Outside the context of (1) a corporate structure of a university and (2) federal funding... there are not legal requirements for IRB review that I have ever known. Companies do user studies all the time without oversight.
Once you cross either of the lines above, then you would to determine the rules from the university and your funding source.
You do open yourself up to liability, like everything in this world. If I were in your shoes, I would use a standard consent form like those used in human subjects research. These forms typically inform the person that theywill be partofa study, the aims and methods of the study and what about that person and their actions will be made publically available. By doing this, you have 2 results -- no one can reasonable expect to win if they sue you over "You didn't tell me" and when someone sues you over "I never let you use me" you will have a firm standing because you have their consent. It is also honest.
|...all just my opinions. good luck. where in the country are you doing this?
you ought to try hypnosis. I've
observed many sessions, and the results
are astounding. If you are able to be hypnotized (I've tried, but never been able
to do it) -- it may help you remember early memories. Have someone that you trust
put you under, or a professional.
"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. "I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this. That was the whole problem for a long time with the CIA."
found this in a quick search in TODAY's news. if you are not paranoid about our government, you're not listening.
I agee that many retailers keep purchase records -- but do they keep payment methods with enough details re-enact a payment?
-- which for CC is at a minimum the number and exp date -- with more advanced auth systems asking for lastname and zip, and more recently the 3(or 4) digit code on the back.
Customers can register for the voluntary program by presenting a drivers license, an index finger and a method of payment -- either credit card, debit card or electronic check
The concern I have is whether random company X will be smart enough to protect payment methods data and fingerprint data, both (most likely) linked to personal info.
A relative worked in a co for a few years back that implemented the software to get supermarkets to accept CCs. The implementations always prevented the merchant from keeping/tracking the payment info. I think this intentional (data anyone?) on the part of the CC companies -- and it's why supermarkets use the 'bonus cards' 'rebate cards' etc. instead of just tracking your purchases with which CC you use. The supermarkets typically don't keep the cc numbers/ name etc. after purchase is complete (I think).
Regardless -- Under this new system, KROGER has to use/implement some IT system that tracks all the users payment methods and prints. While Kroger may do this fine, the assumption is that any company that wants to implement this kind of system, has to either implement or access a (possibly centralized) repository of fingerprint payment method mapping DB, with personal data. This is an enormous hacking target. I work under that assumption that anything that people access can be hacked, and therefore people should alway weigh the benefit of putting datasources together that create a risk for being stolen.
While that arguement does not really apply for one company, as more and more companies start to do this, the question becomes will the systems be secore enough to justify the benefits and costs?
one problem I see as we push forward with the "if you have concerns, use cash" is that after some time, it will be suspicious to protect your privacy. People who use cash will be singled out for scrutiny simply be not conformign to the technology that enables scrutiny.
I think that my thought was that the (hypothetical) passive device return a different signal dependant on the signal recieved, not simply the same one each time....
The more I think about it, the more it sounds like such an action would require an "active" (ie powered) device to accomplish this.
but since I don't understand how RFIDs work at all, the question still stands... could it work with a passive (non-powered) device?
would it not be more sensible to make the token a passive device, like one with an RFID
I'm not an expert in encryption, but I have had serveral security related dongles and all of them were a pain in the arse.
it would seem that there are technologies (I've read about) that can return specific information passively when hit with specific radio frequencies. Wouldn't these be more easily used than a powered device like a watch?
[long ass rant] what pisses me off about this whole arena of digital information control is it only works -- we are only event talk ing about it -- if the legislators (that the big money buys) are on board to make LAWS that make all this stuff happen. No one on earth would voluntarily submit to technology that costs more, reduces rights, etc. etc. EXCEPT if they are forced by laws.
