Except this is data on Irish servers, about people who aren't Americans, and covered under applicable Irish laws.
American law has no jurisdiction there, and America can't just act like their laws apply anywhere in the world.
And, what you have to remember about "MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US" is that the Microsoft which operates in Ireland is a separate corporation incorporated under Irish law.
The fact that there is another corporation operating in the US called Microsoft doesn't mean the US magically has. Because the Microsoft that operates in Ireland and acts as a way of hiding revenues? That is a separate legal entity operating under the laws of another country.
Incorporation is only in the country you do it it.
It is complete bullshit to claim that since MS is a US corporation, that its wholly owned subsidiaries are subject to US law.
Otherwise Microsoft would pay all of that tax money they hide in Ireland to the US.
This isn't about hiding evidence, this is about the fact that the US legal jurisdiction simply doesn't apply, and that America doesn't enjoy some special ability to have its laws apply outside of its own borders.
I sure wish #BennettHaselton and his pointless #stories and #fluffpieces would stop getting posted on the front page of #Slashdot by #timothy and #samzenpus as #clickbait because they're #lame, #pointless, and the work of someone with an #inflatedego who thinks he has the #solution to all of our #problems.
#RolandPiquepaille had nothing on this guy.
Seriously, #STFU, or at least give us the ability to filter this #clown.
You're only allowed to put music on these cassette tapes with officially branded cassette recorders. It is strictly forbidden to use another brand's recorder. Otherwise, our cassette player will erase the sections recorded by that other brand's recorder, just to make sure our brand is secure.
Or, alternately... had you and I employed the described hack to circumvent Apple Fair Play, we would be facing criminal charges.
This has nothing to do with your screed, and everything to do with Real circumventing DRM.
But, hey, don't let that stop you from blaming Apple or making it about something else.
It's one thing to have a vulnerability. It's another to not have it patched on all vulnerable sites.
Not that defending Sony is a habit I keep...
When you're talking about a company like Sony, which is really a zillion separate entities under one umbrella, I find it hard to believe Sony could have reacted so quickly as to lock down all other sites in one day.
I'm betting no company that big is capable of responding that fast.
I've worked for far smaller companies which had huge disconnects and delays between regional stuff. Something like Sony? I'm betting that's a monumental task, and that it's entirely separate divisions and people involved in the separate systems.
Move to another country where privacy means more than a door on a commode stall. That's about the extent of available options.
Of course, there's no guarantee the US hasn't hacked that country's computers, telecommunications, or enacted a data sharing agreement with that government.
Seriously, name me a single country which provably hasn't been hacked by the US, or directly share data with the US, and which would be your bastion of privacy.
You seem to imply they'll be able to competently grant access to only the information they directly need. I find that unlikely.
You really think they'll be able to set it so NASA can only see medical data on astronauts beyond the extensive stuff they probably already keep in house? NASA subjects astronauts to so many tests they probably don't need anybody else's data.
Or do you think someone in NASA is going to be able to pretty much access everything?
Somewhere, there's always an admin, and that person can pretty much always access everything.
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA? Or is this going to be a big giant free for all?
Because this sounds like a huge list of agencies which may or may not have any experience in not sucking at handling this kind of data.
I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday.
So their devices automatically run all software from Sony? Can you give an example how they would get compromised without knowing it?
Well, just off the top of my head... the Playstations probably use the signatures... and Sony makes Vaio laptops... they make Smart TVs.
So, if you can target any of that stuff, it could be pretty easy. I'm not a security guy, but once the certificate is compromised you can start from there.
Hell, send them a malicious URL which direct them to a system you control and tell them they need a critical security update.
I always get the impression that once you can sign stuff with someone else's certificate, the real fun begins.
If they could show that American lives were saved by torturing prisoners, would that make it okay?
If the prevailing attitude is "we as Americans will accept anything done to you to protect us", then in some people's minds, it may well be okay.
Of course, if America decides that torturing other people is OK then America has pretty much lost any form of moral high ground, and should expect other countries to torture Americans with impunity.
When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.
So, hey, if a couple of your CIA agents or citizens end up getting offed or tortured, don't suddenly say that's unfair. Because it's kind of the bar you set.
