Okay. How can casinos kick out card counters? It's a place of public business, and no law has been broken.
How can stores prevent shoplifters from coming back? I mean, if they aren't shopliftin THIS time, they aren't breaking any law, and have a right ot be in the store.
How can a nightclub not let me in when the owner says I'm not welcome in his club anymore? It's a place of public business.
Regardless of what might have happeend in your particular circumstances, I can assure you that a business is STILL private property (after all, it's not owned by the public, is it) and the owners DO have a say as to who can and cannot be there.
I have no doubt that what you say happened, happened.
It is safe to assume that the particular details of this court case are what was importnat, and that it does not necessarily apply everywhere equally. Furtehrmore, there are more contries on earth than the US, and more states than the one the ruling was handed down in.
If you think this is a valid defence, please, grab a video recorder and walk through a few stores videotaping displays and prices, and then refuse to leave when asked to, and see what happens.
Yes.. it makes parsing easier. But that's ALL it does.
An XML file can still contain proprietary data, and only MS would know what to do with it.
You are assuming anything in XML will render properly in a browser with XML support. That is absolutely not true. IT can come out as well formatted garbage.
XML is not the panacea everyone thinks it is when it comes to Microsoft.
to simply abandon the idea and not experiment with it?
I'm sorry.. but those who think that "creating life" or other forms of genetic research are unethical are nothing but religious whackjobs.
yes, when it comes to genetically engineering HUMANS, there are ethical, and more importantly, sociological concerns, but they are not about "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil"; they are about society living and dealing with the consequences.
This research is fantastic... I see no ethical issues whatsoever.
Too bad this isn't about publishing already public prices, and is in fact about publishing not-yet-released confidential information without the permission of the copyright holder.
These prices were not advertised; they were planned future pricing that was confidential. It wasn't available to the public at all.
If it had already been shelf pricing, the stores would not have cared.
The stores do not reveal this information for good reason a) They dont'want the competition to know b) They want people to continue shopping at current prices, not wait until next week and get a deal.
Which threats are unjustified? If someone leaked the flyers or information from those flyers before they were published by the copyright holder (you better believe an advertisement can be copywritten) then they have a VERY valid claim.
Those who posted the information are free to counter the claim that the information was illegally obtained and violates copyright, and the isp can place the information online again.
Ever owned a store? It's still private property. THe parent is correct; if I don't want someone in my store, I can ask them to leave. If they do not leave, they are tresspassing.
This could be because I don't like them personally, or just about any other reason aside from recognized forms of discrimination.
You are correct; they cannot take away the prices you wrote down; but they are generally under no obligation to let someone from a competing store wander around all day writing down prices.
It's very common for stores to not allow people from other stores to walk around and write down prices. The store is there for people to shop, and they CAN kick people out, as long as it's not discriminatory (ie: No blacks, no fags, no women, etc). Barring someone from your establishment because you don't want them in there is fair game in most places.
Secondly, this doens't apply here because it is not about current prices; it is about future planned pricing information being STOLEN from the company, and published on the internet, long before the company was to make the information public.
A major news outlet would have checked to make sure the information was both authentic, and not trade-secret, before they published it, lest they get the living shit sued out of them. A major news organisation is held to a higher standard when it comes to publishing than joe average on the internet.
Now.. I think this is silly too.. however, you all have to realize somethign about the retail business.
Prices for special sales days are set in advance, and kept secret. The flyers and ads have to be readied ahead of time, especially for a company the size of wal-mart.. but that information is CONFIDENTIAL until the company decides to release it. The companies that print the flyers are under contract not to leak the information, and so on. The reason for this is because you don't want your competitors to know what your sales are going to be until everyone else does.
If someone STOLE the information from a print house or computer or an employee violated their contract by posting this information to some public forum, then wal-mart DOES have a fair claim to the information.
It's not like this information is already out in some flyer and walmart is suing.. they wouldn't do that, for obvious reasons.. once you ARE advertising a sale, you want as many people to konw about it as possible.
PARTS of the DMCA are bout copy protection technology.
OTHER PARTS of the DMCA are about electronic publishing of copywritten information without permission.
Also.. something does NOT require a copyright notice to be protected by copyright.
