The ISP is responsible for this problem, not Google.
Since when is it an ISP's responsibilty to secure their customers' wireless LANs?
1) Since they started selling wireless LANs to their customers. 2) I'm not talking about wireless, I'm talking about unencrypted access to email servers, which should concern you even if you DON'T use wireless, for the same reason you shouldn't perform financial transactions over an unencrypted connection. 3) Using wireless encryption may be a good idea, but that is NOT enough to provide safe electronic communication.
In this case, I suggest it's the ISP who's at fault for leading their customers to believe that their communications over the radio bands are private and confidential.
Particularly ISPs who provide only unencrypted connections to email servers are a significant part of the problem here.
Excellent point that it's hardly Google's fault that my ISP doesn't provide an encrypted connection to its email servers. I'm looking at you, Time Warner. (And NO, webmail doesn't count.)
The ISP is responsible for this problem, not Google.
2) What I dislike about the articles and the bulk of the responses is that they don't appear to contain information that answers either my original question, or your modification of that question.
It's very easy to say "that's an ineffective waste of money, because it LOOKS like the kind of wasteful, ineffective spending we see all the time."
It's WAY more useful to say, "This costs $XXX more/less per parolee than our alternatives, and does these things we want better/worse than the more/less expensive alternatives."
Despite offering only an optimized version of a standard CPU, the A4 is becoming increasingly important to Apple's strategy with it appearing now in the iPhone and surely in iPod touches to be released in September—not to mention any future iOS product lines.
I disagree with the cynical premise of your post, and with the bias of the articles in general.
The question is: Did the system work better than what was used before? A single incident demonstrates a problem in the system, but doesn't answer the question of the general effectiveness of the system compared to alternatives.
Right. I wish there were some organization the produced useful advice about how to manage exposure to solar radiation, which comes in various forms, and has various effects, so I could know what I should do to stay healthy when I go to the beach.
Ummm... thankfully, my only friends are people, not manipulations of data.:-)
On the other hand, to be fair to what I think you meant, encryption is NOT your only defense. Exercising appropriate restraint about what you do, say, write, and transmit is also extremely important. If you feel inclined to do, say, type, show, or talk about things you already do or might later regret, you should think twice before transmitting it electronically.
Electronic communications, like physical diaries or letters, can often be inadvertently exposed in context that could be embarrassing or compromising. For example, having an encrypted chat session with your mistress doesn't save you from having accidentally typing into the wrong chat window, or having someone look over your shoulder.
I agree that encryption is valuable and the may be the best defense for wholesome data that you need to transmit electronically (financial information, confidential work information, etc.) but is only part of information safety.
I don't totally agree with you, but I like your response (especially the meta-warning bit.) Thanks for the thoughts.
However, I think you're conflating the context of passing legislation with amendment of the Constitution. Federal legislation which may effect enforcement or regulation of concepts in the Constitution is not meant to be a slow, supermajority process.
As I think you suggest, it's the society (through votes and elected representatives) that defines the Constitution. It's not the Constitution that defines society.
The overt argument that you should NOT consider historical context when reading the constitution (which appears to be what you're saying) doesn't follow.
It is true that people can draw ridiculous conclusions of relevance or irrelevance based on historical context, but they can draw equally ridiculous conclusions without any historical context.
Way to prevent what from becoming a real issue? The (extremely long) post points out the the threat to privacy already IS a real issue.
The problem is that instead of addressing active, ongoing, real threats to privacy, such as ISPs collecting all of your communications and sharing it freely with who knows which governments, government organizations, or commercial entities, the "privacy police" are making a big show of jumping an instance of a company who is extremely cooperative with the investigation and will result in zero benefit to the people interested in their own privacy.
I'm mystified. Why is somebody unhappy about having advice to take historical context in mind when reading the constitution, which in its original doesn't reflect (for example) voting rights for women and former slaves?