You know, when TFS says that superconductors work by unknown magic, and this is taking something which is better known magic... I'm not sure most of us understand the point.
If the point is to make something which can be marketed? Maybe it's not so good. If the point is to understand the magic which leads to superconducting... maybe this is onto something.
To me, this sounds like a refinement of voodoo which gives us a better understanding of magic, which might help us understand the improbable.:-P
I'm sure it's valuable science and all. But I have no idea WTF it really means.
Well, of course... the monetization of the subscription model to leverage our industry leading synergies and allow us to maximize on-going quarterly revenue with a stable funding model going forward predicates that we identify the highest amount of monthly extortion fees in order to achieve the optimal outcome of maximizing shareholder value, and ensuring optimal executive compensation and hooker and cocaine acquisition funding.
In other words, this will be set by a greedy corporation which will feel entitled to huge amounts of money, and signed off by executives whose multi-million dollar compensation will be tied to this.
So I have little faith they won't just go straight to the price-gouging. This is Microsoft after all. And when Microsoft uses the word monetizing, you might not like the outcome.
In fact, I fully expect it to be as close to usury as they can get away with. And, of course, depending on the country you live in... they'll do any additional price gouging they can get away with.
I really wish we could stop sitting around bullshitting ourselves over the traditional cab companies, pretending those organizations didn't come to power or remain in power by using corruption.
I honestly don't know where this idiotic sentiment comes from.
Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.
I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.
This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry. They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.
They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?
So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.
But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.
So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.
Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.
Is it me or is a quadrillion watt laser just something that I can not really grasp?
No, it's not just you.
Most human brains really can't figure out WTF this means. Even the people who work in this stuff occasionally remember what they're saying and think "damn".
My first thought was "is quadrillion a real number?", followed by thinking... million, billion, trillion, quadrillion.
Huh? You think the sites allow the ads on there for free? It IS their revenue.
That doesn't mean they're entitled to good data. Or any data at all.
In the old days, people paid for advertising, and you have no way of knowing if it worked unless you asked people. Everybody saw the same ad on TV and in the newspaper.
The modern analog on the interweb is kind of like having a bunch of advertisers put a tracking device on your car, or a tag in your ear like livestock so they can track everything that you do.
Why the fsck should we accept this just because it's digital? The answer is, we don't need to.
You want to put ads on your site? Go ahead. You think I'm not going to block them then you're a moron. You think I owe your advertisers good analytics data just so you can make money? Yeah, fuck that.
People shouldn't be willing to accept tracking, analytics, and violation of their privacy just to see a website. We don't know your privacy statement (assuming you have one), we don't know what you do with this data, and we have no recourse for what you do with it.
We wouldn't accept this is the 'real' world, but we're supposed to accept it in the digital one?
Which means the only sensible thing is to either deny them the information, or make sure their information is useless.
If your poor website goes under because your advertisers can't figure out if I wear boxers or briefs... boo fucking hoo.
This is not blocking, this is actively attempting to screw with the sites revenue by making ads worthless. I can see absolutely no justification for that.
Really? Because I can see absolutely no justification for a these ad sites to be able to track everything I do on the internet or why I should accept that as normal.
This is about far more than the revenue of an individual site. This is about a bunch of companies who have a business model which more or less amounts to spying on every damned thing you do and using that to make money.
I wouldn't personally use this tool, because I'd rather block. But it's intent is to clearly mess with the ad companies themselves, and give them shitty information about you to preserve your privacy.
Targeted advertising becomes useless when the have no idea of what you're really looking at.
But since these are companies the consumer has no direct relationship with, who make money based on our personal information without any consent from us, and who then use it for anything they like because they have it... I don't have a problem with this.
The interwebs provide the ability to have a much more detailed set of information about people than any advertising medium beforehand. That doesn't mean the companies who do this shit should be entitled to that information.
The sense of privilege here is with the advertisers and the the sites who use them.
So screw the ads, and screw the companies who provide them. Why should we give up our privacy so some corporation can make money by hawking baubles and keeping track of what we do?
Well, the reality is... you as an advertiser don't get a vote what I do in my browser.
