Anybody who rents/buys an ATM to install in their store deserves exactly what they get if they don't change the default password. Are these people really that clueless to think an ATM would be secure if the password is printed in the users manual?
When the virus installed by the Republican Party to steal votes for their candidate interferes with the virus installed by the Democratic party to steal votes for their party and the viruses installed by all the other parties to steal votes for their respective candidates? The election ends up being determined by the party that has the best virus writers on their staff? Or does W simply void the results and stay in office after all the Diebold machines start belching smoke?
Maybe I'm being paranoid here but this seems like the sort of thing that could easily be exploited in a really nasty way. A group of well funded [fill in your favorite conspiracy theory related group of individuals here]* could theoretically get people into key places around the country where these machines are in use then infect them with a virus that siphons the vast majority of votes to a candidate that has no choice at all of winning (Ralph Nader or something like that). Imagine the exit polls on CNN, etc. showing a close race between the Democratic & Republican candidates and then the Green Party actually winning by a landslide. Something like this would cause such an increase of mistrust of the government that election results for an entire generation would be questioned. It wouldn't be terrorism in the classical sense, but it would generate a huge groundwell of mistrust that could damage the federal government for a long time to come.
* <tinfoil_hat=on>Of course the unnamed group could even be a major political party</tinfoil_hat>
How long until terrorists start using such devices as detonators for bombs? Wait until a large number of bluetooth devices are in range, or have passed within range in a short period of time, then *BOOM*!
FTFA: "It can uniquely identify devices but keeps the person anonymous."
Sorry, but with all the identity theft, credit card skimming, government intrusion into privacy, etc. I find it hard to believe that such a system will provide "assured" anonymity for very long.
I think you are wrong about transfering the service.
Any TiVo that has a lifetime subscription purchased on or before January 21,2000 is eligible for a one-time transfer to a new TiVo, including the S3. Check out the post here on the TiVo forum by a TiVo employee.
Doubtful, unless some hardware manufacturer builds a CC-equipped tuner that can be plugged directly into a PC. Unfortunately there probably isn't a whole lot of demand for that, at least not currently, so the chances of seeing one any time soon are probably pretty slim...
That's the only reason I'll consider buying one of the new HD TiVo's (aka Series 3) that should be released soon. Rumor has it that TiVo will be announcing it as early as tomorrow. The downside is that it'll be expensive, at least initially. The upside is that it comes with 2 HD tuners and also support for external storage. On top of that I have a really old Series 1 with lifetime support that I'll be able to transfer to the S3 so no monthly service fees for me.
Yes, but does the transaction occur where the person is, or where the webservers are?
Both. Just because an activity on one end of a phone line, data connection, etc. is legal doesn't necessarially make it legal on the other end of that same connection.
A store in California isn't required to abide by Utah laws just because people from Utah may shop there while on vacation. It isn't even required to ask where people are from before selling to them.
You're trying to confuse the issue again. Your example places the entire transaction in the state of California. If the store in California is selling something that's illegal in Utah and that person calls up from Utah and asks for the item to be shipped there then it's not going to happen. The Californa store will know they can't ship to Utah. The transaction is taking place simultaneously between points in both Utah and California. Here's a specific example: I live in Massachusetts, where personal fireworks are illegal (and the state cops have field days around July 4th busting people who drive up to NH to buy them legally then bring them back here - but that's another story). If I try to call up companies in places like South Carolina where fireworks are legal and have them ship them here then they'll refuse, because they know it's illegal here. Now if I go down to SC and buy fireworks then bring them back myself that's a whole different situation. In the first case the fireworks company can be held responsible for violating the law. In the second case I'm the one who is solely responsible. If the company in SC blatantly continues to sell fireworks to people in MA then MA has every right to prosecute that company. They may not be able to actually do anything unless/until the owner of that company decides to drive through MA on his way to a vacation up in Maine, but if they are able to pick him up then they can throw the book at him. That's exactly what's going on in this case.
Your example is akin to a gambler in the US flying to Costa Rica to place a bet. It's perfectly legal for them to do so. What's not legal is for somebody in the US to make use of wire communication services (telephones, internet, etc) to place a bet in another state or country. The key is that one end of the gambling transaction takes place in one state/country and the other takes place in the other state/country.