Wow, good post. Difficulty seems to arise from the fact that radio signals are by nature broadcasts into public space, even if they are specifically intended communications with a single recipient. Because they are not visible, people think of them as being private, even though the signals may travel significantly outside of their homes.
If you walk into a crowded room and yell to my buddy John "Hey, John, I'll meet you at your place at five o'clock," I just broadcast this information to anyone in the room who was interested, even though my only intended recipient was John.
What this illustrates is that the wireless device manufacturers have (probably intentionally) not successfully communicated that the signals from their devices are NOT hidden from public view. This debate about "intercepting" publicly broadcast radio signals shows is that devices themselves are not filling the expectations of their users.
Arguably it is the device manufacturers who are at fault for implicitly leading people to believe that the information transmitted via their wireless devices is private by default, when in reality that information is publicly exposed unless the consumer proactively takes the step to encrypt their communications.
If I understand correctly, the "monopoly" aspect of patent restrictions don't apply to the government. The government can use any patented invention without restriction, but the patent holder is entitled to claim compensation from the government. So there may be some truth to your witty observation, due to cost of compensation.
Related, note that often government contractors may be immune to patent infringement claims.
Rephrase:...change from a world where he's very rich into a world where he's insanely rich, and has instant access to all the personal info for every hottie on Facebook.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sound familiar at all? The people whose lives you dismiss have a right to Life. That right is worth more than your ability to go 70mph in a 55mph zone.
Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.
Baloney. Fundamentally, the copyright system works as intended as a protection for the creators of publishable material. I only see problems in two areas: Duration and enforcement.
This argument about "improving the public's access to information and creative works" suggests that that ONLY appropriate model for managing publication rights is the GPL model. Even the FSF doesn't promote this view, as evidenced by the various FSF-created licenses (various GPL versions, LGPL versions, GFDL). What the "replacing tthe current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing..." arguement appears suggest is that it is not the creator of the content, but the government that should determine how published material is distributed.
Consider that MOST of the copyrighted content being created is not source code. If the creator of the work doesn't have the right to control distribution of his product, the incentive to create is seriously damaged.
The patent system is problematic, but a completely separate issue. The abuse of the copyright system to extort payment wrongfully is a problem. However, the basic copyright system, which gives publication control to content creators, is NOT a problem.
It seems as if people who claim to support GPL and other effective community-building copyright licenses that depend on the protections provided by copyright law also show blatant contempt for idea of copyright. I'm not talking about the irrational duration of copyright, but the idea that the creator of content should get to set the rules for use of his own content.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the people who don't respect copyright also don't give a crap about the GPL, but if I were to characterize the Slashdot community as a whole on this issue, I'd say it's two-faced.
I don't like the fact that movies are expensive. I don't like paying for news. But if I really want those things that cost money, I'll pay for them. If the content owner makes them available "for free" with advertising, that's even better. But the kneejerk reaction against lawyers who seek to prevent or obtain compensation from people who republish copyrighted material without permission (and especially those who SELL or get advertising revenue from the illegally published material) is appalling.
For whatever it's worth, I'm using the 32-bit version installed via the flashplugin-installer package. However, until the release of Ubuntu 10.04, I was using the 64-bit plugin without any problems.
I'm guessing "iRobot" was easier to get a registered trademark on than "Robot". Finding a unique (non-generic, non-already trademarked) identifier for products is tricky, so having trendy pattern for modifying otherwise generic words is a boon to new businesses or new products.
Either the difference between "a" and "the" completely eludes our submitter, or the submitter completely fails to comprehend, you know, what the heck he's talking about.
I know, it's Slashdot... I should expect it to be both. If only there were some way to complain about the editors and moderators for this....
Slashdot Mirror
The ISP is responsible for this problem, not Google.
Since when is it an ISP's responsibilty to secure their customers' wireless LANs?
1) Since they started selling wireless LANs to their customers.
2) I'm not talking about wireless, I'm talking about unencrypted access to email servers, which should concern you even if you DON'T use wireless, for the same reason you shouldn't perform financial transactions over an unencrypted connection.
