Then *AA just need to found a new country and make it so every work is registered there and say copyright never expires on that country?
That's what ACTA is for.
See, a bunch of multi-nationals have lobbied the US to do something under the guise of helping US interests. Then they lobbied them to force everyone else to get on board with the same laws so their stuff could be protected internationally. After that, they own everything everywhere.
Who needs a new country when you can slowly bring about an oligarchy in all of them and then call the shots?
Look at the issue in the Gulf: Congress limited liability in 1990, but now the Federal government sees a political opportunity and so puts pressure on BP to pay up above the legal limit.
Well, that's because oil interests lobbied Congress to basically take away any penalties so they could be free to pursue profit without any responsibility.
Now, people are realizing that if you let industry write the rules of how it has to conduct business, they will do stupid and greedy things without consequences.
The problem is that the corporations keep asking for laws that are in their own interests, and in the process screw everyone else over. Having the Public Domain erode even further is just more of the same.
your identity comes from what is important to you. if its important to you, you must fight for it at some point, because your beliefs will be challenged in this world
Canadians have a long history of fighting for what we believe in. We have had troops in most major conflicts over the last 100 years (WWI, WWI, Korea), and we've had peace keeping soldiers in every place that the UN has ever needed them. We have people in Afghanistan, and have lost quite a few soldiers. We're not afraid to fight for what we believe in.
We just don't define our national identity in a way that we understand, let alone in a way that makes sense to someone else.:-P
In terms of the whole Queen thing, it's complicated, and really hard to explain. Some Canadians are of British descent and have historical attachments and fondness. Some are of French descent, and therefore resent the Queen as a symbol of subjugation. Depending on where in the country you live, there might be a particular ethnic tilt in the population since the late comers had to go further West, so in the middle you get a lot of Ukrainian descended people. By the time you get out to the left coast, you get a lot more Asians who have less historical investment in the monarchy and are probably somewhat indifferent. Of course, all of the above is grossly simplified.:-P
We variously have people who want us to return to the monarchy, people who want to get rid of it altogether, and people who don't give a crap. Within my lifetime, we've "officially" gotten the reins to or own Constitution and the like.
The Queen plays less of a role in our identities as Canadians and what that means than you think it might. It's both ever present (the money, and in the wording of government since everything is the "crown" or the "Queen"), and completely not there for the most part in that on a daily basis, I think about the Queen's relationship to us almost none at all.
We just have a less clearly defined national identity than you might expect. And there's not really any one common thing you can point to and say "A Canadian is ".
I'm imagining some poor schmuck on the phone with an ISP trying to explain that the government mandated anti-virus software doesn't support their OS of choice (which the moron on the phone has never heard of) and being told that they can't have internet access because they don't have Windows.
Don't act like it won't happen. Heck, most ISPs if you're trouble-shooting almost demand that you remove the firewall and plug the machine directly into the cable modem, and only have trouble-shooting instructions for Windows and can't comprehend that you might actually be qualified to say that, since nothing has changed on your end, their network must be currently broken.
While I appreciate the intent of this, every time someone tries to legislate solutions to technical problems, they break more stuff.
I own both a Sony reader and an iPad. The Sony reader is far better at reading fiction than the iPad. The iPad is great for more technical stuff and magazine like reading.
Really?? Why? What's the difference between them. Just asking because I've got an iPad and I've been enjoying using it as an e-book reader -- both iBooks and Stanza. Quite a lot actually.
Just curious as to why the experience it better for fiction on the Sony. Because the iPad is better for multi-media kind of stuff, or because the Sony feels more like a book?
Speak up against Apple and be modded Troll or Flamebait. Happened to me yesterday when I questioned Apple's practices.
From what I've seen, that work both ways.
Neither side is actually evaluating the arguments of either -- they're just completely polarized and frothing at the mouth. As a result, people are modding up/down any post which supports/contradicts their own position. That includes the pro-Apple and anti-Apple crowds.
Sad to see Slashdot descend into a Apple fanboy site.
I'm sad to see if descend into both a place that is purely polarized by ideology, and leaves no room for rational discussion. As you say, voices of sanity are being drowned out.
Just because you don't agree with what people say about Apple, doesn't make you right (or them any more so than you for that matter). When it comes to what people want out of technology, there's more than one right answer. So, you can't really say "this is always wrong and everyone who disagrees is a doody head", although that seems to be the mood around here lately. Microsoft neither always sucks nor is it always good, and the exact same applies to Apple.