I'll try to explain it again. When somebody in the US gambles on this website then a transaction occurs simultaneously between that person in the US and wherever the webservers are located. It's just as if somebody in the US called or mailed a company in another country to place an order with that company. Just because this is being done over the internet doesn't make it magically occur only in the physical location of the webserver. By your argument something like pedophile websites could be run in countries where that sort of thing is legal and the sick bastards who are into that sort of thing could view it from anywhere, whether it's legal where they live or not.
And when did enforcing US laws about what US citizens can and can't do become the job of a British citizen in Britain?
ANY business that sells products or services globally must abide by the laws of the countries where their customers are. Just because something is legal in their home country doesn't mean they can sell that product/service in countries where it's illegal. A country where selling products like guns or fireworks by the mail is legal can't legally sell and mail them to people countries where it's illegal. If they do then they face prosecution if they ever go to that country. Similarly, a person in a country where ponzi schemes may be legal can't offer investment services to people in the US where ponzi schemes are illegal. Again, if they do and set foot in the US then they can face prosecution. The same goes for offering gambling services over wire (communication devices). Since it's illegal in the US to place bets electronically when those bets cross state lines (which is what this asinine law prohibits) then ANY individual who offers that service to people within the US faces prosecution by US authorities when they are within the borders of the US. You seem to think that just because the web servers are located outside the US that all the betting magically takes place outside the US. That's not the case. It's a transaction just like any other that could be done by phone, mail, or even smoke signals. The transaction takes place at two locations, and one of those is in a country where such transactions are illegal.
I'm not sure if they broke any british laws either.
It doesn't matter where the servers are located or where this guy lives. The website was profiting from activities that are illegal in the US. By setting foot in the US he came within the jurisdiction of US authorities.
Personally I think the law is stupid, especially since it's interpreted differently from state to state. Each state Attorney General has final say on issues regarding casinos, race tracks, etc. within their state. The company I worked for designed on-line games for casinos in the US that the felt didn't violate these laws. Their lawyers believed it was legal, the casinos lawyers thought it was legal, independant lawyers thought it was legal. They then tried to partner with a casino in one state and the state AG shut it down. They went to a different casino in another state and that state AG said it all looked legal to him. Rediculous.
If all transactions have been done in region where it is legal, there should be no prosecution.
These transactions are occuring simultaneously in the US and Costra Rica over communications lines. That's exactly what the (asinine) US law prohibits. Hence the transaction is illegal within the US, which means this guy violated US law and is subject to arrest for violation of those laws.
So, everyone should expect to be arrested while traveling to any country, where they have possibly violated some local law in any other place that it has been legal. Smoking hash is illegal in US, like in my country, but should I be arrested just because I have passed a joint in a coffeeshop in Amsterdam.
You, like many others, are relying on a non sequitur in your argument. The key to this particular case is that a transaction took place simultaneously in two different countries, between the website and the end user. One of those countries has laws that makes such a transaction illegal. Therefore the company who runs the website is responsible for violating US law. A more apropos argument along your own lines would be if you called somebody in Amsterdam and had them mail you hash. Not illegal there, but illegal in the US and many other countries. That person could face drug charges if he then entered one of those countries where he had previously shipped the drugs.
working for gambling industry would propably be illegal in most states.
What an asinine statement. Gambling of various sorts is legal just about everywhere in the US. Virtually every state runs their on lottery and there are also a number of multi-state lotteries. Something like 47 states have race tracks, casinos, or both. You're claiming that all those people involved in all those industries are doing so illegally? I suggest you do a little research next time you feel like opening your mouth.
Like you said, you should expect to be arrested in US, if you have done something wrong in any other country.
I suggest you learn how to comprehend what you read. That's not at all what I said. If you do something that extends into another country that violates their laws, whether internet activity, mail fraud, phone harassment, or simply standing at the border and throwing rocks at the citizens of that other country, then if/when you set foot in that country you are subject to arrest for violating those laws.
If the Brits sold cocaine in Britain to US citizens who were visiting Britain at the time, and the US citizens then took it back to the US, exactly what laws that the Brits are subject to did they break?