3) Using wireless encryption may be a good idea, but that is NOT enough to provide safe electronic communication.
In this case, I suggest it's the ISP who's at fault for leading their customers to believe that their communications over the radio bands are private and confidential.
Particularly ISPs who provide only unencrypted connections to email servers are a significant part of the problem here.
Excellent point that it's hardly Google's fault that my ISP doesn't provide an encrypted connection to its email servers. I'm looking at you, Time Warner. (And NO, webmail doesn't count.)
The ISP is responsible for this problem, not Google.
1) I agree with your point about cost.
2) What I dislike about the articles and the bulk of the responses is that they don't appear to contain information that answers either my original question, or your modification of that question.
It's very easy to say "that's an ineffective waste of money, because it LOOKS like the kind of wasteful, ineffective spending we see all the time."
It's WAY more useful to say, "This costs $XXX more/less per parolee than our alternatives, and does these things we want better/worse than the more/less expensive alternatives."
According to the article,
Despite offering only an optimized version of a standard CPU, the A4 is becoming increasingly important to Apple's strategy with it appearing now in the iPhone and surely in iPod touches to be released in September—not to mention any future iOS product lines.
.... Yes.
I disagree with the cynical premise of your post, and with the bias of the articles in general.
The question is: Did the system work better than what was used before? A single incident demonstrates a problem in the system, but doesn't answer the question of the general effectiveness of the system compared to alternatives.
There may be such a world, but I don't live there.
If this is billed as more than a physician-assistance tool, it is opening itself up to horrific misuse by, say, "the common clay of the new West... you know.... morons."
Right. I wish there were some organization the produced useful advice about how to manage exposure to solar radiation, which comes in various forms, and has various effects, so I could know what I should do to stay healthy when I go to the beach.
...I know encryption is your only friend.
Ummm... thankfully, my only friends are people, not manipulations of data. :-)
On the other hand, to be fair to what I think you meant, encryption is NOT your only defense. Exercising appropriate restraint about what you do, say, write, and transmit is also extremely important. If you feel inclined to do, say, type, show, or talk about things you already do or might later regret, you should think twice before transmitting it electronically.
Electronic communications, like physical diaries or letters, can often be inadvertently exposed in context that could be embarrassing or compromising. For example, having an encrypted chat session with your mistress doesn't save you from having accidentally typing into the wrong chat window, or having someone look over your shoulder.
I agree that encryption is valuable and the may be the best defense for wholesome data that you need to transmit electronically (financial information, confidential work information, etc.) but is only part of information safety.
How dare you answer that question in concise, direct, thoughtful, and non-inflammatory terms! Gah!
I don't totally agree with you, but I like your response (especially the meta-warning bit.) Thanks for the thoughts.
However, I think you're conflating the context of passing legislation with amendment of the Constitution. Federal legislation which may effect enforcement or regulation of concepts in the Constitution is not meant to be a slow, supermajority process.
As I think you suggest, it's the society (through votes and elected representatives) that defines the Constitution. It's not the Constitution that defines society.
The overt argument that you should NOT consider historical context when reading the constitution (which appears to be what you're saying) doesn't follow.
It is true that people can draw ridiculous conclusions of relevance or irrelevance based on historical context, but they can draw equally ridiculous conclusions without any historical context.
Way to prevent what from becoming a real issue? The (extremely long) post points out the the threat to privacy already IS a real issue.
The problem is that instead of addressing active, ongoing, real threats to privacy, such as ISPs collecting all of your communications and sharing it freely with who knows which governments, government organizations, or commercial entities, the "privacy police" are making a big show of jumping an instance of a company who is extremely cooperative with the investigation and will result in zero benefit to the people interested in their own privacy.
I'm mystified. Why is somebody unhappy about having advice to take historical context in mind when reading the constitution, which in its original doesn't reflect (for example) voting rights for women and former slaves?
