privacy by anyone who wants it.
Who said anything about key escrow?
I'd imagine this sort of system would use public key technology. The Carnivore boxes would not be able to decrypt the stuff it encrypts. There's nothing to compromise.
The private key needed to decode it would be kept in a secure location. As long as RSA doesn't have some fatal flaw, i'm confident the key won't be compromised.
The problem with the Clipper Chip was that it would allow the government a way to read messages that we had encrypted. Carnivote doesn't do that. It's purpose is to allow the government to read message that we were too stupid or lazy to encrypt.
Except for the fact that sex.prn will probably be hosted at a place like akamai.net. Just like, for example, Slashdot.org really falls under osdn.net, and microsoft.com is actually part of msft.net.
What do you think a car theif does with a stolen car? They bring it somewhere. And then what happens? Someone else brings it somewhere else. Eventually it winds up in a chop shop. Just as they're getting ready to rip it apart, every link in the chain gets busted.
Then you grab their address books and check out their phone logs and see who they associate with...
What i'm saying is, this proposed law would not stop people like whitehouse.com. They could, for example, leave their index.html the way it is and just change their image links to use IPs instead of domain names.
.com sites? What happens to, say, Google.com then? Or Hotmail.com? If you type and click the right things, you can get those sites to display porn images.
So then pass a law to prohibit displaying porn images on
What's to stop whitehouse.com from saying, "If you're looking for porn, click any of the following links", and having the links go to sites designated by IP, not domain name?
How does that stop kids from surfing adult sites?
So, um, couldn't whitehouse.com just have a meta refresh to send users to whitehouse.prn? So what has been accomplished at the end of the day?
Ban meta refresh, you say? Okay, then let's just say they have links to the porn site. Ban the links too?
Then what happens to, say, Google.com?
Exactly. Or, as i like to put it:
Security through obscurity is bad when you're dealing with a system that could theoretically be 100% secure. For example, an encryption algorithm or a web server. At least it theory, it is possible to remove absolutely all bugs from sshd and have a perfectly secure program with no exploitable holes. (spare me replies talking about stupid administrators making their own holes)
When you're talking about physical security, it's impossible to be perfectly secure -- given a large enough army, it's possible to break into Fort Knox.
So, if car companies were trying to shut down used car dealerships, i suppose you would say something like this:
The point is that they are upset with the prominent placement these used cars are getting on the lot, because people will generally prefer the cheaper used edition to the new one. This will prevent the manufacturer from getting that second or third new car sold, and thus 1/2 or 1/3 of the potential money. They are not trying to restrict your rights in any way at all, so stop being so sensationalist about it.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2870.txt
For those of us who can't get the fucking RealPlayer plugin to work, could someone summarize the video?