You're changing things around. This guy is selling a service in the US from the UK. It's like selling illegal drugs through the mail to people in the US. Your re-interpreting it as if people here in the US were going over to the UK to log into this website. Two totally different cases.
British people. British companies. Americans charging them with crimes as soon as they set foot on US soil.
What a load of bullshit.
So if cocaine was legal in the UK and they sold it to people in the US then the feds shouldn't go after them? (Replace cocaine with any product or service that fits) Just because something is legal in one country doesn't mean one can't face prosecution in another country where it's illegal if that product/service is offered in the other country.
I worked briefly for a company that ran a gambling website in the UK in conjunction with Harrahs casino. On-line gaming is apparently huge in the UK. In order to legally operate the site there were all sorts of checks to verify that a user was based in the UK. It included not only identifying the physical location of an IP address but validating the address of a credit card and other steps. Apparently all legitimite gambling sites in the UK are required to take these sort of steps if you don't want to run afoul of UK gaming laws. If this was a legit UK gaming website then they would have these same checks in place that would prevent people in the US from using it. It's his own fault for violating US laws (that happen to be well known in the gambling community) and thinking that he could travel here without getting arrested.
Yeah, well somebody will have to make sure the Ape Army finds the hidden world of the Omega bomb worshipers and detonates the bomb. If humans can't control the planet then damned dirty apes sure can't be allowed to.
Diebold should take a lesson from the casino industry. All the modern-day slot machines, video poker machines, etc. that you see in casinos undergo rigorous certifcation testing by the state gaming commissions. First of all, these games would never have the ability to boot from flash, secondary eprom, etc. like the voting machines can. Beyond that, they will lock themselves out if they detect any sort of tampering, from bad checksums when booting up to the device being physically opened. The only way to make the games operational again is to have somebody from the gaming commission come in and physically reset it using a private key of some sort. Sad that the money you throw away at casinos is considered more important than your vote....
Eeeew, hand scanner! One of my colos had those installed. I asked them nicely, and they gave me a proximity card instead.
This datacenter uses a combination of both hand scanners and proximity cards. At the security booth you swipe the card next to the hand scanner then scan your hand. There's also a mantrap at the entrance to the datacenter floor. You swipe the card to open the outer door, then once you're inside and the door closes you swipe again and scan your hand. Then the inner door lets you onto the datacenter floor.
The datacenter that I spend a lot of time in for work uses these biometric hand scanners. I've been told that they measure the bone density of various bones within the hand. If that is how they work then I'd think it'd be a pretty tough thing to fake. Anybody know if that is how they actually work? How reliable they really are?
Since when does the SEC launch "informal" investigations, and more importantly, since when does the SEC acknowledge that they're investigating any company? The SEC is a bit like the Spanish Inquisition (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!), in that you don't know they're investigating you until they come knocking on your door with subpoenas and start carting aways boxes full of corporate financial documents.
If MS goes through with this, how many foriegn governments (and even major corporations, etc) are going to use this as a reason to completely migrate away from MS products? Government X can see this as a weapon the US government could use. If relationships between the US and GovX turn sour then this could potentially be used to cripple all GovX Windows computers. The US just tells Microsoft to disable all WinXP boxes in the IP netblocks of GovX. Hell, it could be used just to send a "warning message" to politicians of other countries... MS just says "Whoops, we accidentially disabled systems in Kreplanistan for 24 hours due to a software glitch in WGA" and the US government protects them.
Not sure if it was mentioned, but I'm pretty sure that when one calls AOL or almost any customer support number there is a recording saying "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" or something to that effect. Basically, that's grounds for either side to record the call.
I think you're right. To satisfy most legal requirements both sides must be aware that the call could be recorded. That message satisfies the legal requirement. You're both aware the call may be recorded, so you're well within your rights to record it.
I think recording varies from state to state. Some allow you to do it if only one side of the call approves, so if you're in one of those states then you obviously don't need to tell them. Of course you could just do what most of these call centers do and simply tell the drone who eventually answers that you may record the call for quality purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't that be FOL then?
Anybody who rents/buys an ATM to install in their store deserves exactly what they get if they don't change the default password. Are these people really that clueless to think an ATM would be secure if the password is printed in the users manual?