Wow, good post. Difficulty seems to arise from the fact that radio signals are by nature broadcasts into public space, even if they are specifically intended communications with a single recipient. Because they are not visible, people think of them as being private, even though the signals may travel significantly outside of their homes.
If you walk into a crowded room and yell to my buddy John "Hey, John, I'll meet you at your place at five o'clock," I just broadcast this information to anyone in the room who was interested, even though my only intended recipient was John.
What this illustrates is that the wireless device manufacturers have (probably intentionally) not successfully communicated that the signals from their devices are NOT hidden from public view. This debate about "intercepting" publicly broadcast radio signals shows is that devices themselves are not filling the expectations of their users.
Arguably it is the device manufacturers who are at fault for implicitly leading people to believe that the information transmitted via their wireless devices is private by default, when in reality that information is publicly exposed unless the consumer proactively takes the step to encrypt their communications.
Just curious, what jurisdiction, and what laws were broken, and are those laws punishable by jail time?
If I understand correctly, the "monopoly" aspect of patent restrictions don't apply to the government. The government can use any patented invention without restriction, but the patent holder is entitled to claim compensation from the government. So there may be some truth to your witty observation, due to cost of compensation.
Related, note that often government contractors may be immune to patent infringement claims.
Hmmm. I highly recommend reading the post you're answering before posting a response. I'm estimating that it could more than double your perceived IQ.
Good luck, carry on.
Rephrase: ...change from a world where he's very rich into a world where he's insanely rich, and has instant access to all the personal info for every hottie on Facebook.
The leaders of that revolution wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sound familiar at all? The people whose lives you dismiss have a right to Life. That right is worth more than your ability to go 70mph in a 55mph zone.
Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.
Baloney. Fundamentally, the copyright system works as intended as a protection for the creators of publishable material. I only see problems in two areas: Duration and enforcement.
This argument about "improving the public's access to information and creative works" suggests that that ONLY appropriate model for managing publication rights is the GPL model. Even the FSF doesn't promote this view, as evidenced by the various FSF-created licenses (various GPL versions, LGPL versions, GFDL). What the "replacing tthe current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing..." arguement appears suggest is that it is not the creator of the content, but the government that should determine how published material is distributed.
Consider that MOST of the copyrighted content being created is not source code. If the creator of the work doesn't have the right to control distribution of his product, the incentive to create is seriously damaged.
The patent system is problematic, but a completely separate issue. The abuse of the copyright system to extort payment wrongfully is a problem. However, the basic copyright system, which gives publication control to content creators, is NOT a problem.
It seems as if people who claim to support GPL and other effective community-building copyright licenses that depend on the protections provided by copyright law also show blatant contempt for idea of copyright. I'm not talking about the irrational duration of copyright, but the idea that the creator of content should get to set the rules for use of his own content.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the people who don't respect copyright also don't give a crap about the GPL, but if I were to characterize the Slashdot community as a whole on this issue, I'd say it's two-faced.
I don't like the fact that movies are expensive. I don't like paying for news. But if I really want those things that cost money, I'll pay for them. If the content owner makes them available "for free" with advertising, that's even better. But the kneejerk reaction against lawyers who seek to prevent or obtain compensation from people who republish copyrighted material without permission (and especially those who SELL or get advertising revenue from the illegally published material) is appalling.
Really? According to these pages, the alpha was updated in February, 2010.
That said, this is a topic of discussion on the Ubuntu forums.
For whatever it's worth, I'm using the 32-bit version installed via the flashplugin-installer package. However, until the release of Ubuntu 10.04, I was using the 64-bit plugin without any problems.
I'm guessing "iRobot" was easier to get a registered trademark on than "Robot". Finding a unique (non-generic, non-already trademarked) identifier for products is tricky, so having trendy pattern for modifying otherwise generic words is a boon to new businesses or new products.
Either the difference between "a" and "the" completely eludes our submitter, or the submitter completely fails to comprehend, you know, what the heck he's talking about.
I know, it's Slashdot... I should expect it to be both. If only there were some way to complain about the editors and moderators for this....