The terrible thing is that only through more stringent laws will the "digital content industry" be able to survive. long term I just don't see it happening. we cannot legilate to all humans worldwide that everyone supports a system of information-access control just so 7 big media conglomerates can continue to maintain the hedgemeony.
the fact we even consider this crap is such a GD joke it's pathetic.
we live in a world where everybody competes tooth and nail to take more money fom everyone they can. people take and lose money all the time. I hardly think it "harm" to have someone else taking money -- making it so you can't take so much. This eliminates points 1 and 3. stop relying on laws to maintain a profit hedgemony.
point 2: how exactly was a consumer harmed? If he got something defective, he should return it. if the merchant was duped, that's not the consumer being harmed. The reality is that copies are not defective, they are exactly the same -- and that's the point.
on point 4, I agree, taxpayers are victims in many ways, but not because of the criminals. The existence of crime is more a result of how our society works and the pressures people are under. If anything, the governemnt, and the institutions that squander and misuse tax resources are the problem.
on point 5, I have a bridge somewhere to sell you too. claiming vague "other crime not stopped" as reason for prosecuting these people who were copying is absurd. I'll leave it at that.
and on point 6, whatevidence do you have that money gained from this copying was or will be used for crime? if so, that crime has not even happened yet... and when it does, we will look for its victims.
and most importantly, you must not read too good: "the name" and HOW THEY WERE HARMED
It will remain such until enough people lobby to have it changed from being a crime.
and it is this absurdity that people hold onto that makes our laws so completely fscked up. the idea that "just because its a law, it must be right and good." More specifically, the idea that "people" can "lobby" to have laws changed is absurd.
I stand by my belief that copying information is not bad, at heart. Really -- not bad at all. Therefore, I can't draw a line against those who do it lots and say -- well that's bad, though.
because it is illegal? because the music industry makes less money? because we won't have as nice music if the music industry struggles? because someone is making money doing things that are illegal?
I have come to the point in my life where (right and wrong) and (legal and illegal) are now completely separate, and surprisingly, not even aligned completely.
Should we have laws that support a bloated industry that controls access to information -- simply because they have existed in the past and have enough money to have laws passed that perpetuate their existence? I think not. after the repeal of some law in 1996 that limited media channels to 40 stations, clearchannel now owns like 1400 stations (estimate) and have has one of the top 4 stations in like 90% of all metropolitan areas. One source.
In fact, I think people like music, and people will always make nice music and it will be available. we have the ability to make it happen. simply fuck the money part. for all of you who start jumping on me about how naive that idea is -- ask yourself first how much you depend on the 'current context' of "it's just the way things work now" to judge that idea.
However: regardless of legality, should we even have a centralized organization that, in effect, makes decisions about what music is popular and available, and at what price? I think not.
And if you think about it long enough -- and this one will draw flak I'm sure -- I've also come full circle on the social contract for intellectual property. In most cases, the contract is no longer helpful to society, it's just benefitting the ip holders. In effect, without much explanation here, I conclude we should scrap/eliminate the majority of our IP protections, or at least change them significantly.
If people are interested I'd be glad to share my views on why IP has come so far its generals bad -- but that is much longer post.
As for my initial question -- I reject ALL of my hypothetical answers. In fact, if you go even a very little bit outside our current context, it's pretty easy to see that copying is NOT bad at all, at least in the (right and wrong) sense.
if what they MEANT by extra-terrestrial was it originated from some other place than earth, it would be simple to test. Simply start sequencing some of the more common genes found in terrestrial bacteria. It would positively identity the strain if it were terrestrial, and if it were extra-terrestrial... well I assume we would observe something (eg differences, no common genes, completely different metabolism) never-before-seen.
Shame on/. for posting such a WEAK excuse for science.
Slashdot Mirror
Outside the context of (1) a corporate structure of a university and (2) federal funding... there are not legal requirements for IRB review that I have ever known. Companies do user studies all the time without oversight.
...all just my opinions. good luck. where in the country are you doing this?
Once you cross either of the lines above, then you would to determine the rules from the university and your funding source.
You do open yourself up to liability, like everything in this world. If I were in your shoes, I would use a standard consent form like those used in human subjects research. These forms typically inform the person that theywill be partofa study, the aims and methods of the study and what about that person and their actions will be made publically available. By doing this, you have 2 results -- no one can reasonable expect to win if they sue you over "You didn't tell me" and when someone sues you over "I never let you use me" you will have a firm standing because you have their consent. It is also honest.
|
you ought to try hypnosis. I've
observed many sessions, and the results
are astounding. If you are able to be
hypnotized (I've tried, but never been able
to do it) -- it may help you remember early
memories. Have someone that you trust
put you under, or a professional.
it was my understanding that it was nearly impossible to fake/crack the blood vessel patterns on the retina.
can you back up te claim that "All biometrics available today, and all imagined for the near future have already been broken."
what exactly do you mean by broken?