When the virus installed by the Republican Party to steal votes for their candidate interferes with the virus installed by the Democratic party to steal votes for their party and the viruses installed by all the other parties to steal votes for their respective candidates? The election ends up being determined by the party that has the best virus writers on their staff? Or does W simply void the results and stay in office after all the Diebold machines start belching smoke?
Maybe I'm being paranoid here but this seems like the sort of thing that could easily be exploited in a really nasty way. A group of well funded [fill in your favorite conspiracy theory related group of individuals here]* could theoretically get people into key places around the country where these machines are in use then infect them with a virus that siphons the vast majority of votes to a candidate that has no choice at all of winning (Ralph Nader or something like that). Imagine the exit polls on CNN, etc. showing a close race between the Democratic & Republican candidates and then the Green Party actually winning by a landslide. Something like this would cause such an increase of mistrust of the government that election results for an entire generation would be questioned. It wouldn't be terrorism in the classical sense, but it would generate a huge groundwell of mistrust that could damage the federal government for a long time to come.
* <tinfoil_hat=on>Of course the unnamed group could even be a major political party</tinfoil_hat>
How long until terrorists start using such devices as detonators for bombs? Wait until a large number of bluetooth devices are in range, or have passed within range in a short period of time, then *BOOM*!
FTFA: "It can uniquely identify devices but keeps the person anonymous."
Sorry, but with all the identity theft, credit card skimming, government intrusion into privacy, etc. I find it hard to believe that such a system will provide "assured" anonymity for very long.
I think you are wrong about transfering the service.
Any TiVo that has a lifetime subscription purchased on or before January 21,2000 is eligible for a one-time transfer to a new TiVo, including the S3. Check out the post here on the TiVo forum by a TiVo employee.
Will Myth ever support Cablecard?
Doubtful, unless some hardware manufacturer builds a CC-equipped tuner that can be plugged directly into a PC. Unfortunately there probably isn't a whole lot of demand for that, at least not currently, so the chances of seeing one any time soon are probably pretty slim...
That's the only reason I'll consider buying one of the new HD TiVo's (aka Series 3) that should be released soon. Rumor has it that TiVo will be announcing it as early as tomorrow. The downside is that it'll be expensive, at least initially. The upside is that it comes with 2 HD tuners and also support for external storage. On top of that I have a really old Series 1 with lifetime support that I'll be able to transfer to the S3 so no monthly service fees for me.
Yes, but does the transaction occur where the person is, or where the webservers are?
Both. Just because an activity on one end of a phone line, data connection, etc. is legal doesn't necessarially make it legal on the other end of that same connection.
A store in California isn't required to abide by Utah laws just because people from Utah may shop there while on vacation. It isn't even required to ask where people are from before selling to them.
You're trying to confuse the issue again. Your example places the entire transaction in the state of California. If the store in California is selling something that's illegal in Utah and that person calls up from Utah and asks for the item to be shipped there then it's not going to happen. The Californa store will know they can't ship to Utah. The transaction is taking place simultaneously between points in both Utah and California. Here's a specific example: I live in Massachusetts, where personal fireworks are illegal (and the state cops have field days around July 4th busting people who drive up to NH to buy them legally then bring them back here - but that's another story). If I try to call up companies in places like South Carolina where fireworks are legal and have them ship them here then they'll refuse, because they know it's illegal here. Now if I go down to SC and buy fireworks then bring them back myself that's a whole different situation. In the first case the fireworks company can be held responsible for violating the law. In the second case I'm the one who is solely responsible. If the company in SC blatantly continues to sell fireworks to people in MA then MA has every right to prosecute that company. They may not be able to actually do anything unless/until the owner of that company decides to drive through MA on his way to a vacation up in Maine, but if they are able to pick him up then they can throw the book at him. That's exactly what's going on in this case.
Your example is akin to a gambler in the US flying to Costa Rica to place a bet. It's perfectly legal for them to do so. What's not legal is for somebody in the US to make use of wire communication services (telephones, internet, etc) to place a bet in another state or country. The key is that one end of the gambling transaction takes place in one state/country and the other takes place in the other state/country.
How is he selling it in the US?
