There was a company out there a few years ago called First Virtual Holdings that did this. You put cash in an account, and then used it to pay for things, but they guaranteed anonymity somehow. It sounded to me like it worked fairly well.
However, they're gone now, due to the following in my view:
- lack of consumer demand when credit cards work just fine for most transactions - lack of merchant interest in a brand-new transaction system - probably a large amount of chargebacks, as it was popular with the adult sites for a while
The real issue is that customers really don't want anonymity for many transactions. They like having the credit card statement with all their charges on it. Whether or not this is ultimately wise, that's the typical consumer behavior.
It's the Outlook exploit. So if you don't have Outlook, you probably aren't affected. But you never know, those devious Microsofties just get into everything...
The Microsoft website pointed out that if you only use Microsoft Exchange Server, you're NOT affected. It only affects users of Outlook who get mail via POP3/IMAP4.
How can I tell if I'm vulnerable to this issue? If any of the following apply to you, you are not affected by this vulnerability:
You are running a default installation of Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 1. You are running a default installation of Internet Explorer 5.5 on any system except Windows 2000. You are using Outlook and it's configured to use only MAPI
If none of the above apply to you, you are affected by the vulnerability.
So the very good news is that many or most corporate users (who were highly susceptible to ILOVEYOU and related worms) will NOT be affected by this exploit. However, home, small biz, and corporate users who are using a POP3/IMAP server (or an ISP) for mail are vulnerable, and certainly everyone should upgrade when the fix is made available.
A very useful comment on how this is not the black-and-white issue it's often presented as.
However, it's also worth noting that eBay could simply develop anti-bot tools to detect and block (or spoof) known bots. Why not do that, and save the legal bills?
... is what I am as well. The ability to control how certain tasks are automated would be very helpful. For example, I'd like to have a series of tray icons based on types of mail:
- from friends (very high priority) - from certain colleagues (high priority) - from other colleagues (low priority)
I also wouldn't mind having an alert pop up when I'm doing something not so important (commenting on Slashdot) but not when I'm doing something important (writing a white paper).
Maybe this is supported 15 menus down in Outlook already, but it would be nice to make this easier to manage.
Still one of the best programs out there. I have regrettably become used to Office 97/98, but when I encounter friends' old Macs with 5.1 on them, it sure is fun to use it again.
And there are lots of auto accidents, many of which are fatal. But people continue to drive... because, um, it's useful. It's called accepting a minor risk. Cellphones are in the same category, in my view.
Yes, my cell makes the monitor shake as well - I certainly believe it's the speaker. It also causes huge and very annoying interference to my telephone headset. It's a Nokia 6162.
It would be interesting to get its radiation signature, if for no other reason than to understand and compensate for these annoying "features."
But I wonder: What happened to the FCC rule that said that an item "must not cause interference, and must accept interference from other items"? Last time I checked, all electronic equipment had to be tested to meet this rule. What changed?
if you're using standard ISP accounts. Dial-up fixed IP accounts are hard to come by and expensive these days, because IPs are such a scarce resource. And, of course, if you have a dial-in pool, you probably don't need a VPN to begin with - they're generally used with ordinary dial-up internet, because it's easy to get and inexpensive.
Off course, none of us will ever do it because we know it would do so much damage to the 'Net (government would step in hard) and also hurt many of us financially in some indirect way.
This is true as long as those with the virus-writing skills (a) have some stake in the Net as we know it and (b) are fairly rational about things. In this case, even though everyone has a loaded weapon at his/her disposal, it's not used, because the consequences are seen as too severe. (In the Cold War, we didn't have nuclear exchanges in large part because we and our adversaries acted rationally. Similarly, we don't have carnage on the highways, because people know that intentionally causing severe accidents could put them in the hospital and/or jail.)
But one can imagine another world in which people did NOT have stakes in the continued utility of computing and the Net, and therefore had an incentive to do severe damage, just because they could. In this case we would be constantly in a war of destructive viruses vs. security tools, and many innocents would be severely damaged. (Think about Sierra Leone, for example, where almost total anarchy prevails.)
Fortunately we are closer to the former condition. But it could change. If the economy severely tanked and several hundred thousand geeks suddenly became unemployable, for example...
has been tested as interoperable with major VPN clients / servers. One leading VPN client (Nortel Contivity) is a little weird but I think can be made to interoperate with it as well. And it's free, and developed overseas, so none of that (increasingly less-relevant) export-control crap.