It's actually two (or more) competing sets of fanbois, all with a particular burr under their saddle.:-P
I understand your qualms, but, I just don't share them.
Yes, Apple maintains control over the app store. But, generally it's intended (at least, in theory) to ensure that the user doesn't have a crappy experience. I have a new iPad, and from just the free apps that are available for download, it largely does everything I need it to do.
Heck, I seem to recall seeing an app which basically a stripped down browser that operated in safe mode, and chucked all of the data when it was done. So you had "private" browsing such as it is. One could surf porn using that if they so chose, but Apple doesn't want to sell or be associated with porn.
However, I'd point out that only just last week or so, Microsoft said they'd not be allowing porn on the Windows Mobile devices, so it's not like Apple is doing anything different there. I'm betting that under most circumstances, most fortune 500 companies don't want to be associated with porn.
As to the products... between using my iPods (I have four accumulated over a decade), my iPad, and iTunes, I've come to appreciate the very integrated experience, it "just goes" -- your mileage may vary, but people using Apple products are actually kind of happy for the rubber-bumpers and safety rails. I'm acutely aware of the fact that they've covered up the sharp edges and made sure to put safeties in all of the outlets. But, I really enjoy it for that fact, and, IMO, it actually contributes to the overall experience. If I want to operate with complete freedom, I have Linux, FreeBSD, XP, and Vista boxes I'm free to do anything on I want.
As far as the whole carrier thing, I would go so far as to say that every cell phone I've ever owned has been tied to the carrier who sold it to me, and the exclusive deal Apple originally did with AT&T kept that business model going. I also understand they're going to start selling unlocked iPhones, so one could be unchained and not need to jailbreak.
I guess if you think your freedom is being restricted, their products aren't for you. If you actually feel like they've just set you up with good choices that work and do what you need, you don't see it that way. And, it's apparently a completely binary position from what I've seen lately on Slashdot. It doesn't seem to be possible for their to be a middle ground.
To me, I like their products because they strip out all of the fiddly bits and focus on what it is you want to do with them. Having my iPad controlled by my existing iTunes actually simplified things for me. Far more so than a netbook, which I think would both require more care and feeding, and still be beholden to the keyboard and mouse model. Checking my email in my backyard while playing iTunes and then going back to my e-book... well, that alone was worth the price of admission. Same goes for taking some documents I need to review away from my desk, and sitting in a comfy chair. I'd rather review a whole slew of technical stuff not sitting bolt upright in a chair, and not with a laptop sitting in my lap. This is more like a hardcopy.
And, really, for defending Apple, recent stuff shows me I'm more likely to get modded down than you are. On a lot of threads is seems mindless Apple bashing gets modded up, and actually trying to discuss the issue and defend Apple gets one modded as Troll. Because everyone has some pet crusade that, for them, makes any and all Appler products completely EVIL... and people seem unwilling to acknowledge the point that their point of view doesn't match that of the people who actually choose to use, and enjoy, Apple's stuff.
Science is generally in a much more nascent stage than most scientists are willing to admit. Perhaps with very real repercussions from providing analyses that cannot reveal useful predictions they may alter their conclusions to reflect the true state of their knowledge.
You know, most scientists will actually give you a pretty clear idea of where their knowledge ends and where guesswork begins. The good ones will refuse to give solid predictions based on the fact that they can't, and they'll tell you as much. Most people seem to think that scientists can predict damned near anything, and if they can't, the bitching starts about that.
Heck, the one in question said "no reason to suppose a sequence of small earthquakes could be the prelude to strong event". Likely because they've seen a series of small earthquakes that have not been followed up by a bigger one. And, they've probably seen just as many larger quakes that came out of nowhere, and weren't presaged by smaller quakes. People like to think the planet plays by nice easy rules that say "every time this is going to happen, that will come a a warning sign" -- it's way more complex.
I feel sorry for any scientist who has to try to explain such things to politicians and the general public in a 10 second sound-bite..
who actually know something about earthquakes as opposed to the fuckwits who want to sue.
This is not suing someone, this is criminal prosecution. They're very different things.
Basically, they're saying that, due to incompetence, the scientists caused the deaths of those people by not giving sufficient warning -- which, as you point out, so far can't be accurately predicted with any reliability.
Criminal charges for this demonstrates that the prosecutor doesn't understand science, and is looking for a scapegoat.
