Gee, what was I worried about?? They seperate the personal information from the viewing information before sending it to two seperate servers that they both own! I'm sure they have no way of knowing where every file on both servers came from, and can therefore have no way of matching them up. But I better stop talking like this, I don't wanna be paranoid! I just want to trust that any profit business has the nonprofitable nature of my complete right to privacy as it's utmost concern.
Apparently people only care about their rights when they're violated in a manner that isn't convenient to them. Anonymity is nice, but people are still being treated as guinea pigs while marketers profit off of them; and I seriously doubt that most TiVo users know about it. But maybe I'm wrong, and this person somehow represents them all.
Forgive me for using common sense, but this kind of willingness to bend over for a corporation leads to a lot of problems. We don't know the names of every person with a neilson's ratings box, but they still have to give permission before they can use one. Why? Because 'search & seizure' devices raise 4th amendment issues even if the majority allow certain applications of it to be labelled as trivial.
It's infuriating to see people who speak out against things like this, written off as 'paranoid' or 'conspiracy theorists' when it takes only a miniscule amount of understanding to see it from their point of view. By all logic, the people who like this aspect of TiVo's service should, at the very least, be advocating an opt-in requirement. It makes absolutely no sense to complicate or even remove a person's choice in the matter. The only explanation I have is a general willingness to let a corporation make the decision for us. Why else should any American have to opt-out of having their thoughts and hobbies harvested for someone else's profit!? It should've never been allowed, and it wouldn't have been if it weren't for people with this person's thought process. If YOU want it, you should have to OPT-IN. It's borderline idiotic that people should have to opt-out! They're already too busy opting out of junkmail and nightly fucking calls from telemarketers, in a country where 'information about quality goods & services' is shoved down their throats, non-stop, until they can muster the breath to say 'no'
Well when the issue is a right to privacy I don't think you not caring is a valid way to address it. And turning them on seems irrelevant -- since they default to on, and will continue to since browsers aren't going to update just to change it, it would be a simple matter of "yes or no" to cookies when you visit a site.
I ignored the suggestion because, while the bill has it's flaws, that suggestion has more. What's to keep that site from abusing it's use anyway? If you're dealing with a network of sites, they could all access that cookie, and people would continue to be profiled without their permission. In the same way advertisers like doubleclick can track users to any site where they serve ads, that site could track you to any other site on it's network. Once it profiles you, it can sell the information to anyone, and then you have the same situation we're dealing with now. I agree that there are some negative possibilities, but in the end there's a lot of laws that exist despite the fact that it'd be more convenient for some if they didn't. It doesn't change the facts of what's happening.
(2) INTERNET PROFILING PROHIBITED- No operator of a Web site or online service may allow any third party to attach a persistent cookie
as a means of developing a personal profile of an individual unless the operator--
(A) clearly discloses such practices to the individual in the notice required under subsection (b)(1)(A)(i); and
(B) provides the individual the opportunity to opt-in to allowing the third party to attach the persistent cookie.
And how can you call it paranoia when you know what they're used for? What about sites that force these cookies by not allowing access to certain areas when cookies are disabled? (yahoo). What about the fact that most people don't even know what they are? And if they do, most don't understand how they're abused. Cookie files are also stored by default, so by the time most people figure it out there's already a database out there with more information than they'd ever be willing to give away. Hell, I know people who's cookie files use their full name. I don't see how you can justify your arguement. Ban the them, and 'if you like cookie files, turn them on, damnit.'
Well I agree whole-heartedly, but most people probably think I'm a little to extreme in my reasons. See, personally, I find it appalling that businesses are even allowed to take this sort of aggressive stance. It ticks me off just to see commercials that are directly targetting children in a manipulative 'buy-me-to-fit-in-at-school' sort of way. I don't believe that corporations are people, and I don't believe they have rights that people have. The people who comprise those companies, of course, have every right that anyone else does. Even the founding fathers understood this. Before the early 1900's, and before commercialization became the norm, it was illegal for corporations to give any money to politicians. I don't have a quote offhand, but all the way back to the 1700's Benjamin Franklin himself would talk about how restrictions on money, and restrictions on ownership of media (that existed before the Telecommunications Act of 1996), were paramount to preserving a democracy. Otherwise a business like his own newspaper could manipulate the government and monopolize the only medium through which people could ever hear about it.