I'll try to explain it again. When somebody in the US gambles on this website then a transaction occurs simultaneously between that person in the US and wherever the webservers are located. It's just as if somebody in the US called or mailed a company in another country to place an order with that company. Just because this is being done over the internet doesn't make it magically occur only in the physical location of the webserver. By your argument something like pedophile websites could be run in countries where that sort of thing is legal and the sick bastards who are into that sort of thing could view it from anywhere, whether it's legal where they live or not.
And when did enforcing US laws about what US citizens can and can't do become the job of a British citizen in Britain?
ANY business that sells products or services globally must abide by the laws of the countries where their customers are. Just because something is legal in their home country doesn't mean they can sell that product/service in countries where it's illegal. A country where selling products like guns or fireworks by the mail is legal can't legally sell and mail them to people countries where it's illegal. If they do then they face prosecution if they ever go to that country. Similarly, a person in a country where ponzi schemes may be legal can't offer investment services to people in the US where ponzi schemes are illegal. Again, if they do and set foot in the US then they can face prosecution. The same goes for offering gambling services over wire (communication devices). Since it's illegal in the US to place bets electronically when those bets cross state lines (which is what this asinine law prohibits) then ANY individual who offers that service to people within the US faces prosecution by US authorities when they are within the borders of the US. You seem to think that just because the web servers are located outside the US that all the betting magically takes place outside the US. That's not the case. It's a transaction just like any other that could be done by phone, mail, or even smoke signals. The transaction takes place at two locations, and one of those is in a country where such transactions are illegal.
I'm not sure if they broke any british laws either.
It doesn't matter where the servers are located or where this guy lives. The website was profiting from activities that are illegal in the US. By setting foot in the US he came within the jurisdiction of US authorities.
Personally I think the law is stupid, especially since it's interpreted differently from state to state. Each state Attorney General has final say on issues regarding casinos, race tracks, etc. within their state. The company I worked for designed on-line games for casinos in the US that the felt didn't violate these laws. Their lawyers believed it was legal, the casinos lawyers thought it was legal, independant lawyers thought it was legal. They then tried to partner with a casino in one state and the state AG shut it down. They went to a different casino in another state and that state AG said it all looked legal to him. Rediculous.
If all transactions have been done in region where it is legal, there should be no prosecution.
These transactions are occuring simultaneously in the US and Costra Rica over communications lines. That's exactly what the (asinine) US law prohibits. Hence the transaction is illegal within the US, which means this guy violated US law and is subject to arrest for violation of those laws.
So, everyone should expect to be arrested while traveling to any country, where they have possibly violated some local law in any other place that it has been legal. Smoking hash is illegal in US, like in my country, but should I be arrested just because I have passed a joint in a coffeeshop in Amsterdam.
You, like many others, are relying on a non sequitur in your argument. The key to this particular case is that a transaction took place simultaneously in two different countries, between the website and the end user. One of those countries has laws that makes such a transaction illegal. Therefore the company who runs the website is responsible for violating US law. A more apropos argument along your own lines would be if you called somebody in Amsterdam and had them mail you hash. Not illegal there, but illegal in the US and many other countries. That person could face drug charges if he then entered one of those countries where he had previously shipped the drugs.
working for gambling industry would propably be illegal in most states.
What an asinine statement. Gambling of various sorts is legal just about everywhere in the US. Virtually every state runs their on lottery and there are also a number of multi-state lotteries. Something like 47 states have race tracks, casinos, or both. You're claiming that all those people involved in all those industries are doing so illegally? I suggest you do a little research next time you feel like opening your mouth.
Like you said, you should expect to be arrested in US, if you have done something wrong in any other country.
I suggest you learn how to comprehend what you read. That's not at all what I said. If you do something that extends into another country that violates their laws, whether internet activity, mail fraud, phone harassment, or simply standing at the border and throwing rocks at the citizens of that other country, then if/when you set foot in that country you are subject to arrest for violating those laws.
If the Brits sold cocaine in Britain to US citizens who were visiting Britain at the time, and the US citizens then took it back to the US, exactly what laws that the Brits are subject to did they break?
You're changing things around. This guy is selling a service in the US from the UK. It's like selling illegal drugs through the mail to people in the US. Your re-interpreting it as if people here in the US were going over to the UK to log into this website. Two totally different cases.