Although, from the linked article on The Independent, this seem to be coming from pressure from citizens. I'm sure if the warning had been raised, and it didn't happen, they'd be looking to sue for that too.
And this is all exactly what I view as being the problem. We keep giving people this cool new stuff with more and more ways to hurt themselves. Unfortunately, what should be common sense is not, and so people get caught by surprise.
Well, it does go beyond that, though.
Think of how many stories we see about Facebook changing their settings so everyone is suddenly sharing everything and needs to explicitly opt out. Or, AT&T inadvertently leaking the email address of anyone with an iPad.
Sometimes, even the people driving the technology haven't considered all of the issues. So, expecting your average smart phone user to be well versed in all of the privacy stuff might be a little difficult. And, it can all change so fast, it's hard to keep up. (Who among us remembers it being an urban myth that you could get a virus from an email even if you never opened it? After telling relatives that was false, suddenly it became true one day.)
When done on a personal level, you run the risk of sounding like a pompous ass and then getting ignored. Coming from corporations or the like, it quite easily starts to sound like fear mongering and again gets ignored.
That's exactly my point -- John Q. Public is going to listen to alarmist stuff as the stuff of crackpots and fear mongering, and the completely tune out. They don't want to hear it, and they don't like being told that they're sheep who need to know more than they do -- it's considered rude.;-)
Striking the balance between educating people and having companies make 'smart' choices with the end-user's welfare in mind is tough. Companies want to maximize their profits, so Facebook isn't well served by saying "well, our privacy settings are by default weak" you should change them, since they want to sell that stuff. They need your information to be as public as possible. Someone can trot out a new thing, and all of a sudden, you have something new to worry about.
I don't think there's an "easy" solution to this. It's a complex problem, and needs to be addressed from multiple angles. At present, the technology is more prevalent than a widespread understanding of the issues. I actually see this continuing to get worse as even more technology gets trotted out to consumers.
Well, I mean, the reason e360 got awarded anything is because Spamhaus "Didn't Bloody Care".
They didn't care, because they're a British company not under the jurisdiction of a US court on the matter. They basically said "please fuck off" and walked out. From one of the links...
Default judgments obtained in US county, state or federal courts have no validity in the UK and can not be enforced under the British legal system... As spamming is illegal in the UK, an Illinois court ordering a British organization to stop blocking incoming Illinois spam in Britain goes contrary to UK law which orders all spammers to cease sending spam in the first place.
In other words, you have no jurisdiction to impose any penalty on us for doing something perfectly legal where we conduct business. In fact, they were helping to prevent e360 from doing something which was illegal in Britain.
Which makes sense. Because, really, if you get notified that someone in Bahrain has given summary judgement against you for violating one of their laws, are you going to show up?
Why do people think that "common sense" is some intrinsic, infallible sense of what is happening around you? At best, it's a measure of "well known shared experiences" that most people remember. At worst, it's merely an expectation that other people should know the things we consider obvious.
If you want to own and play with complex things then you need to understand complex things or it's more likely to come back and bite you in the ass.
You know, I'm going to pull some numbers out of my ass for purposes of illustration: 90% of people don't understand 90% of the workings of 90% of the technology that surrounds them on a daily basis. That might even be generous, but the specifics of the numbers is irrelevant. The barrier to having technology isn't understanding any more, it's paying for it.
They don't really know how a fridge works. Their thermostat is a complete mystery. The workings of a radio is a complete unknown. A light switch makes the dark go away if the bulb isn't burned out. Traffic signals work, but they don't know why. A smart phone is just like that black thing grandma had with the dial, but you can send pictures and text -- that's about the extent of their understanding. They're not required to know anything more than that.
Your toaster analogy is apt -- since for most people, that's about the full extent of how much they will truly understand their smart phone. And, considering a lot of these location based services are less than 2-3 years old, it's not like there has been time for these issues to come to light. People just turn it on, push the pretty buttons, and go. When their friends start using something, they do to. They're not doing any reflecting on the issues of using that technology -- they're not even thinking of it as technology, it' a button. It's part of the phone. It's infrastructure and therefore largely invisible.
They completely lack a frame of reference to seriously ponder the fact that something which is "cool" or "popular" can have ramifications beyond what they have conceived of. Heck, they can't even conceive of the potential issues, since they don't know how it all works.