But that's what what we have now, and it got that way through compromise after compromise, supposedly in the name of freedom and capitalism. The problem is that the public can't compete with the mechanized efficiency of big business. Microsoft lobbyists are formed up on capitol hill pushing UCITA while most Americans are at home watching MicroSoft NBC's latest incitefull coverage of some tear-jerking tale of loss and eventual triumph over something or other.
Enough already. These multinational corporations do business in places where the constitution means nothing, and human rights are non-existent. They're not our friends, they're not human beings with common sense, or even morals. Obviously they've proven my point; a business is operated by individuals, but it has no conscience, it acts as a machine would to achieve maximum efficiency. Anyone who's familiar with the term 'soft money' or 'corporate welfare' should understand what we're dealing with these days. The 'American People' and 'Corporate America' can't exist as equals, when the second of the two is dominant in it's very nature. Corporate America has to take the subserviant role, and not because the bill of rights is subjective -- but because when they don't, the rights of the public and the rights of the same people at the helm of Corporate America, get squelched.
"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people." -- John F. Kennedy
1. Call Western Union at 800-325-6000. Then wait for the live operator.
2. Tell the operator that you want to send a hand-delivered telegram that needs to get there within the next few hours.
3. It costs $17.95 for 15 words or less, and another $13.95 for the hand delivery. That's a total of $31.90. Most credit cards accepted.
The ACLU newsletters often give links to a section of their site that allows you to send a free fax online, concerning the issue mentioned in the email. You tell it your zipcode, and it gives you a list of representatives to choose from, but again the fax only relates to a certain issue. If someone were to design a directory where anyone could enter their zipcode, select a recipient, and send a free fax containing any comments on any issue they like, I think you'd see a lot more results. The only response I've ever gotten was the result of a free fax on ACLU.org.
Awwww, comon. I can understand not moderating a dumb joke up, but DOWN?? Back to 2 Karma for me. I'll get you for this you hidden, unidentifiable moderator.
This is what keeps me defending mp3's. I don't want to ripoff my favorite band any more than the next guy, but how can people who pirate their music be chastised, when the only alternative is putting money in the RIAA's pockets? Maybe I'm just a fanatic, but I'm the type that keeps a shitlist of companies to not do business with; so when a monopoly makes that list, where does a person go for the service?
1. AOL/Time Warner is on my shitlist, but in Charlotte NC you can't get highspeed access without 'Road Runner'. Hell, you can't get cable without paying Time Warner. So I turn in a resume to Carolina Broadband. TW's only competition is 2 years away from opening it's doors.
2. In America, I can't buy music without paying the RIAA. Who competes with them? So I download it for free, online.
How can any American support them when it amounts to funding crap like hard drives with copyright protection, or giving the RIAA money with which to pay off our elected officials? That's not for me, thanks. Maybe I'll start writing $15 personal checks to artists that say "for: the album I downloaded."
I should add that this is true, despite the article on thestandard.net, because privacy.org reported ACLU & EPIC, and privacy.org is run in part, by EPIC.
Thank you for making me look stupid the very first time I get something posted:D
I knew it was Internet, but I've got COPA stuck in my head for some reason.
I agree, to a point........these types of movies do evoke a cynical reaction in me, but in the end I support anything that inspires people to think differently. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure if it even accomplishes that, but consider Rage Against the Machine as an example. They spoke out against plenty of issues, a few of which dealth with the greed and control of companies like the very record label they worked for. Many would defend them (and maybe this movie) by saying that if the allegations in their lyrics are even partially true, then the only way to get their message out would be to become part of what they hate; how many people would know of RATM or their politics had they not signed with one of the (few) major record labels? And on the same note as my first sentence, how many young people now pay attention to important issues (specifically politics), only because they were inspired by a rock band?
I think anyone who believes that the internet is the last, best, hope against the corporate media (and the Plutocratic movement in general) would agree that 'Hacktivism' has to be a part of it. It's been said previously that this struggle amounts to writhing around in quicksand unless part of it includes taking the offensive. As far as this example, I agree with some of the others, defacing websites accomplishes nothing. It'd be nice to see 'Hacktivism' as a way to get the truth, not as a way to be a 'rebel' and grandstand on big name websites.
I don't know item one about hacking, but I know that people who do would be a lot more helpful if they were sneaking onto business networks and snagging documentation on a companies' political contributions, or memos promising bonuses to the representative of an insurance company that turned down the most claims. Anyway, you get the idea.