"the country of freedom and liberty"
2 648 ]]
9 43-2002Dec25.html
not anymore: [[ from an AC slashdot post today
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49046&cid=496
"""
here is a snapshot on how these fucks think:
"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. "I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this. That was the whole problem for a long time with the CIA."
found this in a quick search in TODAY's news. if you are not paranoid about our government, you're not listening.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37
"""
I agee that many retailers keep purchase records -- but do they keep payment methods with enough details re-enact a payment?
-- which for CC is at a minimum the number and exp date -- with more advanced auth systems asking for lastname and zip, and more recently the 3(or 4) digit code on the back.
a story from April 2002 showing a Seattle area Thriftway inplementing a similar system
. shtml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/68217_thumb27
Customers can register for the voluntary program by presenting a drivers license, an index finger and a method of payment -- either credit card, debit card or electronic check
The concern I have is whether random company X will be smart enough to protect payment methods data and fingerprint data, both (most likely) linked to personal info.
A relative worked in a co for a few years back that implemented the software to get supermarkets to accept CCs. The implementations always prevented the merchant from keeping/tracking the payment info. I think this intentional (data anyone?) on the part of the CC companies -- and it's why supermarkets use the 'bonus cards' 'rebate cards' etc. instead of just tracking your purchases with which CC you use. The supermarkets typically don't keep the cc numbers/ name etc. after purchase is complete (I think).
Regardless -- Under this new system, KROGER has to use/implement some IT system that tracks all the users payment methods and prints. While Kroger may do this fine, the assumption is that any company that wants to implement this kind of system, has to either implement or access a (possibly centralized) repository of fingerprint payment method mapping DB, with personal data. This is an enormous hacking target. I work under that assumption that anything that people access can be hacked, and therefore people should alway weigh the benefit of putting datasources together that create a risk for being stolen.
While that arguement does not really apply for one company, as more and more companies start to do this, the question becomes will the systems be secore enough to justify the benefits and costs?
in genl, i'd agree
one problem I see as we push forward with the "if you have concerns, use cash" is that after some time, it will be suspicious to protect your privacy. People who use cash will be singled out for scrutiny simply be not conformign to the technology that enables scrutiny.
ck this out -- hilarious. same topic.
http://onion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html
"police state"
"police state"
"police state"
I think that my thought was that the
(hypothetical) passive device return a different
signal dependant on the signal recieved, not
simply the same one each time.
The more I think about it, the more it sounds
like such an action would require an
"active" (ie powered) device to accomplish
this.
but since I don't understand how RFIDs work
at all, the question still stands... could
it work with a passive (non-powered) device?
would it not be more sensible to make the token a passive device, like one with an RFID
I'm not an expert in encryption, but I have had serveral security related dongles and all of them were a pain in the arse.
it would seem that there are technologies (I've read about) that can return specific information passively when hit with specific radio frequencies. Wouldn't these be more easily used than a powered device like a watch?
Anyone else know more about these technologies?
[long ass rant]
what pisses me off about this whole arena of digital information control is it only works -- we are only event talk ing about it -- if the legislators (that the big money buys) are on board to make LAWS that make all this stuff happen. No one on earth would voluntarily submit to technology that costs more, reduces rights, etc. etc. EXCEPT if they are forced by laws.
The terrible thing is that only through more stringent laws will the "digital content industry" be able to survive. long term I just don't see it happening. we cannot legilate to all humans worldwide that everyone supports a system of information-access control just so 7 big media conglomerates can continue to maintain the hedgemeony.
the fact we even consider this crap is such a GD joke it's pathetic.
[/long ass rant]
sorry.
there aren't enough 'offtopic' mod points to go around....