The reality is, we give more and more complex devices to people on a daily basis. Companies add new features they think their users will like, but the technology is so new, that sometimes even they haven't thought through the possible issues. Computers and technology have gotten into the mainstream far faster than a general understanding of how they work. Heck, I see 10-year old kids with phones -- I'm not even sure most of them are capable of understanding what is being said on the topic of privacy, or why it's important.
I'm just not convinced any more that you can lay all of this at the feet of the users and say it's their fault. I'm not saying we don't need better consumer education. But the pace of technology in our lives means that stuff is happening that most people will never be really 'informed' on all of these topics. I just don't think this is a simple "do this" kind of fix that makes it all go away -- it' way more complex than that.
If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.
You know, new technology creates new situations which previously hadn't needed to be considered.
We're talking a very small number of years that the exact location you were standing when you did something is a matter of electronic record.
Common sense being neither, and the total number of years in which people have had to contend with such issues is relatively low. While you can sound all smug and say "everyone should know that", the reality is that most people with a smart phone barely know what all it does, let alone the legal ramifications of carrying one around. And, the number of people who have had their location subpoenaed for a tweet they made as part of their divorce case? Probably a very small number.
Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades, or that everyone who happens to use what is now a fairly ubiquitous technology is fully dialed into all of the aspects of that technology?
Some of these are actually quite new social and legal considerations. Acting like you've known this forever makes you sound like a smug idiot.
Apple, this way of creating hype is getting way old.
Do you really think that Apple is intentionally crippling their store on purpose? What do they stand to gain by making ordering their product more difficult?
Have you considered that, just maybe, there's actually a large number of people who want one? The people I know with iPhones are a fanatical bunch, and I know an awful lot of people who wish that they too had one.
In fact, her enthusiasm for the iPhone was such that she said she was considering getting her first Mac, which couldn't have gone over too well at home; her husband works for Microsoft.
That's friggin' hilarious... I'm sure Jobs would pay money for that husband and wife duo on with the PC and Mac guys in a commercial.;-)
And just to forestall the argument that iPhone users are sheep, yes, she is a non-technical user, but far from stupid; she's an emergency room physician, and a damned good one too. It never fails to amuse me when smug, elitist techies describe users of Apple products as smug and elitist.
Well, everyone likes to deny it when people say they like Apple products because they give such a nice experience, or that you can get more function from device X for less money. I know people who don't have any other technology gadgets, and they think their iPhones are the coolest things ever, and use 'em for practically everything. I've known people with graduate degrees in computer science who, at home, prefer to use a Mac because they don't want to muck about with it -- it just goes is the usual refrain.
Heck, from what I've been reading about the iPad, I'm buying one this week. All of the things people describe as limitations make me think "now that is a device that just gets it". I don't want to multitask or make spreadsheets. I don't want to type much on it -- I want to sit in a comfy chair and hold it like a book doing completely different things completely differently, and not using a mouse and a keyboard. I'm not buying it as a device to work on, but as something to play with. Instead of surfing the web or whatever being chained to a desk, it unhooks you so completely it sounds awesome.
It just seems to stripped down to the essentials of what that device wants to be, and it gets rid of the fiddly bits. Now, it could never replace my laptop that I use for work, but it looks like it can do so many other things. A wireless infotainment appliance for kicking around at home or doing some research on the web or what have you.
As true as those numbers are, it ignores the fact that without people going into space, Hubble would be floating up there blind as a bat.
It may come to pass that we can put Really Complex Things up into space and have them work and stay working. For now, Hubble could never have happened without manned space flight.
Besides, maybe it's because I'm old and have a romantic attachment to it, but I do think it's a shame that I both remember the beginning and the end of the Shuttle program. When the first ones launched, they used to stop classes and watch it live.
I'm sure it is cheaper and safer. I just seems somehow, less cool.:(
Oh, but kudos to the Japanese for deploying a frickin' solar sail!! That rocks! Go Team!
He'll look like a girl until you get back to your room, at which point you'll notice his Adam's Apple, the suspicious bulge and the slightest hint of a 5 o'clock shadow that wasn't noticeable in the harsh sunlight.
Slashdot Mirror
Komodo. Definitely Komodo. If someone offers to show you their "kimono dragon", they have naughty intentions. ;-)
That's what ACTA is for.
See, a bunch of multi-nationals have lobbied the US to do something under the guise of helping US interests. Then they lobbied them to force everyone else to get on board with the same laws so their stuff could be protected internationally. After that, they own everything everywhere.