And for the people who are saying that no one has rights in this matter, and that napster can ban anyone they like, yes I do consider copyright.net "using software it developed" (not just napster's search) to scan my drive, constitutes a violation of the 4th amendment.
You've gotta be kidding me. Poor copyright.net and their poor-poor staff of recording industry execs. I'm sure they're just new to the whole issue, and had no idea what they were doing. Ok, let's pretend that they aren't veterans, and that they aren't intentionally chipping away at peoples' rights in the name of greed; [b]where were they[/b] when their highschool teacher taught them about the bill of rights (4th amendment)? Out sick? personally I've always believed there aren't many who [b]actually[/b] set out to commit fascist-style evil, and that the root of their crimes is ignorance. Fortunately, 'whoops!' is not a viable plea, because ignorance is no excuse.
A few points:
1. Labels use focus groups to build and market not just crap, but crap that is designed specifically to latch on to impressionable young people. BSB and the like are the equivalent of an attack on kids in America -- call it extreme, but any/.'er understands the greed of this industry. They've created a fad that no parent in the country can protect their child from, short of locking them in their room without a TV or radio. Their friends do it, the 'cool kids' on MTV do it, and the music itself portrays attractive young people 'just like you' that are simply here to remind your kid to fit in, wear the latest GAP fashions, and drink lots of pepsi.
2. NO ONE should be resigned to paying record labels just to pay artists. I don't want to bankrupt a good band anymore than you do, but the RIAA's time has come. Record labels take 90% profits for providing a non-existant service; publicity and distribution in an internet age, where any talented individual can (on their own merits) gain exposure and distribute their own work.
I mostly agree, my problem is that you offer no real positive outlook or suggestions. I also don't think many people willingly trade their rights away, because most of them don't comprehend what it is they're doing. I bought a DVD player knowing it had region codes, but I bought it before I had ever read slashdot, and before I even understood the implications. That's how most people live their lives while this sort of crap happens -- you won't see the mainstream media telling people about this stuff on the nightly news, and subsequently most of the country won't understand what's going on. That is, outside of a few reports that evil piracy groups are harassing their favorite computer makers (followed by lovable million dollar commercials with musicians in blue body paint, encouraging them to buy-buy-buy). Anyway, that's is all old info to this crowd, my point is that if we give off the image that there is no hope, we become abunch of angry nobodies. Someone has to reach out to the people that still live oblivious to this stuff, and not just portray the bleak reality, but tell them how they can avoid it.
Heh, if I wasn't already paranoid about flying -- now I gotta worry about the pilot being blinded by the laser transmission of some schmucks porno-packets.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, what was I worried about?? They seperate the personal information from the viewing information before sending it to two seperate servers that they both own! I'm sure they have no way of knowing where every file on both servers came from, and can therefore have no way of matching them up. But I better stop talking like this, I don't wanna be paranoid! I just want to trust that any profit business has the nonprofitable nature of my complete right to privacy as it's utmost concern.
Apparently people only care about their rights when they're violated in a manner that isn't convenient to them. Anonymity is nice, but people are still being treated as guinea pigs while marketers profit off of them; and I seriously doubt that most TiVo users know about it. But maybe I'm wrong, and this person somehow represents them all.
Forgive me for using common sense, but this kind of willingness to bend over for a corporation leads to a lot of problems. We don't know the names of every person with a neilson's ratings box, but they still have to give permission before they can use one. Why? Because 'search & seizure' devices raise 4th amendment issues even if the majority allow certain applications of it to be labelled as trivial.
It's infuriating to see people who speak out against things like this, written off as 'paranoid' or 'conspiracy theorists' when it takes only a miniscule amount of understanding to see it from their point of view. By all logic, the people who like this aspect of TiVo's service should, at the very least, be advocating an opt-in requirement. It makes absolutely no sense to complicate or even remove a person's choice in the matter. The only explanation I have is a general willingness to let a corporation make the decision for us. Why else should any American have to opt-out of having their thoughts and hobbies harvested for someone else's profit!? It should've never been allowed, and it wouldn't have been if it weren't for people with this person's thought process. If YOU want it, you should have to OPT-IN. It's borderline idiotic that people should have to opt-out! They're already too busy opting out of junkmail and nightly fucking calls from telemarketers, in a country where 'information about quality goods & services' is shoved down their throats, non-stop, until they can muster the breath to say 'no'
Well when the issue is a right to privacy I don't think you not caring is a valid way to address it. And turning them on seems irrelevant -- since they default to on, and will continue to since browsers aren't going to update just to change it, it would be a simple matter of "yes or no" to cookies when you visit a site.