British people. British companies. Americans charging them with crimes as soon as they set foot on US soil.
What a load of bullshit.
So if cocaine was legal in the UK and they sold it to people in the US then the feds shouldn't go after them? (Replace cocaine with any product or service that fits) Just because something is legal in one country doesn't mean one can't face prosecution in another country where it's illegal if that product/service is offered in the other country.
I worked briefly for a company that ran a gambling website in the UK in conjunction with Harrahs casino. On-line gaming is apparently huge in the UK. In order to legally operate the site there were all sorts of checks to verify that a user was based in the UK. It included not only identifying the physical location of an IP address but validating the address of a credit card and other steps. Apparently all legitimite gambling sites in the UK are required to take these sort of steps if you don't want to run afoul of UK gaming laws. If this was a legit UK gaming website then they would have these same checks in place that would prevent people in the US from using it. It's his own fault for violating US laws (that happen to be well known in the gambling community) and thinking that he could travel here without getting arrested.
Yeah, well somebody will have to make sure the Ape Army finds the hidden world of the Omega bomb worshipers and detonates the bomb. If humans can't control the planet then damned dirty apes sure can't be allowed to.
...then I'm leaving the planet. This was all predicted in the original Planet of the Apes movies...
Diebold should take a lesson from the casino industry. All the modern-day slot machines, video poker machines, etc. that you see in casinos undergo rigorous certifcation testing by the state gaming commissions. First of all, these games would never have the ability to boot from flash, secondary eprom, etc. like the voting machines can. Beyond that, they will lock themselves out if they detect any sort of tampering, from bad checksums when booting up to the device being physically opened. The only way to make the games operational again is to have somebody from the gaming commission come in and physically reset it using a private key of some sort. Sad that the money you throw away at casinos is considered more important than your vote....
Eeeew, hand scanner! One of my colos had those installed. I asked them nicely, and they gave me a proximity card instead.
This datacenter uses a combination of both hand scanners and proximity cards. At the security booth you swipe the card next to the hand scanner then scan your hand. There's also a mantrap at the entrance to the datacenter floor. You swipe the card to open the outer door, then once you're inside and the door closes you swipe again and scan your hand. Then the inner door lets you onto the datacenter floor.
The datacenter that I spend a lot of time in for work uses these biometric hand scanners. I've been told that they measure the bone density of various bones within the hand. If that is how they work then I'd think it'd be a pretty tough thing to fake. Anybody know if that is how they actually work? How reliable they really are?
Since when does the SEC launch "informal" investigations, and more importantly, since when does the SEC acknowledge that they're investigating any company? The SEC is a bit like the Spanish Inquisition (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!), in that you don't know they're investigating you until they come knocking on your door with subpoenas and start carting aways boxes full of corporate financial documents.
Not a bad deal. I'm sure Google will end up paying him for the 1 year vacation.
If MS goes through with this, how many foriegn governments (and even major corporations, etc) are going to use this as a reason to completely migrate away from MS products? Government X can see this as a weapon the US government could use. If relationships between the US and GovX turn sour then this could potentially be used to cripple all GovX Windows computers. The US just tells Microsoft to disable all WinXP boxes in the IP netblocks of GovX. Hell, it could be used just to send a "warning message" to politicians of other countries... MS just says "Whoops, we accidentially disabled systems in Kreplanistan for 24 hours due to a software glitch in WGA" and the US government protects them.
Not sure if it was mentioned, but I'm pretty sure that when one calls AOL or almost any customer support number there is a recording saying "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" or something to that effect. Basically, that's grounds for either side to record the call.
I think you're right. To satisfy most legal requirements both sides must be aware that the call could be recorded. That message satisfies the legal requirement. You're both aware the call may be recorded, so you're well within your rights to record it.
I think recording varies from state to state. Some allow you to do it if only one side of the call approves, so if you're in one of those states then you obviously don't need to tell them. Of course you could just do what most of these call centers do and simply tell the drone who eventually answers that you may record the call for quality purposes.
Hang up.
Call your credit card company.
Tell the credit card company to no longer accept charges from AOL because they refuse to cancel your account.
If you really want to play it safe then write a letter to your credit card company after the call that reiterates the request and the reason for it.