Who needs a new country when you can slowly bring about an oligarchy in all of them and then call the shots?
Well, that's because oil interests lobbied Congress to basically take away any penalties so they could be free to pursue profit without any responsibility.
Now, people are realizing that if you let industry write the rules of how it has to conduct business, they will do stupid and greedy things without consequences.
The problem is that the corporations keep asking for laws that are in their own interests, and in the process screw everyone else over. Having the Public Domain erode even further is just more of the same.
Canadians have a long history of fighting for what we believe in. We have had troops in most major conflicts over the last 100 years (WWI, WWI, Korea), and we've had peace keeping soldiers in every place that the UN has ever needed them. We have people in Afghanistan, and have lost quite a few soldiers. We're not afraid to fight for what we believe in.
We just don't define our national identity in a way that we understand, let alone in a way that makes sense to someone else. :-P
In terms of the whole Queen thing, it's complicated, and really hard to explain. Some Canadians are of British descent and have historical attachments and fondness. Some are of French descent, and therefore resent the Queen as a symbol of subjugation. Depending on where in the country you live, there might be a particular ethnic tilt in the population since the late comers had to go further West, so in the middle you get a lot of Ukrainian descended people. By the time you get out to the left coast, you get a lot more Asians who have less historical investment in the monarchy and are probably somewhat indifferent. Of course, all of the above is grossly simplified. :-P
We variously have people who want us to return to the monarchy, people who want to get rid of it altogether, and people who don't give a crap. Within my lifetime, we've "officially" gotten the reins to or own Constitution and the like.
The Queen plays less of a role in our identities as Canadians and what that means than you think it might. It's both ever present (the money, and in the wording of government since everything is the "crown" or the "Queen"), and completely not there for the most part in that on a daily basis, I think about the Queen's relationship to us almost none at all.
We just have a less clearly defined national identity than you might expect. And there's not really any one common thing you can point to and say "A Canadian is ".
AOL? Dialup? Amiga?
What are these strange words you use? ;-)
I'm imagining some poor schmuck on the phone with an ISP trying to explain that the government mandated anti-virus software doesn't support their OS of choice (which the moron on the phone has never heard of) and being told that they can't have internet access because they don't have Windows.
Don't act like it won't happen. Heck, most ISPs if you're trouble-shooting almost demand that you remove the firewall and plug the machine directly into the cable modem, and only have trouble-shooting instructions for Windows and can't comprehend that you might actually be qualified to say that, since nothing has changed on your end, their network must be currently broken.
While I appreciate the intent of this, every time someone tries to legislate solutions to technical problems, they break more stuff.
Shatner has lived in Hollywood for ages, which is a serious strike against anyone vying for the GG position.
For all intents and purposes, he's an American at this point.
Really?? Why? What's the difference between them. Just asking because I've got an iPad and I've been enjoying using it as an e-book reader -- both iBooks and Stanza. Quite a lot actually.
Just curious as to why the experience it better for fiction on the Sony. Because the iPad is better for multi-media kind of stuff, or because the Sony feels more like a book?
AOL basically bought Time Warner with the Monopoly money that was their .com-era stock.
Other than that, probably not much. :-P
From what I've seen, that work both ways.
Neither side is actually evaluating the arguments of either -- they're just completely polarized and frothing at the mouth. As a result, people are modding up/down any post which supports/contradicts their own position. That includes the pro-Apple and anti-Apple crowds.
I'm sad to see if descend into both a place that is purely polarized by ideology, and leaves no room for rational discussion. As you say, voices of sanity are being drowned out.
Just because you don't agree with what people say about Apple, doesn't make you right (or them any more so than you for that matter). When it comes to what people want out of technology, there's more than one right answer. So, you can't really say "this is always wrong and everyone who disagrees is a doody head", although that seems to be the mood around here lately. Microsoft neither always sucks nor is it always good, and the exact same applies to Apple.
It's actually two (or more) competing sets of fanbois, all with a particular burr under their saddle. :-P
And, let the poo-flinging begin. ;-)
Cheers
I understand your qualms, but, I just don't share them.
Yes, Apple maintains control over the app store. But, generally it's intended (at least, in theory) to ensure that the user doesn't have a crappy experience. I have a new iPad, and from just the free apps that are available for download, it largely does everything I need it to do.