I agree, to imply copyright over sales prices is rediculous.. however... if the prices were taken from a flyer at a print house or somewhere, and had not yet been released by the company, there very well MAY be a copyright violation.
1) the ISP is served with papers under teh DMCA alleging a copyright notice. 2) The ISP has to take it down within a certain amount of time UNLESS the person who is responsible for the content writes a letter attesting to the fact that it is NOT copyright violation... in which case the original complainant has so-many days to file suit, or drop the issue.
The thing is.. even if it's obviously not copyright infringement.. will an ISP stick it's neck out and say "buzz off" to the lawyers? Will the person in the end write the letter back? Or will it all just get ignored.
It's not because they CAN be misused, but because it is believed the companies in question actively KNOW and secretly PROMOTE the illegal use of their product.
They *want* to sell more guns, even if they are sold to criminals, and will look the other way whenever possible.
A glue company is not negligent because people can sniff glue; it IS negligent if it is knowingly selling bulk glue to glue pushers on the streets of Brasil.
Who the provider is I can't say.. but it's an isp leasing bandwidth from a satellite, one channel per customer, to provide the link. It's not some mega service like Starband or whoever.
My point is only that satellite does not have to be so bad; it's the current mass market satellite providers who are making it bad.
- Satellite internet is not "useless" nor is it "Untolerable for websurfing" or "useless for ssh or telnet".
- There is a latency due to the speed of light. It is not 800ms minimum as some people are claiming. In my case about 420ms round trip. This is not quite like latency on really congested internet connections, where latency tends to fluctuate.. it's just a steady, unchanging 420ms added to everything.
- Latency will be higher at higher lattitudes; I'm at about 10 degrees north.
- TCP has no fundamental issues with this extra latency; in fact it deals with it JUST FINE. What TCP *does* have an issue with is the data link layer losing packets for reasons OTHER than congestion. That means if your satellite gear is crappy, small dish, weak signal, and you are losing a percentage of traffic due to noise, TCP will become almost useless (it will keep backing off thinking it's reducing congestion) On the other hand, with adequately powered gear, and a dish with the proper gain, this is NOT a problem whatsoever.
- The TCP hacks that consumer satellite services use are NOT fundamentally necessary for satellite internet; they are a result of cheap gear and small dishes that are provided for home use.
- The reason satellite is harder from higher lattitudes is because satellites are lower on the horizon, you have to go through more atmosphere to see them, they are farther away, and you are on the edge of the footprint where signal is weakest.
- Not all internet connections use landline; major isps in smaller countries have satellite backup for their landline connections. If a satellite connection can carry an entire country's internet traffic, it's hardly "useless"
- Weather can affect radio reception, but again, this depends largely on the power levels involved, and the gain of the dish used. The difference between a 2 foot dish on your balcony, and a 15 foot dish on the roof is huge.
- Full duplex connections are entirely possible, and need not be asymetric... but they require a good transmitter on the ground. Home connections will be asymetric, because nobody wants to fork out for high power gear at home.
- Satellite internet need not be proprietary. This is an artifact of tryign to bring cheap gear for home use. I have seen satellite gear in use that has standard ports; either ethernet, or v.35 for hookup to a good old cisco router.
Now I'm not saying that these current consumer satellite internet services are good... they may very well suck.. but let's be clear on what pros/cons are a result of the fact that they are usign satellite, and which ones are the results of stupid decisions by the providers.
Because I have satellite internet here... it's full duplex 1.5Mbps. Yes, the latency is high, 420ms for the satellite hop, but other than that, and the occasional solar outage, which is entirely predictable, it works just fine. Realtime gaming is out, of course, but surfing is fine. You do notice the latency, but it's not enough to annoy you.
And you totally missed the point.. satellite internet is always going to have high latency, yes, but the coverage is excellent.. it's ideal for places that don't have land based lines.
Obviously if a high speed landline is available, you won't choose satellite.
Your name, address, and phone number are not private information; they are publicly available to anyone who wants to know where you live.
If someone posted, say, your bank account numbers, or other PRIVATE information that they should NOT know, you have a legitimate case.