I ignored the suggestion because, while the bill has it's flaws, that suggestion has more. What's to keep that site from abusing it's use anyway? If you're dealing with a network of sites, they could all access that cookie, and people would continue to be profiled without their permission. In the same way advertisers like doubleclick can track users to any site where they serve ads, that site could track you to any other site on it's network. Once it profiles you, it can sell the information to anyone, and then you have the same situation we're dealing with now. I agree that there are some negative possibilities, but in the end there's a lot of laws that exist despite the fact that it'd be more convenient for some if they didn't. It doesn't change the facts of what's happening.
They could easily take this opportunity to drop it on a United States embassy and say "Oopsy! Maybe it beink das outdated radar maps, yes?"
Well I agree whole-heartedly, but most people probably think I'm a little to extreme in my reasons. See, personally, I find it appalling that businesses are even allowed to take this sort of aggressive stance. It ticks me off just to see commercials that are directly targetting children in a manipulative 'buy-me-to-fit-in-at-school' sort of way. I don't believe that corporations are people, and I don't believe they have rights that people have. The people who comprise those companies, of course, have every right that anyone else does. Even the founding fathers understood this. Before the early 1900's, and before commercialization became the norm, it was illegal for corporations to give any money to politicians. I don't have a quote offhand, but all the way back to the 1700's Benjamin Franklin himself would talk about how restrictions on money, and restrictions on ownership of media (that existed before the Telecommunications Act of 1996), were paramount to preserving a democracy. Otherwise a business like his own newspaper could manipulate the government and monopolize the only medium through which people could ever hear about it.
/vent
But that's what what we have now, and it got that way through compromise after compromise, supposedly in the name of freedom and capitalism. The problem is that the public can't compete with the mechanized efficiency of big business. Microsoft lobbyists are formed up on capitol hill pushing UCITA while most Americans are at home watching MicroSoft NBC's latest incitefull coverage of some tear-jerking tale of loss and eventual triumph over something or other.
Enough already. These multinational corporations do business in places where the constitution means nothing, and human rights are non-existent. They're not our friends, they're not human beings with common sense, or even morals. Obviously they've proven my point; a business is operated by individuals, but it has no conscience, it acts as a machine would to achieve maximum efficiency. Anyone who's familiar with the term 'soft money' or 'corporate welfare' should understand what we're dealing with these days. The 'American People' and 'Corporate America' can't exist as equals, when the second of the two is dominant in it's very nature. Corporate America has to take the subserviant role, and not because the bill of rights is subjective -- but because when they don't, the rights of the public and the rights of the same people at the helm of Corporate America, get squelched.
Quoted from www.michaelmoore.com
The ACLU newsletters often give links to a section of their site that allows you to send a free fax online, concerning the issue mentioned in the email. You tell it your zipcode, and it gives you a list of representatives to choose from, but again the fax only relates to a certain issue. If someone were to design a directory where anyone could enter their zipcode, select a recipient, and send a free fax containing any comments on any issue they like, I think you'd see a lot more results. The only response I've ever gotten was the result of a free fax on ACLU.org.
Awwww, comon. I can understand not moderating a dumb joke up, but DOWN?? Back to 2 Karma for me. I'll get you for this you hidden, unidentifiable moderator.
This is what keeps me defending mp3's. I don't want to ripoff my favorite band any more than the next guy, but how can people who pirate their music be chastised, when the only alternative is putting money in the RIAA's pockets? Maybe I'm just a fanatic, but I'm the type that keeps a shitlist of companies to not do business with; so when a monopoly makes that list, where does a person go for the service?
1. AOL/Time Warner is on my shitlist, but in Charlotte NC you can't get highspeed access without 'Road Runner'. Hell, you can't get cable without paying Time Warner. So I turn in a resume to Carolina Broadband. TW's only competition is 2 years away from opening it's doors.
2. In America, I can't buy music without paying the RIAA. Who competes with them? So I download it for free, online.
How can any American support them when it amounts to funding crap like hard drives with copyright protection, or giving the RIAA money with which to pay off our elected officials? That's not for me, thanks. Maybe I'll start writing $15 personal checks to artists that say "for: the album I downloaded."
The Flash? The Sentinel? Viper? I don't see how this could possibly have an even remote chance of not sucking obscene amounts of ass.