Heck, I seem to recall seeing an app which basically a stripped down browser that operated in safe mode, and chucked all of the data when it was done. So you had "private" browsing such as it is. One could surf porn using that if they so chose, but Apple doesn't want to sell or be associated with porn.
However, I'd point out that only just last week or so, Microsoft said they'd not be allowing porn on the Windows Mobile devices, so it's not like Apple is doing anything different there. I'm betting that under most circumstances, most fortune 500 companies don't want to be associated with porn.
As to the products ... between using my iPods (I have four accumulated over a decade), my iPad, and iTunes, I've come to appreciate the very integrated experience, it "just goes" -- your mileage may vary, but people using Apple products are actually kind of happy for the rubber-bumpers and safety rails. I'm acutely aware of the fact that they've covered up the sharp edges and made sure to put safeties in all of the outlets. But, I really enjoy it for that fact, and, IMO, it actually contributes to the overall experience. If I want to operate with complete freedom, I have Linux, FreeBSD, XP, and Vista boxes I'm free to do anything on I want.
As far as the whole carrier thing, I would go so far as to say that every cell phone I've ever owned has been tied to the carrier who sold it to me, and the exclusive deal Apple originally did with AT&T kept that business model going. I also understand they're going to start selling unlocked iPhones, so one could be unchained and not need to jailbreak.
I guess if you think your freedom is being restricted, their products aren't for you. If you actually feel like they've just set you up with good choices that work and do what you need, you don't see it that way. And, it's apparently a completely binary position from what I've seen lately on Slashdot. It doesn't seem to be possible for their to be a middle ground.
To me, I like their products because they strip out all of the fiddly bits and focus on what it is you want to do with them. Having my iPad controlled by my existing iTunes actually simplified things for me. Far more so than a netbook, which I think would both require more care and feeding, and still be beholden to the keyboard and mouse model. Checking my email in my backyard while playing iTunes and then going back to my e-book ... well, that alone was worth the price of admission. Same goes for taking some documents I need to review away from my desk, and sitting in a comfy chair. I'd rather review a whole slew of technical stuff not sitting bolt upright in a chair, and not with a laptop sitting in my lap. This is more like a hardcopy.
And, really, for defending Apple, recent stuff shows me I'm more likely to get modded down than you are. On a lot of threads is seems mindless Apple bashing gets modded up, and actually trying to discuss the issue and defend Apple gets one modded as Troll. Because everyone has some pet crusade that, for them, makes any and all Appler products completely EVIL ... and people seem unwilling to acknowledge the point that their point of view doesn't match that of the people who actually choose to use, and enjoy, Apple's stuff.
Cheers
No, somebody's planet did this.
You know, most scientists will actually give you a pretty clear idea of where their knowledge ends and where guesswork begins. The good ones will refuse to give solid predictions based on the fact that they can't, and they'll tell you as much. Most people seem to think that scientists can predict damned near anything, and if they can't, the bitching starts about that.
Heck, the one in question said "no reason to suppose a sequence of small earthquakes could be the prelude to strong event". Likely because they've seen a series of small earthquakes that have not been followed up by a bigger one. And, they've probably seen just as many larger quakes that came out of nowhere, and weren't presaged by smaller quakes. People like to think the planet plays by nice easy rules that say "every time this is going to happen, that will come a a warning sign" -- it's way more complex.
I feel sorry for any scientist who has to try to explain such things to politicians and the general public in a 10 second sound-bite..
This is not suing someone, this is criminal prosecution. They're very different things.
Basically, they're saying that, due to incompetence, the scientists caused the deaths of those people by not giving sufficient warning -- which, as you point out, so far can't be accurately predicted with any reliability.
Criminal charges for this demonstrates that the prosecutor doesn't understand science, and is looking for a scapegoat.
Although, from the linked article on The Independent, this seem to be coming from pressure from citizens. I'm sure if the warning had been raised, and it didn't happen, they'd be looking to sue for that too.
Prosecutors will sure as hell take the credit when they win because it was obviously their hard work that secured the conviction.
And, not all things are tried in front of a jury, some are purely in front of a judge.
Well, it does go beyond that, though.
Think of how many stories we see about Facebook changing their settings so everyone is suddenly sharing everything and needs to explicitly opt out. Or, AT&T inadvertently leaking the email address of anyone with an iPad.
Sometimes, even the people driving the technology haven't considered all of the issues. So, expecting your average smart phone user to be well versed in all of the privacy stuff might be a little difficult. And, it can all change so fast, it's hard to keep up. (Who among us remembers it being an urban myth that you could get a virus from an email even if you never opened it? After telling relatives that was false, suddenly it became true one day.)
