It's the cookies. Any genuine name/email address info they get is just a bonus
Why should they be bothered that a small percentage of surfers circumvent their [lame] access requirements? As long as the bulk of visitors are signing in and accepting cookies (NYT's own and 3rd parties') then they'll be quite happy. After all, as even/. claims, cookies are not voodoo or mind control. Riiiight. Can someone justify this latter statement or NYT's policy, with special reference to the difference between permanent and session cookies? Thankfully, Junkbuster is your friend and can be configured to send a cookie to a specific site without accepting one in return. My/. cookie must be getting a bit mouldy by now...
I guess the governing bodies of chess don't have the same sway with the IOC as the NHL or the NBA. For some *cough* reason, competitors in these events don't get tested for drugs. Of course, these players don't use drugs, they're *professionals*, right?
Sorry, but domain names are most definitely not property. There have already been court decisions affirming this, and you may recall that Network Solutions rewrote their contract terms a few months back to make this explicitly clear.
"most people don't mind, as it doesn't hurt anyone"
Utter nonsense. Most people don't know what's happening to their personal information. Lack of complaints indicates ignorance, not agreement.
And there's little point whining that your business is impacted by someone's "arbitrary decision". If an arbitray decision can put you out of business, then I would say that your business model wasn't very sound in the first place, was it?
I fully support the idea of a Privacy Bill of Rights and would agree that P3P could be a distraction from the real issues, but your comment
"...the widespread adoption and implementation will make it impossible to constrain the access of foreign web sites to the personal information of U.S. citizens"
is way off the mark. Most other countries (and all "first world" ones), have much more effective controls in place over privacy than the US (which has almost none). When did you last see a US website privacy policy that covered all the OECD principles (there are actually eight of them - have you ever seen a privacy policy address more than four?). Witness the (still ongoing) furore between the EU and the US over the safe harbour agreement. If there's an enemy here, it's not the foreigners but US corporations.
I'm not confused about either of those words, and chose the one I did deliberately. You seem to be confusing typing on a keyboard with making a reasoned statement. I can't debate against gibberish. You must be one of the trolls I've been told not to feed. Bye.
How very true. Dubya could even use his new yardstick of "causing harm to the US economy" (cf Kyoto, EU-US safe harbor et al) to sell the apology to the US people
Could it be that the reactionaries who despise their own government, who want it out of their lives, who demand the right to bear arms specifically to fight their government, could it really be those same people who now cheer on their government's espionage and imperialism, and support, demand even, that same government's interference in the affairs of other nation states? Surely not. Why, that would be hypocrisy of the first order.
...a script/program that performed this substitution would be great. If written objectively that is... Just run the privacy policy through the script/program and voila! Readable policy.
This is exactly what the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) is : a way to state privacy policy in XML. It's great in the sense that we won't have to wade through legalese gibberish, but many are worried that there will be a push to automate entirely the verification of a privacy policy (and myself, I'd rather not have MS software making my privacy decisions for me). That's what the poster above was referring to when mentioning the new icon in IE6, which apprently will have native P3P support.
Of course, a privacy policy, whether machine or lawyer readable, doesn't actually prove that a company behaves as stated. This is true also for the likes of TRUSTe - just because a site has the logo doesn't tell you jack about what that site's practices really are, it merely tells you they were prepared to stump up the five grand for the logo. And what happens when a site is found to be in breach of it's own policy, as rubber-stamped by TRUSTe? Nothing. As far as I am aware, TRUSTe have never revoked a site's membership, despite several incidents where companies were found out.
I don't see seal schemes or P3P solving the underlying problems. I'd like to see privacy policies become more like true contracts, with the full force of the law on your side when there's a breach. Course, that's not likely to happen anytime soon in the US, given the current administration's reluctance to take steps which would "impact the US economy". You could have used that same argument to lobby against the abolition of slavery, but I think I'm getting off topic now....
This looks like a proof of concept at the moment, rather than an attempt to make real money. If even 1 million subscribers cough up for each of the three years, that's still only $30 million. Remind me what the average player's salary is? Cynics may say that it's priced so cheap (and $10/annum *is* cheap) because they already know the service will be crap and punters won't fork over big bucks for crappy audio and the promise of some video highlights. I prefer to believe that there is a desire to build up an audience for this service over three years, by which time the tech will enable it to be an even more comprehensive service. Then you can expect to pay $10 / week.