Hey, you could always use the DMCA in this case. who cares if the mateiral is copywritten or not.. they will have to take it down unless the person who posted it files proper documents indicating that the material is NOT a copyright violation, in his opinion, and is willing to defend it. In this case, the ISP can keep it up, pending a lawsuit. Of course, to file such documents, he would have to reveal his name.
First the "forum" doens't have common-carrier status; that is a specific legal status that is granted to PHONE COMPANIES that makes them not responsible for the content of the calls going over their wires; it's not something you can just say "I don't monitor stuff so I have common carrier protection".
The forum may have a policy of not revealing information, but a court can *easily* make them do so.
Secondly, posting names and phone numbers and addresses in public is not illegal; if that is what you mean by "posting personal information", you don't have a case. Posting bank account numbers, and other PRIVATE information is more serious, but posting a phone number or address, that's generally considered public information.
If you have a real slander or libel case (I forget which is which, I'm not a lawyer, yadda yadda)... get a lawyer. If they are outright lies, stated as fact, you probably have a case. If they are OPINIONS, you don't. If you think you can clearly show that this person is deliberately lying in order to tarnish your company, sue his ass.
consider if it's worth your time. A counterinformation campaign might be better.
That is the whole point of the system, though.. to effect change through punitive measures.. not simply to block spam.
Their network permits spamming, so we block their network. Pretty straightforward.
Shoudl we blacklist comapnies that discriminate? Hey, if someone wants to start a list of networks who host discriminatory materials, and others want to use that list to block those sites from view, yes, absolutely.
Remember, people use this list because they percieve that it gets results... the list doesn't block anyone, other people use the list to block people.
How about if someone told the linux community about the bug ages ago, and the community said "That's not possible" Then how about if, once a proper description was released, the community said "Well, we agree it's possible, but it's too difficult to exploit, so nobody's going to do it"
Then what? How do you get it fixed? You release a full, working exploit as proof.. after all, that's what everyone is demanding to see before they will fix anything.
Won't happen? Probably not in the OSS world.. people would fix it first.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay.
How can casinos kick out card counters? It's a place of public business, and no law has been broken.
How can stores prevent shoplifters from coming back? I mean, if they aren't shopliftin THIS time, they aren't breaking any law, and have a right ot be in the store.
How can a nightclub not let me in when the owner says I'm not welcome in his club anymore? It's a place of public business.
Regardless of what might have happeend in your particular circumstances, I can assure you that a business is STILL private property (after all, it's not owned by the public, is it) and the owners DO have a say as to who can and cannot be there.
I have no doubt that what you say happened, happened.
It is safe to assume that the particular details of this court case are what was importnat, and that it does not necessarily apply everywhere equally. Furtehrmore, there are more contries on earth than the US, and more states than the one the ruling was handed down in.
If you think this is a valid defence, please, grab a video recorder and walk through a few stores videotaping displays and prices, and then refuse to leave when asked to, and see what happens.
Yes.. it makes parsing easier. But that's ALL it does.
An XML file can still contain proprietary data, and only MS would know what to do with it.
You are assuming anything in XML will render properly in a browser with XML support. That is absolutely not true. IT can come out as well formatted garbage.
XML is not the panacea everyone thinks it is when it comes to Microsoft.
to simply abandon the idea and not experiment with it?
I'm sorry.. but those who think that "creating life" or other forms of genetic research are unethical are nothing but religious whackjobs.
yes, when it comes to genetically engineering HUMANS, there are ethical, and more importantly, sociological concerns, but they are not about "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil"; they are about society living and dealing with the consequences.
This research is fantastic... I see no ethical issues whatsoever.
Too bad this isn't about publishing already public prices, and is in fact about publishing not-yet-released confidential information without the permission of the copyright holder.
These prices were not advertised; they were planned future pricing that was confidential. It wasn't available to the public at all.
If it had already been shelf pricing, the stores would not have cared.
The stores do not reveal this information for good reason
a) They dont'want the competition to know
b) They want people to continue shopping at current prices, not wait until next week and get a deal.
Which threats are unjustified? If someone leaked the flyers or information from those flyers before they were published by the copyright holder (you better believe an advertisement can be copywritten) then they have a VERY valid claim.
Those who posted the information are free to counter the claim that the information was illegally obtained and violates copyright, and the isp can place the information online again.
Ever owned a store?