You want me to view and click ads? Well, you'll have to pay me. Paying some other guy to embed shit in his web pages which I'm "required" to view? Kind of bullshit, and not happening.
If you're not paying me, then you don't matter, and I don't owe you a damned thing.
Of course there is no downside from your perspective, since your perspective is that of a little child. If you don't like they way a site operates, don't use it. Is that so fucking hard? Or are you just one of those freetards who thinks you have a right to everyone else's work, and they should get no benefit from it?
If you lack the technical skills to prevent me from blocking your ads, don't piss and moan if I do. If you do have the technical skills to force me to see ads, you'll never see me again because your site will be complete crap.
It's a self leveling problem.
But don't act like you are legally entitled to me seeing or clicking on ads and allowing all of the trackers and analytics companies to provide you with information. That's not my problem.
If you're a big and successful site, you won't notice the small amount of reduction in ads from me (which I was never going to click on anyway). If you're a crappy and struggling site... well, that's kind of your problem.
Blocking those analytics and ads companies is what I'm gonna do. You do what you want to do, and either your web site will succeed or fail.
But I don't owe you advertising revenue. I don't have an obligation to your advertisers. I don't owe you a damned thing, and you don't owe me anything.
Either I can view your site with the crap blocked, or I can't. But the internet is full of other websites. Just don't expect that I'm going to give permission to 3rd parties to track me just to help you pay the bills.
I want to block their cookies. I want to deny them the analytics or even know that I visited the page. I want the advertisers to piss off and die.
Sure, you can shit in their well and give them crufty data which is useless.
Or you can just block this crap outright, never see it at all, save your damned bandwidth, and leave the parasites out of the equation entirely.
So, Quantserve? Scorecard Research? Google Ad Services? All that crap which is embedded in every page you see? I'll take tools which prevent them from getting traffic from me or any information in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Except this is data on Irish servers, about people who aren't Americans, and covered under applicable Irish laws.
American law has no jurisdiction there, and America can't just act like their laws apply anywhere in the world.
And, what you have to remember about "MS, being a corporation incorporated in the US" is that the Microsoft which operates in Ireland is a separate corporation incorporated under Irish law.
The fact that there is another corporation operating in the US called Microsoft doesn't mean the US magically has. Because the Microsoft that operates in Ireland and acts as a way of hiding revenues? That is a separate legal entity operating under the laws of another country.
Incorporation is only in the country you do it it.
It is complete bullshit to claim that since MS is a US corporation, that its wholly owned subsidiaries are subject to US law.
Otherwise Microsoft would pay all of that tax money they hide in Ireland to the US.
This isn't about hiding evidence, this is about the fact that the US legal jurisdiction simply doesn't apply, and that America doesn't enjoy some special ability to have its laws apply outside of its own borders.
I sure wish #BennettHaselton and his pointless #stories and #fluffpieces would stop getting posted on the front page of #Slashdot by #timothy and #samzenpus as #clickbait because they're #lame, #pointless, and the work of someone with an #inflatedego who thinks he has the #solution to all of our #problems.
#RolandPiquepaille had nothing on this guy.
Seriously, #STFU, or at least give us the ability to filter this #clown.
Or, alternately ... had you and I employed the described hack to circumvent Apple Fair Play, we would be facing criminal charges.
This has nothing to do with your screed, and everything to do with Real circumventing DRM.
But, hey, don't let that stop you from blaming Apple or making it about something else.
Not that defending Sony is a habit I keep ...
When you're talking about a company like Sony, which is really a zillion separate entities under one umbrella, I find it hard to believe Sony could have reacted so quickly as to lock down all other sites in one day.
I'm betting no company that big is capable of responding that fast.
I've worked for far smaller companies which had huge disconnects and delays between regional stuff. Something like Sony? I'm betting that's a monumental task, and that it's entirely separate divisions and people involved in the separate systems.
LOL ... you get a big giant whoosh ... do you really think someone is going to fossilize the robots in sentiment?
And everyone knows the sound of mustard is yellow with a hint of zing.
Of course, there's no guarantee the US hasn't hacked that country's computers, telecommunications, or enacted a data sharing agreement with that government.