I also found this intriguing:
In addition, RealNetworks and MLBAM plan to offer subscribers the ability to search for and create customizable video highlights of daily game coverage--providing a flexible way for baseball fans and fantasy-league enthusiasts to compile and review footage of their favorite teams and players on a daily basis. By providing archival access to every pitch from every game, this personalized video service will let individual subscribers choose the exact game highlights they want to watch.
Is this a tacit recognition of traditional "fair use" rights? Will MLBAM chase down fan/fantasy websites that use excerpts from the paid-for service?
Am I the only one thinking that SOMEBODY -- be it the PGP people, the Free Software Foundation, or Microsoft for that matter -- should figure out a TRULY easy, TRULY fast, TRULY seamless means for the common email user to encrypt a message?
Yup, it's been done. The standard is SMIME v3 amd it uses digital certificates for encryption and authentication. Microsoft's IE (4 and up) has support for certs, so does Netscape 4.x (not sure about NS v6 tho'; the "final preview" I looked at last year had all the crypto removed). To encrypt an email is a click of the menu bar button. Ditto to sign an email. When you receive a signed/encrypted email, Outlook (or Outlook Express, or Netscape Messenger) displays an icon to denote the fact. Couldn't be simpler. Why isn't it more widely used? Well, you need to have a certificate. You can pay for one from Verisign (probly not a popular choice for/.ers). You can get a free one for email only (certs can be used for other types of authenticaton, eg web site access) from Thawte, but they require all sorts of personal info from you, including SSN, IIRC (probly even less popular choice for/.ers). However, if you're willing to add a new root certificate to your browser (which is easy) you can make and use your own certificates. I use certs for email security and also for securing acces to certain web-based admin pages. Secure and convenient. Luvvly.
If you're interested in using certs, you can do most everything you need with OpenSSL.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the cookies. Any genuine name/email address info they get is just a bonus
Why should they be bothered that a small percentage of surfers circumvent their [lame] access requirements? As long as the bulk of visitors are signing in and accepting cookies (NYT's own and 3rd parties') then they'll be quite happy. After all, as even /. claims, cookies are not voodoo or mind control. Riiiight. Can someone justify this latter statement or NYT's policy, with special reference to the difference between permanent and session cookies? Thankfully, Junkbuster is your friend and can be configured to send a cookie to a specific site without accepting one in return. My /. cookie must be getting a bit mouldy by now...
I guess the governing bodies of chess don't have the same sway with the IOC as the NHL or the NBA. For some *cough* reason, competitors in these events don't get tested for drugs. Of course, these players don't use drugs, they're *professionals*, right?
Sorry, but domain names are most definitely not property. There have already been court decisions affirming this, and you may recall that Network Solutions rewrote their contract terms a few months back to make this explicitly clear.
"most people don't mind, as it doesn't hurt anyone"
Utter nonsense. Most people don't know what's happening to their personal information. Lack of complaints indicates ignorance, not agreement.
And there's little point whining that your business is impacted by someone's "arbitrary decision". If an arbitray decision can put you out of business, then I would say that your business model wasn't very sound in the first place, was it?
I fully support the idea of a Privacy Bill of Rights and would agree that P3P could be a distraction from the real issues, but your comment
"...the widespread adoption and implementation will make it impossible to constrain the access of foreign web sites to the personal information of U.S. citizens"
is way off the mark. Most other countries (and all "first world" ones), have much more effective controls in place over privacy than the US (which has almost none). When did you last see a US website privacy policy that covered all the OECD principles (there are actually eight of them - have you ever seen a privacy policy address more than four?). Witness the (still ongoing) furore between the EU and the US over the safe harbour agreement. If there's an enemy here, it's not the foreigners but US corporations.
America is great because you have the opppurtunity [sic] to become rich through hard work
This point is often made, but it is untrue and should not be left unchallenged.
Hard work alone doesn't make an individual rich. If that were true, how come the descendents of slaves aren't running the US?
I'm not confused about either of those words, and chose the one I did deliberately. You seem to be confusing typing on a keyboard with making a reasoned statement. I can't debate against gibberish. You must be one of the trolls I've been told not to feed. Bye.