It's still private property. THe parent is correct; if I don't want someone in my store, I can ask them to leave. If they do not leave, they are tresspassing.
This could be because I don't like them personally, or just about any other reason aside from recognized forms of discrimination.
You are correct; they cannot take away the prices you wrote down; but they are generally under no obligation to let someone from a competing store wander around all day writing down prices.
It's very common for stores to not allow people from other stores to walk around and write down prices. The store is there for people to shop, and they CAN kick people out, as long as it's not discriminatory (ie: No blacks, no fags, no women, etc). Barring someone from your establishment because you don't want them in there is fair game in most places.
Secondly, this doens't apply here because it is not about current prices; it is about future planned pricing information being STOLEN from the company, and published on the internet, long before the company was to make the information public.
when someone steals trade-secret information from YOUR company, and publishes it.
A major news outlet would have checked to make sure the information was both authentic, and not trade-secret, before they published it, lest they get the living shit sued out of them. A major news organisation is held to a higher standard when it comes to publishing than joe average on the internet.
Now.. I think this is silly too.. however, you all have to realize somethign about the retail business.
Prices for special sales days are set in advance, and kept secret. The flyers and ads have to be readied ahead of time, especially for a company the size of wal-mart.. but that information is CONFIDENTIAL until the company decides to release it. The companies that print the flyers are under contract not to leak the information, and so on.
The reason for this is because you don't want your competitors to know what your sales are going to be until everyone else does.
If someone STOLE the information from a print house or computer or an employee violated their contract by posting this information to some public forum, then wal-mart DOES have a fair claim to the information.
It's not like this information is already out in some flyer and walmart is suing.. they wouldn't do that, for obvious reasons.. once you ARE advertising a sale, you want as many people to konw about it as possible.
PARTS of the DMCA are bout copy protection technology.
OTHER PARTS of the DMCA are about electronic publishing of copywritten information without permission.
Also.. something does NOT require a copyright notice to be protected by copyright.
I agree, to imply copyright over sales prices is rediculous.. however...
if the prices were taken from a flyer at a print house or somewhere, and had not yet been released by the company, there very well MAY be a copyright violation.
Even if it's obviously not a copyright issue..
1) the ISP is served with papers under teh DMCA alleging a copyright notice.
2) The ISP has to take it down within a certain amount of time UNLESS the person who is responsible for the content writes a letter attesting to the fact that it is NOT copyright violation... in which case the original complainant has so-many days to file suit, or drop the issue.
The thing is.. even if it's obviously not copyright infringement.. will an ISP stick it's neck out and say "buzz off" to the lawyers? Will the person in the end write the letter back? Or will it all just get ignored.
Or maybe it's good. People en masse are illogical and prone to be very reactionary.
Accidents ALWAYS happen; if it's not the fault of the machine, then there is no reason to report it.
I said "probably", implying to everyone but you that I don't KNOW what it used, because I haven't read the article yet.
Next time, be more fucking polite.
It's not because they CAN be misused, but because it is believed the companies in question actively KNOW and secretly PROMOTE the illegal use of their product.
They *want* to sell more guns, even if they are sold to criminals, and will look the other way whenever possible.
A glue company is not negligent because people can sniff glue; it IS negligent if it is knowingly selling bulk glue to glue pushers on the streets of Brasil.
I believe the tech is good old KU band satellite.
Who the provider is I can't say.. but it's an isp leasing bandwidth from a satellite, one channel per customer, to provide the link. It's not some mega service like Starband or whoever.
My point is only that satellite does not have to be so bad; it's the current mass market satellite providers who are making it bad.
- Satellite internet is not "useless" nor is it "Untolerable for websurfing" or "useless for ssh or telnet".
- There is a latency due to the speed of light. It is not 800ms minimum as some people are claiming. In my case about 420ms round trip. This is not quite like latency on really congested internet connections, where latency tends to fluctuate.. it's just a steady, unchanging 420ms added to everything.
- Latency will be higher at higher lattitudes; I'm at about 10 degrees north.
- TCP has no fundamental issues with this extra latency; in fact it deals with it JUST FINE. What TCP *does* have an issue with is the data link layer losing packets for reasons OTHER than congestion. That means if your satellite gear is crappy, small dish, weak signal, and you are losing a percentage of traffic due to noise, TCP will become almost useless (it will keep backing off thinking it's reducing congestion) On the other hand, with adequately powered gear, and a dish with the proper gain, this is NOT a problem whatsoever.