Seriously, name me a single country which provably hasn't been hacked by the US, or directly share data with the US, and which would be your bastion of privacy.
I have my doubts such a place exists.
You seem to imply they'll be able to competently grant access to only the information they directly need. I find that unlikely.
You really think they'll be able to set it so NASA can only see medical data on astronauts beyond the extensive stuff they probably already keep in house? NASA subjects astronauts to so many tests they probably don't need anybody else's data.
Or do you think someone in NASA is going to be able to pretty much access everything?
Somewhere, there's always an admin, and that person can pretty much always access everything.
Does the Department of Health and Human Services have a national security mandate?
Or is everything covered under the umbrella of the Ministry of Peace now?
Hmmm ... how's that go again ... oh, yeah ... I have altered our deal, pray I do not alter it further.
You really think you get a choice in this?
What could possibly go wrong?
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA? Or is this going to be a big giant free for all?
Because this sounds like a huge list of agencies which may or may not have any experience in not sucking at handling this kind of data.
I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday.
Well, just off the top of my head ... the Playstations probably use the signatures ... and Sony makes Vaio laptops ... they make Smart TVs.
So, if you can target any of that stuff, it could be pretty easy. I'm not a security guy, but once the certificate is compromised you can start from there.
Hell, send them a malicious URL which direct them to a system you control and tell them they need a critical security update.
I always get the impression that once you can sign stuff with someone else's certificate, the real fun begins.
Well, maybe this will be a wakeup call for them.
From the sounds of it Sony's overall approach to security was quite inadequate, and they've had several systems hacked over the last few years.
Only now instead of customer data, they're getting hit where it hurts and might have to actually take this seriously.
If the prevailing attitude is "we as Americans will accept anything done to you to protect us", then in some people's minds, it may well be okay.
Of course, if America decides that torturing other people is OK then America has pretty much lost any form of moral high ground, and should expect other countries to torture Americans with impunity.
When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.
So, hey, if a couple of your CIA agents or citizens end up getting offed or tortured, don't suddenly say that's unfair. Because it's kind of the bar you set.
In fact, it's pretty much SoP. The more rich and powerful you are, the less likely you'll ever be held accountable.
A politician held accountable for crimes he authorized? Never gonna happen.
Same goes for the crooks on Wall Street.
I'm sure it's the same elsewhere -- the old boys network makes sure the people who can do the most damage are shielded from consequences.
You know, when TFS says that superconductors work by unknown magic, and this is taking something which is better known magic ... I'm not sure most of us understand the point.
If the point is to make something which can be marketed? Maybe it's not so good. If the point is to understand the magic which leads to superconducting ... maybe this is onto something.
To me, this sounds like a refinement of voodoo which gives us a better understanding of magic, which might help us understand the improbable. :-P
I'm sure it's valuable science and all. But I have no idea WTF it really means.
Well, of course ... the monetization of the subscription model to leverage our industry leading synergies and allow us to maximize on-going quarterly revenue with a stable funding model going forward predicates that we identify the highest amount of monthly extortion fees in order to achieve the optimal outcome of maximizing shareholder value, and ensuring optimal executive compensation and hooker and cocaine acquisition funding.
In other words, this will be set by a greedy corporation which will feel entitled to huge amounts of money, and signed off by executives whose multi-million dollar compensation will be tied to this.
So I have little faith they won't just go straight to the price-gouging. This is Microsoft after all. And when Microsoft uses the word monetizing, you might not like the outcome.
In fact, I fully expect it to be as close to usury as they can get away with. And, of course, depending on the country you live in ... they'll do any additional price gouging they can get away with.
I honestly don't know where this idiotic sentiment comes from.
Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.
I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.
This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry. They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.
They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?
So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.
But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.
So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.
Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.
You know, it's easier to say, and it's shorter to write.
But when I'm trying to wrap my head around what it's actually saying ... I prefer to see the huge list of zeroes.
And then my brain sort of wobbles around and does the Keanu Reeves "woah".
Some of these numbers are just so intractable to the human brain you need a visual reference.
No, it's not just you.
Most human brains really can't figure out WTF this means. Even the people who work in this stuff occasionally remember what they're saying and think "damn".