No. It's bad because someone is making money for essentially doing nothing but stealing other peoples IP.
if you start with the assumption that IP makes sense, then I can see this point clearly. As I said, I've not almost completely rejected this point.
sorry, bzzt on all counts.
we live in a world where everybody competes tooth and nail to take more money fom everyone they can. people take and lose money all the time. I hardly think it "harm" to have someone else taking money -- making it so you can't take so much. This eliminates points 1 and 3. stop relying on laws to maintain a profit hedgemony.
point 2: how exactly was a consumer harmed? If he got something defective, he should return it. if the merchant was duped, that's not the consumer being harmed. The reality is that copies are not defective, they are exactly the same -- and that's the point.
on point 4, I agree, taxpayers are victims in many ways, but not because of the criminals. The existence of crime is more a result of how our society works and the pressures people are under. If anything, the governemnt, and the institutions that squander and misuse tax resources are the problem.
on point 5, I have a bridge somewhere to sell you too. claiming vague "other crime not stopped" as reason for prosecuting these people who were copying is absurd. I'll leave it at that.
and on point 6, whatevidence do you have that money gained from this copying was or will be used for crime? if so, that crime has not even happened yet... and when it does, we will look for its victims.
and most importantly, you must not read too good: "the name" and HOW THEY WERE HARMED
ok, I'll bite.
Give me the name of one victim of these "criminals" who were copying
CDs and selling them. And then tell me how this person was harmed.
"Who? The RIAA or the pirates?"
actually, that is exactly the point.
It will remain such until enough people lobby to have it changed from being a crime.
and it is this absurdity that people hold onto that makes our laws so completely fscked up. the idea that "just because its a law, it must be right and good." More specifically, the idea that "people" can "lobby" to have laws changed is absurd.
I stand by my belief that copying information is not bad, at heart. Really -- not bad at all. Therefore, I can't draw a line against those who do it lots and say -- well that's bad, though.
why exactly is copying bad?
because it is illegal?
because the music industry makes less money?
because we won't have as nice music if the music industry struggles?
because someone is making money doing things that are illegal?
I have come to the point in my life where (right and wrong) and (legal
and illegal) are now completely separate, and surprisingly, not even
aligned completely.
Should we have laws that support a bloated industry that controls
access to information -- simply because they have existed in the past
and have enough money to have laws passed that perpetuate their
existence? I think not. after the repeal of some law in 1996 that
limited media channels to 40 stations, clearchannel now owns like 1400
stations (estimate) and have has one of the top 4 stations in like 90%
of all metropolitan areas. One source.
In fact, I think people like music, and people will always make nice
music and it will be available. we have the ability to make it
happen. simply fuck the money part. for all of you who start jumping
on me about how naive that idea is -- ask yourself first how much you
depend on the 'current context' of "it's just the way things work now"
to judge that idea.
However: regardless of legality, should we even have a centralized
organization that, in effect, makes decisions about what music is
popular and available, and at what price? I think not.
And if you think about it long enough -- and this one will draw flak
I'm sure -- I've also come full circle on the social contract for
intellectual property. In most cases, the contract is no longer
helpful to society, it's just benefitting the ip holders. In effect,
without much explanation here, I conclude we should scrap/eliminate
the majority of our IP protections, or at least change them
significantly.
If people are interested I'd be glad to share my views on why IP has
come so far its generals bad -- but that is much longer post.
As for my initial question -- I reject ALL of my hypothetical
answers. In fact, if you go even a very little bit outside our current
context, it's pretty easy to see that copying is NOT bad at all, at
least in the (right and wrong) sense.
"victimless crime"
"victimless crime"
"victimless crime"
here is a nice pic of a glowing rabbit!
r een_000918_h.jpg
http://i.abcnews.com/media/OnAir/images/ho_alba_g
but in the face of continued Microsoft world
domination of the OS and related markets -- it
seems to me still: "too little, too late"
typically I don't deal with thousands of small files at once.
I wonder how much better it does it do on the 650 MB video files I push around.
I want to hear about the shocker. Get Ben to write us all the details.
if what they MEANT by extra-terrestrial was it originated from some other place than earth, it would be simple to test. Simply start sequencing some of the more common genes found in terrestrial bacteria. It would positively identity the strain if it were terrestrial, and if it were extra-terrestrial... well I assume we would observe something (eg differences, no common genes, completely different metabolism) never-before-seen.
/. for posting such a WEAK excuse for science.
Shame on