I'm happy to report that the recalcitrant crook has been sent back to prison
. I confess I particularly enjoyed the reports of the fragrant Barbara fainting in the court room. That Connie submitted his letters of reference written by fellow inmates was also a delightfully humbling detail.
It's the same thing that happened to that other guy who made the discovery of 'Watson's Double Helix of DNA'
I dunno, the pair of names "Watson and Crick" are often associated with the double helix; the real scandal is the lack of credit given to Rosalind Franklin.
It is your analogy that is ludicrous and you continue to cling to it as though it has some relevance. It has none. It is up to Google to follow the law. The law governs the collection, use, retention and disclosure of personal information - just because the data can be readily captured doesn't then make it "fair game" for whatever a third party wants to do with it. I readily concede that "fair game" is precisely the situation in the US - personal infomation is an asset that can be bought and sold like any other - but you should recognise that the rest of the civilised world does not share this lackadaisical approach. It always puzzled me that in the land of the free, there is barely any protection for individuals' privacy.
Nice little discussion you're having, but all your analogies miss the point completely. I don't know how you got on this "plain view" furrow, but it has no relevance. The simple fact is that personal information - recorded information that uniquely identifies an individual - has special status. It's special. The law says so. The legislation governs, among other things, how such data is collected and how it is used. Whether or not it is in "plain view" is neither here nor there. Google completely ignored the law regarding collection of data.
I understand how all this legislated information privacy is terra incognita for you, but these are not my opinions, they are those of the Canadian Privacy commissioner. You should check out her website.
You have your view of the law and the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has hers - I know which one I believe is the more sound. The mere fact that you write of "suing" in your inappropriate analogy shows how little you understand of how the legislation works.
Neither Canada nor the EU are responsible for the ridiculous situation where the US alone among industrialised nations lacks proper privacy legislation. Being ignorant of these matters is no excuse, for either you or google.
Actually, where I live, the collection of personal information is regulated by law, and Google is/was in flagrant violation of that law. It doesn't matter that the data was available in the clear, over the air : personal data is protected by law, and hand-waving excuses about technical errors or artifacts of collection process are irrelevant.
I realise that the US has no proper privacy laws, but many other places (and all other industrialised nations) do have such legislation. Google simply ignored those laws, which is why they were called to task by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner and EU data regulators.
If i do a lookup on www.slashdot.org then this query should newer hit any dns server controlled by Google.
The very first sentence of TA "...a group of DNS and content providers, including Neustar/UltraDNS and Google are publishing a proposal..." It's a way for providers of content and providers of DNS service to collude.
only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted...could not be used to expose you
Combining this with the information from the already quite pervasive tracking google does, I can't imagine that identifying your one-of-256-addresses is anything other than trivial.
In fact, the challenge list is defunct, the challenge having been canceled by RSA. The challenges are still scientifically interesting, so to call them obsolete is factually inaccurate.
You need to address this to the authors of the paper itself, since dtmos didn't "write" a "summary" so much as directly cut & paste from the paper's first paragraph. Yeah, yeah I did RTFA, what was I thinking...
The owner of the copyright has the *exclusive* right to make derivative works...I realize the slashdot crowd doesn't agree with all that, but it is the existing law.
Apart from the first statement being simply untrue (there are a number of uses permitted without the copyright holder's permisssion), it is also completely irrelevant - this case is not about copyright, it's about trademarks. I know the fudmongers want us all to be seduced into the "information is property" paradigm, but copyrights and trademarks (and for that matter, patents and trade secrets) are not the same thing at all, and blurring the distinctions between them does nobody any good. Before you go berating us all in your role as AC law expert you might want to get a better understanding of the law yourself.
A metric pizza would have a circumference of 1 meter
More likely metric would follow the pattern of paper sizing, so an A0 pizza would have an area of 1 square meter (for a diameter of ~ 113cm), an A1 pizza would be 0.5 square meters (diameter 80cm), A2 would have half that area and so on. A typical pizza would be A4 : an area of one sixteenth of a square meter, so a diameter of close to 30 cm.
Then there's the B series, which works in the same way, but starting from B0 having an area of 0.5 square meters, and with the inclusion of anchovys.
There's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunk
So obvious yet you apparently can't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists. A few piffly grant monies versus the vested interests of the current energy industry? Those avaricious scientists are clearly prepared to invent any kind of lie or distraction to maintain their current position of wealth and power eh?
That figure is the alleged cost of upgrading the security of these systems after the attack, not the result of any 'damage' that he may have caused
I think you're probably right that this represents a subsequent upgrade. Note that the article linked from the earlier slashdot piece actually claims he caused almost a billion dollars worth of damage!
[that he is an Asperger's sufferer] has NOTHING to do with this issue.
Except that his condition was the central issue in his judicial review so it has plenty to do with this. I was initially going to write "alleged Asperger's sufferer" - would that have made you happier?