My first thought was "is quadrillion a real number?", followed by thinking ... million, billion, trillion, quadrillion.
Million = 1,000,000
Billion = 1,000,000,000
Trillion = 1,000,000,000,000
Quadrillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000
And, yes, at that point it's a mere abstraction for most of us. You're definitely not the only one.
That's what she said ... ;-)
That doesn't mean they're entitled to good data. Or any data at all.
In the old days, people paid for advertising, and you have no way of knowing if it worked unless you asked people. Everybody saw the same ad on TV and in the newspaper.
The modern analog on the interweb is kind of like having a bunch of advertisers put a tracking device on your car, or a tag in your ear like livestock so they can track everything that you do.
Why the fsck should we accept this just because it's digital? The answer is, we don't need to.
You want to put ads on your site? Go ahead. You think I'm not going to block them then you're a moron. You think I owe your advertisers good analytics data just so you can make money? Yeah, fuck that.
People shouldn't be willing to accept tracking, analytics, and violation of their privacy just to see a website. We don't know your privacy statement (assuming you have one), we don't know what you do with this data, and we have no recourse for what you do with it.
We wouldn't accept this is the 'real' world, but we're supposed to accept it in the digital one?
Which means the only sensible thing is to either deny them the information, or make sure their information is useless.
If your poor website goes under because your advertisers can't figure out if I wear boxers or briefs ... boo fucking hoo .
Really? Because I can see absolutely no justification for a these ad sites to be able to track everything I do on the internet or why I should accept that as normal.
This is about far more than the revenue of an individual site. This is about a bunch of companies who have a business model which more or less amounts to spying on every damned thing you do and using that to make money.
I wouldn't personally use this tool, because I'd rather block. But it's intent is to clearly mess with the ad companies themselves, and give them shitty information about you to preserve your privacy.
Targeted advertising becomes useless when the have no idea of what you're really looking at.
But since these are companies the consumer has no direct relationship with, who make money based on our personal information without any consent from us, and who then use it for anything they like because they have it ... I don't have a problem with this.
The interwebs provide the ability to have a much more detailed set of information about people than any advertising medium beforehand. That doesn't mean the companies who do this shit should be entitled to that information.
The sense of privilege here is with the advertisers and the the sites who use them.
So screw the ads, and screw the companies who provide them. Why should we give up our privacy so some corporation can make money by hawking baubles and keeping track of what we do?
Well, the reality is ... you as an advertiser don't get a vote what I do in my browser.
You want me to view and click ads? Well, you'll have to pay me. Paying some other guy to embed shit in his web pages which I'm "required" to view? Kind of bullshit, and not happening.
If you're not paying me, then you don't matter, and I don't owe you a damned thing.
If you lack the technical skills to prevent me from blocking your ads, don't piss and moan if I do. If you do have the technical skills to force me to see ads, you'll never see me again because your site will be complete crap.
It's a self leveling problem.
But don't act like you are legally entitled to me seeing or clicking on ads and allowing all of the trackers and analytics companies to provide you with information. That's not my problem.
If you're a big and successful site, you won't notice the small amount of reduction in ads from me (which I was never going to click on anyway). If you're a crappy and struggling site ... well, that's kind of your problem.
Blocking those analytics and ads companies is what I'm gonna do. You do what you want to do, and either your web site will succeed or fail.
But I don't owe you advertising revenue. I don't have an obligation to your advertisers. I don't owe you a damned thing, and you don't owe me anything.
Either I can view your site with the crap blocked, or I can't. But the internet is full of other websites. Just don't expect that I'm going to give permission to 3rd parties to track me just to help you pay the bills.
I want to block this crap.
I want to block their cookies. I want to deny them the analytics or even know that I visited the page. I want the advertisers to piss off and die.
Sure, you can shit in their well and give them crufty data which is useless.
Or you can just block this crap outright, never see it at all, save your damned bandwidth, and leave the parasites out of the equation entirely.
So, Quantserve? Scorecard Research? Google Ad Services? All that crap which is embedded in every page you see? I'll take tools which prevent them from getting traffic from me or any information in the first place.