The alternative view is that Napster and its VCs spend so much money and time on the elusive Next Big Thing of video that they forget their core audience, which is music listeners. Napster service quality suffers, customers get frustrated, and either they buy legit MP3s or just go back to emailing them around.
Meanwhile, Hollywood threatens even more severe legal action if Napster backs out of this deal, even if they lose tons of money. So they can't. They burn through their VC, can't pay their ISP bills, get cut off, finito.
I for one cannot rule out sinister motives, at least in this case...
Now here's the ironic thing. It appears that MPAA is higher in the "bad guy pecking order" than trademark lawyers; otherwise, why would/.ers push for Apple to sue Soup for trademark violations?
are two "clean" sources of power that, though they do have other enviro effects (notably hydro), don't pollute at all.
Here in SF the municipal railway runs streetcars and electric buses off the Hetch Hetchy system, a series of hydro dams in the Sierras. Replace a diesel bus or an auto with one of these guys and you have clearly reduced the amount of greenhouse gases, pollutants, and so on belched into the air.
So if the source of electricity for those cars is clean, you're in good shape. The challenge is to find such power, but I'd pay a slight premium for it - wouldn't you?
It's really quite amusing for this relatively new Slashdot reader. Entirely unrelated to any news, but fun to watch.
A thought: Can Taco add a tool to automatically extract offtopic flamebait into a special page one slashbox? That way we could watch battles like this all day!
You're right that public pressure and the rule of law are the best way to prevent fraud. (Fujimori got away with it in Peru, for example, despite massive press coverage, because of Quisling judges.)
But my fear is that automated tools provide evry subtle ways to effect fraud. Coercion can occur in the workplace, where users may feel unable to blow the whistle (particularly when union and management are in cahoots) to the press.
And - think of the potential for hacker fun! Someone could design a Back Orifice-style tool that allows badguys to cast a vote for each user, hijacking any private keys sitting on the hard drive... with automated tools that allow the badguy to select exactly how many votes of each kind, demographic info, and so on. Without physical security, which I think means locked-down hardware certified by a credible outsider, you have no protection against this type of attack.
Good idea! I'd buy it too, for simplicity and anonymity. Bands could even sell these like prepaid phone cards, with a mini album cover on them, and pay Napster half the cover price; then Napster could use these to collect the bucks & send 'em to the bands.
This will almost assuredly be ruled unconstitutional, as were CDA, COPA, and other related crapola. Prior restraint is per se unconstitutional.
But what REALLY pisses me off is the brazen attitude of Feinstein and Hatch that those who link to bad, bad, bad content are somehow complicit in a crime. What fucking planet are they from? How do they know that the linkers or publishers have such evil intent? And why does this matter anyway, if it's constitutionally protected speech?
Sorry, had to rant for a moment.
What is really the most disappointing about this whole episode is that the so-called liberals (e.g. Feinstein) are the ones most willing to trample on and destroy the Constitution for shallow political ends. It's very, very depressing.
Damn good point. Without teenager-friendly payment systems (DoughNET is a step in the right direction, but really aimed at larger purchases) kids won't be able to buy.
Imagine being in a CD store with no security at the door and every CD you want available right at the entrance. The only register is WAY in the back, and when you get there, they tell you that they only take credit cards. If you're a kid and can't get a credit card, don't you get tempted to use the old five-finger discount? That's roughly the state of emusic today for under-18s.
Slashdot Mirror
That's cause bandwidth is nothing these days. It's cheap, and getting cheaper.
However, they're gone now, due to the following in my view:
- lack of consumer demand when credit cards work just fine for most transactions
- lack of merchant interest in a brand-new transaction system
- probably a large amount of chargebacks, as it was popular with the adult sites for a while
The real issue is that customers really don't want anonymity for many transactions. They like having the credit card statement with all their charges on it. Whether or not this is ultimately wise, that's the typical consumer behavior.
sulli
sulli
The specifics from Microsoft:
How can I tell if I'm vulnerable to this issue? If any of the following apply to you, you are not affected by this vulnerability:
You are running a default installation of Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 1.
You are running a default installation of Internet Explorer 5.5 on any system except Windows 2000.
You are using Outlook and it's configured to use only MAPI
If none of the above apply to you, you are affected by the vulnerability.