Embarrassingly, that mispell is actually mine - I noticed it microseconds after I clicked the submit button. The staff here are notoriously not editors in any meaningful sense of the word, but in this case it was entirely my mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm happy to report that the recalcitrant crook has been sent back to prison . I confess I particularly enjoyed the reports of the fragrant Barbara fainting in the court room. That Connie submitted his letters of reference written by fellow inmates was also a delightfully humbling detail.
So now with a bit of infrastructure investment, MacDonalds can hook their kitchens up to their bathrooms and voila : a perpetual motion machine.
I dunno, the pair of names "Watson and Crick" are often associated with the double helix; the real scandal is the lack of credit given to Rosalind Franklin.
Lawyers don't rain down from the sky, they seep up through the cracks.
Just be thankful the author didn't leverage DNSSEC
Using bears to patrol your illicit operation is no joke
According to this CPI inflation calculator, the equivalent cost in 2010 dollars is $2562, which makes the return something more like 8000%
It is your analogy that is ludicrous and you continue to cling to it as though it has some relevance. It has none. It is up to Google to follow the law. The law governs the collection, use, retention and disclosure of personal information - just because the data can be readily captured doesn't then make it "fair game" for whatever a third party wants to do with it. I readily concede that "fair game" is precisely the situation in the US - personal infomation is an asset that can be bought and sold like any other - but you should recognise that the rest of the civilised world does not share this lackadaisical approach. It always puzzled me that in the land of the free, there is barely any protection for individuals' privacy.
Nice little discussion you're having, but all your analogies miss the point completely. I don't know how you got on this "plain view" furrow, but it has no relevance. The simple fact is that personal information - recorded information that uniquely identifies an individual - has special status. It's special. The law says so. The legislation governs, among other things, how such data is collected and how it is used. Whether or not it is in "plain view" is neither here nor there. Google completely ignored the law regarding collection of data.
I understand how all this legislated information privacy is terra incognita for you, but these are not my opinions, they are those of the Canadian Privacy commissioner. You should check out her website.
You have your view of the law and the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has hers - I know which one I believe is the more sound. The mere fact that you write of "suing" in your inappropriate analogy shows how little you understand of how the legislation works.
Neither Canada nor the EU are responsible for the ridiculous situation where the US alone among industrialised nations lacks proper privacy legislation. Being ignorant of these matters is no excuse, for either you or google.
Actually, where I live, the collection of personal information is regulated by law, and Google is/was in flagrant violation of that law. It doesn't matter that the data was available in the clear, over the air : personal data is protected by law, and hand-waving excuses about technical errors or artifacts of collection process are irrelevant. I realise that the US has no proper privacy laws, but many other places (and all other industrialised nations) do have such legislation. Google simply ignored those laws, which is why they were called to task by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner and EU data regulators.
I wonder whether Microsoft's 'kin phones will be any better than their 'kin operating systems or 'kin applications. Un 'kin likely.
Unlikely, I would think : how could using airlift ever be cheaper than a temporary crane on the top of the structure?
The lift capacity of this VapourTech is 150 tonnes. That's not a very big building.
Like, by making a game out of it, for example...
The very first sentence of TA "...a group of DNS and content providers, including Neustar/UltraDNS and Google are publishing a proposal..." It's a way for providers of content and providers of DNS service to collude.
Combining this with the information from the already quite pervasive tracking google does, I can't imagine that identifying your one-of-256-addresses is anything other than trivial.
You need to address this to the authors of the paper itself, since dtmos didn't "write" a "summary" so much as directly cut & paste from the paper's first paragraph. Yeah, yeah I did RTFA, what was I thinking...
Apart from the first statement being simply untrue (there are a number of uses permitted without the copyright holder's permisssion), it is also completely irrelevant - this case is not about copyright, it's about trademarks. I know the fudmongers want us all to be seduced into the "information is property" paradigm, but copyrights and trademarks (and for that matter, patents and trade secrets) are not the same thing at all, and blurring the distinctions between them does nobody any good. Before you go berating us all in your role as AC law expert you might want to get a better understanding of the law yourself.
It depends on whether it's a French or a Japanese B series
More likely metric would follow the pattern of paper sizing, so an A0 pizza would have an area of 1 square meter (for a diameter of ~ 113cm), an A1 pizza would be 0.5 square meters (diameter 80cm), A2 would have half that area and so on. A typical pizza would be A4 : an area of one sixteenth of a square meter, so a diameter of close to 30 cm.
Then there's the B series, which works in the same way, but starting from B0 having an area of 0.5 square meters, and with the inclusion of anchovys.
So obvious yet you apparently can't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists. A few piffly grant monies versus the vested interests of the current energy industry? Those avaricious scientists are clearly prepared to invent any kind of lie or distraction to maintain their current position of wealth and power eh?
I think you're probably right that this represents a subsequent upgrade. Note that the article linked from the earlier slashdot piece actually claims he caused almost a billion dollars worth of damage!
Except that his condition was the central issue in his judicial review so it has plenty to do with this. I was initially going to write "alleged Asperger's sufferer" - would that have made you happier?
Embarrassingly, that mispell is actually mine - I noticed it microseconds after I clicked the submit button. The staff here are notoriously not editors in any meaningful sense of the word, but in this case it was entirely my mistake.