How very true. Dubya could even use his new yardstick of "causing harm to the US economy" (cf Kyoto, EU-US safe harbor et al) to sell the apology to the US people
Is there any point in trying to use rational argument with you?
Could it be that the reactionaries who despise their own government, who want it out of their lives, who demand the right to bear arms specifically to fight their government, could it really be those same people who now cheer on their government's espionage and imperialism, and support, demand even, that same government's interference in the affairs of other nation states? Surely not. Why, that would be hypocrisy of the first order.
This is exactly what the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) is : a way to state privacy policy in XML. It's great in the sense that we won't have to wade through legalese gibberish, but many are worried that there will be a push to automate entirely the verification of a privacy policy (and myself, I'd rather not have MS software making my privacy decisions for me). That's what the poster above was referring to when mentioning the new icon in IE6, which apprently will have native P3P support.
Of course, a privacy policy, whether machine or lawyer readable, doesn't actually prove that a company behaves as stated. This is true also for the likes of TRUSTe - just because a site has the logo doesn't tell you jack about what that site's practices really are, it merely tells you they were prepared to stump up the five grand for the logo. And what happens when a site is found to be in breach of it's own policy, as rubber-stamped by TRUSTe? Nothing. As far as I am aware, TRUSTe have never revoked a site's membership, despite several incidents where companies were found out.
I don't see seal schemes or P3P solving the underlying problems. I'd like to see privacy policies become more like true contracts, with the full force of the law on your side when there's a breach. Course, that's not likely to happen anytime soon in the US, given the current administration's reluctance to take steps which would "impact the US economy". You could have used that same argument to lobby against the abolition of slavery, but I think I'm getting off topic now....
This looks like a proof of concept at the moment, rather than an attempt to make real money. If even 1 million subscribers cough up for each of the three years, that's still only $30 million. Remind me what the average player's salary is? Cynics may say that it's priced so cheap (and $10/annum *is* cheap) because they already know the service will be crap and punters won't fork over big bucks for crappy audio and the promise of some video highlights. I prefer to believe that there is a desire to build up an audience for this service over three years, by which time the tech will enable it to be an even more comprehensive service. Then you can expect to pay $10 / week.
I also found this intriguing:
In addition, RealNetworks and MLBAM plan to offer subscribers the ability to search for and create customizable video highlights of daily game coverage--providing a flexible way for baseball fans and fantasy-league enthusiasts to compile and review footage of their favorite teams and players on a daily basis. By providing archival access to every pitch from every game, this personalized video service will let individual subscribers choose the exact game highlights they want to watch.
Is this a tacit recognition of traditional "fair use" rights? Will MLBAM chase down fan/fantasy websites that use excerpts from the paid-for service?
MS have a breach, source code perhaps involved
Class 3 Certificates issued to bogus MS
Big DoS & DNS chaos
Agent revealed & 51 sent back to Russia
Who knows what damage done?
Am I the only one thinking that SOMEBODY -- be it the PGP people, the Free Software Foundation, or Microsoft for that matter -- should figure out a TRULY easy, TRULY fast, TRULY seamless means for the common email user to encrypt a message?
Yup, it's been done. The standard is SMIME v3 amd it uses digital certificates for encryption and authentication. Microsoft's IE (4 and up) has support for certs, so does Netscape 4.x (not sure about NS v6 tho'; the "final preview" I looked at last year had all the crypto removed). To encrypt an email is a click of the menu bar button. Ditto to sign an email. When you receive a signed/encrypted email, Outlook (or Outlook Express, or Netscape Messenger) displays an icon to denote the fact. Couldn't be simpler. Why isn't it more widely used? Well, you need to have a certificate. You can pay for one from Verisign (probly not a popular choice for /.ers). You can get a free one for email only (certs can be used for other types of authenticaton, eg web site access) from Thawte, but they require all sorts of personal info from you, including SSN, IIRC (probly even less popular choice for /.ers). However, if you're willing to add a new root certificate to your browser (which is easy) you can make and use your own certificates. I use certs for email security and also for securing acces to certain web-based admin pages. Secure and convenient. Luvvly.
If you're interested in using certs, you can do most everything you need with OpenSSL.
...for scp between Win and nix servers, I use WinSCP.