So the very good news is that many or most corporate users (who were highly susceptible to ILOVEYOU and related worms) will NOT be affected by this exploit. However, home, small biz, and corporate users who are using a POP3/IMAP server (or an ISP) for mail are vulnerable, and certainly everyone should upgrade when the fix is made available.
sulli
However, it's also worth noting that eBay could simply develop anti-bot tools to detect and block (or spoof) known bots. Why not do that, and save the legal bills?
sulli
sulli
- from friends (very high priority)
- from certain colleagues (high priority)
- from other colleagues (low priority)
I also wouldn't mind having an alert pop up when I'm doing something not so important (commenting on Slashdot) but not when I'm doing something important (writing a white paper).
Maybe this is supported 15 menus down in Outlook already, but it would be nice to make this easier to manage.
sulli
sulli
sulli
It would be interesting to get its radiation signature, if for no other reason than to understand and compensate for these annoying "features."
But I wonder: What happened to the FCC rule that said that an item "must not cause interference, and must accept interference from other items"? Last time I checked, all electronic equipment had to be tested to meet this rule. What changed?
sulli
sulli
This is true as long as those with the virus-writing skills (a) have some stake in the Net as we know it and (b) are fairly rational about things. In this case, even though everyone has a loaded weapon at his/her disposal, it's not used, because the consequences are seen as too severe. (In the Cold War, we didn't have nuclear exchanges in large part because we and our adversaries acted rationally. Similarly, we don't have carnage on the highways, because people know that intentionally causing severe accidents could put them in the hospital and/or jail.)
But one can imagine another world in which people did NOT have stakes in the continued utility of computing and the Net, and therefore had an incentive to do severe damage, just because they could. In this case we would be constantly in a war of destructive viruses vs. security tools, and many innocents would be severely damaged. (Think about Sierra Leone, for example, where almost total anarchy prevails.)
Fortunately we are closer to the former condition. But it could change. If the economy severely tanked and several hundred thousand geeks suddenly became unemployable, for example...
sulli
sulli
The alternative view is that Napster and its VCs spend so much money and time on the elusive Next Big Thing of video that they forget their core audience, which is music listeners. Napster service quality suffers, customers get frustrated, and either they buy legit MP3s or just go back to emailing them around.
Meanwhile, Hollywood threatens even more severe legal action if Napster backs out of this deal, even if they lose tons of money. So they can't. They burn through their VC, can't pay their ISP bills, get cut off, finito.
I for one cannot rule out sinister motives, at least in this case...
sulli
sulli
Here in SF the municipal railway runs streetcars and electric buses off the Hetch Hetchy system, a series of hydro dams in the Sierras. Replace a diesel bus or an auto with one of these guys and you have clearly reduced the amount of greenhouse gases, pollutants, and so on belched into the air.
So if the source of electricity for those cars is clean, you're in good shape. The challenge is to find such power, but I'd pay a slight premium for it - wouldn't you?
sulli
sulli
Arrgh.
sulli
sulli
A thought: Can Taco add a tool to automatically extract offtopic flamebait into a special page one slashbox? That way we could watch battles like this all day!
sulli
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/ 03/24/nc_index4.html
Then they ran another piece on it this week:
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/07/11/
So it's not that new an idea.
sulli
But my fear is that automated tools provide evry subtle ways to effect fraud. Coercion can occur in the workplace, where users may feel unable to blow the whistle (particularly when union and management are in cahoots) to the press.
And - think of the potential for hacker fun! Someone could design a Back Orifice-style tool that allows badguys to cast a vote for each user, hijacking any private keys sitting on the hard drive ... with automated tools that allow the badguy to select exactly how many votes of each kind, demographic info, and so on. Without physical security, which I think means locked-down hardware certified by a credible outsider, you have no protection against this type of attack.
sulli
And the labels get zip. Which is also nice.
sulli
But what REALLY pisses me off is the brazen attitude of Feinstein and Hatch that those who link to bad, bad, bad content are somehow complicit in a crime. What fucking planet are they from? How do they know that the linkers or publishers have such evil intent? And why does this matter anyway, if it's constitutionally protected speech?
Sorry, had to rant for a moment.
What is really the most disappointing about this whole episode is that the so-called liberals (e.g. Feinstein) are the ones most willing to trample on and destroy the Constitution for shallow political ends. It's very, very depressing.
(And so much for Orrin Hatch being a good guy... time to cancel that CD order.)
sulli
Imagine being in a CD store with no security at the door and every CD you want available right at the entrance. The only register is WAY in the back, and when you get there, they tell you that they only take credit cards. If you're a kid and can't get a credit card, don't you get tempted to use the old five-finger discount? That's roughly the state of emusic today for under-18s.
sulli