- The TCP hacks that consumer satellite services use are NOT fundamentally necessary for satellite internet; they are a result of cheap gear and small dishes that are provided for home use.
- The reason satellite is harder from higher lattitudes is because satellites are lower on the horizon, you have to go through more atmosphere to see them, they are farther away, and you are on the edge of the footprint where signal is weakest.
- Not all internet connections use landline; major isps in smaller countries have satellite backup for their landline connections. If a satellite connection can carry an entire country's internet traffic, it's hardly "useless"
- Weather can affect radio reception, but again, this depends largely on the power levels involved, and the gain of the dish used. The difference between a 2 foot dish on your balcony, and a 15 foot dish on the roof is huge.
- Full duplex connections are entirely possible, and need not be asymetric... but they require a good transmitter on the ground. Home connections will be asymetric, because nobody wants to fork out for high power gear at home.
- Satellite internet need not be proprietary. This is an artifact of tryign to bring cheap gear for home use. I have seen satellite gear in use that has standard ports; either ethernet, or v.35 for hookup to a good old cisco router.
Now I'm not saying that these current consumer satellite internet services are good... they may very well suck.. but let's be clear on what pros/cons are a result of the fact that they are usign satellite, and which ones are the results of stupid decisions by the providers.
Because I have satellite internet here... it's full duplex 1.5Mbps. Yes, the latency is high, 420ms for the satellite hop, but other than that, and the occasional solar outage, which is entirely predictable, it works just fine. Realtime gaming is out, of course, but surfing is fine. You do notice the latency, but it's not enough to annoy you.
And you totally missed the point.. satellite internet is always going to have high latency, yes, but the coverage is excellent.. it's ideal for places that don't have land based lines.
Obviously if a high speed landline is available, you won't choose satellite.
Your name, address, and phone number are not private information; they are publicly available to anyone who wants to know where you live.
If someone posted, say, your bank account numbers, or other PRIVATE information that they should NOT know, you have a legitimate case.
Hey, you could always use the DMCA in this case. who cares if the mateiral is copywritten or not.. they will have to take it down unless the person who posted it files proper documents indicating that the material is NOT a copyright violation, in his opinion, and is willing to defend it. In this case, the ISP can keep it up, pending a lawsuit.
Of course, to file such documents, he would have to reveal his name.
First the "forum" doens't have common-carrier status; that is a specific legal status that is granted to PHONE COMPANIES that makes them not responsible for the content of the calls going over their wires; it's not something you can just say "I don't monitor stuff so I have common carrier protection".
The forum may have a policy of not revealing information, but a court can *easily* make them do so.
Secondly, posting names and phone numbers and addresses in public is not illegal; if that is what you mean by "posting personal information", you don't have a case. Posting bank account numbers, and other PRIVATE information is more serious, but posting a phone number or address, that's generally considered public information.
If you have a real slander or libel case (I forget which is which, I'm not a lawyer, yadda yadda)... get a lawyer. If they are outright lies, stated as fact, you probably have a case. If they are OPINIONS, you don't. If you think you can clearly show that this person is deliberately lying in order to tarnish your company, sue his ass.
consider if it's worth your time. A counterinformation campaign might be better.
That is the whole point of the system, though.. to effect change through punitive measures.. not simply to block spam.
Their network permits spamming, so we block their network. Pretty straightforward.
Shoudl we blacklist comapnies that discriminate? Hey, if someone wants to start a list of networks who host discriminatory materials, and others want to use that list to block those sites from view, yes, absolutely.
Remember, people use this list because they percieve that it gets results... the list doesn't block anyone, other people use the list to block people.
How about if someone told the linux community about the bug ages ago, and the community said "That's not possible"
Then how about if, once a proper description was released, the community said "Well, we agree it's possible, but it's too difficult to exploit, so nobody's going to do it"
Then what? How do you get it fixed? You release a full, working exploit as proof.. after all, that's what everyone is demanding to see before they will fix anything.
Won't happen? Probably not in the OSS world.. people would fix it first.