I should add that this is true, despite the article on thestandard.net, because privacy.org reported ACLU & EPIC, and privacy.org is run in part, by EPIC.
It's the ACLU, EPIC, *and* the ALA (which I didn't hear about until afterwards.)
Thank you for making me look stupid the very first time I get something posted :D
I knew it was Internet, but I've got COPA stuck in my head for some reason.
Isn't it nice that, for once, it's the corporation that has to opt-out?
I agree, to a point........these types of movies do evoke a cynical reaction in me, but in the end I support anything that inspires people to think differently. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure if it even accomplishes that, but consider Rage Against the Machine as an example. They spoke out against plenty of issues, a few of which dealth with the greed and control of companies like the very record label they worked for. Many would defend them (and maybe this movie) by saying that if the allegations in their lyrics are even partially true, then the only way to get their message out would be to become part of what they hate; how many people would know of RATM or their politics had they not signed with one of the (few) major record labels? And on the same note as my first sentence, how many young people now pay attention to important issues (specifically politics), only because they were inspired by a rock band?
I think anyone who believes that the internet is the last, best, hope against the corporate media (and the Plutocratic movement in general) would agree that 'Hacktivism' has to be a part of it. It's been said previously that this struggle amounts to writhing around in quicksand unless part of it includes taking the offensive. As far as this example, I agree with some of the others, defacing websites accomplishes nothing. It'd be nice to see 'Hacktivism' as a way to get the truth, not as a way to be a 'rebel' and grandstand on big name websites. I don't know item one about hacking, but I know that people who do would be a lot more helpful if they were sneaking onto business networks and snagging documentation on a companies' political contributions, or memos promising bonuses to the representative of an insurance company that turned down the most claims. Anyway, you get the idea.
As I mentioned in a previous reply, copyright.net used software it developed, not just napster.
And for the people who are saying that no one has rights in this matter, and that napster can ban anyone they like, yes I do consider copyright.net "using software it developed" (not just napster's search) to scan my drive, constitutes a violation of the 4th amendment.
You've gotta be kidding me. Poor copyright.net and their poor-poor staff of recording industry execs. I'm sure they're just new to the whole issue, and had no idea what they were doing. Ok, let's pretend that they aren't veterans, and that they aren't intentionally chipping away at peoples' rights in the name of greed; [b]where were they[/b] when their highschool teacher taught them about the bill of rights (4th amendment)? Out sick? personally I've always believed there aren't many who [b]actually[/b] set out to commit fascist-style evil, and that the root of their crimes is ignorance. Fortunately, 'whoops!' is not a viable plea, because ignorance is no excuse.
A few points: 1. Labels use focus groups to build and market not just crap, but crap that is designed specifically to latch on to impressionable young people. BSB and the like are the equivalent of an attack on kids in America -- call it extreme, but any /.'er understands the greed of this industry. They've created a fad that no parent in the country can protect their child from, short of locking them in their room without a TV or radio. Their friends do it, the 'cool kids' on MTV do it, and the music itself portrays attractive young people 'just like you' that are simply here to remind your kid to fit in, wear the latest GAP fashions, and drink lots of pepsi.
2. NO ONE should be resigned to paying record labels just to pay artists. I don't want to bankrupt a good band anymore than you do, but the RIAA's time has come. Record labels take 90% profits for providing a non-existant service; publicity and distribution in an internet age, where any talented individual can (on their own merits) gain exposure and distribute their own work.
I mostly agree, my problem is that you offer no real positive outlook or suggestions. I also don't think many people willingly trade their rights away, because most of them don't comprehend what it is they're doing. I bought a DVD player knowing it had region codes, but I bought it before I had ever read slashdot, and before I even understood the implications. That's how most people live their lives while this sort of crap happens -- you won't see the mainstream media telling people about this stuff on the nightly news, and subsequently most of the country won't understand what's going on. That is, outside of a few reports that evil piracy groups are harassing their favorite computer makers (followed by lovable million dollar commercials with musicians in blue body paint, encouraging them to buy-buy-buy). Anyway, that's is all old info to this crowd, my point is that if we give off the image that there is no hope, we become abunch of angry nobodies. Someone has to reach out to the people that still live oblivious to this stuff, and not just portray the bleak reality, but tell them how they can avoid it.
Heh, if I wasn't already paranoid about flying -- now I gotta worry about the pilot being blinded by the laser transmission of some schmucks porno-packets.