That's exactly my point -- John Q. Public is going to listen to alarmist stuff as the stuff of crackpots and fear mongering, and the completely tune out. They don't want to hear it, and they don't like being told that they're sheep who need to know more than they do -- it's considered rude. ;-)
Striking the balance between educating people and having companies make 'smart' choices with the end-user's welfare in mind is tough. Companies want to maximize their profits, so Facebook isn't well served by saying "well, our privacy settings are by default weak" you should change them, since they want to sell that stuff. They need your information to be as public as possible. Someone can trot out a new thing, and all of a sudden, you have something new to worry about.
I don't think there's an "easy" solution to this. It's a complex problem, and needs to be addressed from multiple angles. At present, the technology is more prevalent than a widespread understanding of the issues. I actually see this continuing to get worse as even more technology gets trotted out to consumers.
They didn't care, because they're a British company not under the jurisdiction of a US court on the matter. They basically said "please fuck off" and walked out. From one of the links ...
In other words, you have no jurisdiction to impose any penalty on us for doing something perfectly legal where we conduct business. In fact, they were helping to prevent e360 from doing something which was illegal in Britain.
Which makes sense. Because, really, if you get notified that someone in Bahrain has given summary judgement against you for violating one of their laws, are you going to show up?
Why do people think that "common sense" is some intrinsic, infallible sense of what is happening around you? At best, it's a measure of "well known shared experiences" that most people remember. At worst, it's merely an expectation that other people should know the things we consider obvious.
You know, I'm going to pull some numbers out of my ass for purposes of illustration: 90% of people don't understand 90% of the workings of 90% of the technology that surrounds them on a daily basis. That might even be generous, but the specifics of the numbers is irrelevant. The barrier to having technology isn't understanding any more, it's paying for it.
They don't really know how a fridge works. Their thermostat is a complete mystery. The workings of a radio is a complete unknown. A light switch makes the dark go away if the bulb isn't burned out. Traffic signals work, but they don't know why. A smart phone is just like that black thing grandma had with the dial, but you can send pictures and text -- that's about the extent of their understanding. They're not required to know anything more than that.
Your toaster analogy is apt -- since for most people, that's about the full extent of how much they will truly understand their smart phone. And, considering a lot of these location based services are less than 2-3 years old, it's not like there has been time for these issues to come to light. People just turn it on, push the pretty buttons, and go. When their friends start using something, they do to. They're not doing any reflecting on the issues of using that technology -- they're not even thinking of it as technology, it' a button. It's part of the phone. It's infrastructure and therefore largely invisible.
They completely lack a frame of reference to seriously ponder the fact that something which is "cool" or "popular" can have ramifications beyond what they have conceived of. Heck, they can't even conceive of the potential issues, since they don't know how it all works.
The reality is, we give more and more complex devices to people on a daily basis. Companies add new features they think their users will like, but the technology is so new, that sometimes even they haven't thought through the possible issues. Computers and technology have gotten into the mainstream far faster than a general understanding of how they work. Heck, I see 10-year old kids with phones -- I'm not even sure most of them are capable of understanding what is being said on the topic of privacy, or why it's important.
I'm just not convinced any more that you can lay all of this at the feet of the users and say it's their fault. I'm not saying we don't need better consumer education. But the pace of technology in our lives means that stuff is happening that most people will never be really 'informed' on all of these topics. I just don't think this is a simple "do this" kind of fix that makes it all go away -- it' way more complex than that.
You know, new technology creates new situations which previously hadn't needed to be considered.
We're talking a very small number of years that the exact location you were standing when you did something is a matter of electronic record.
Common sense being neither, and the total number of years in which people have had to contend with such issues is relatively low. While you can sound all smug and say "everyone should know that", the reality is that most people with a smart phone barely know what all it does, let alone the legal ramifications of carrying one around. And, the number of people who have had their location subpoenaed for a tweet they made as part of their divorce case? Probably a very small number.
Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades, or that everyone who happens to use what is now a fairly ubiquitous technology is fully dialed into all of the aspects of that technology?
Some of these are actually quite new social and legal considerations. Acting like you've known this forever makes you sound like a smug idiot.
*laugh* In the last two months, I've bought an iPod classic and an iPad. I hear you.
Do you really think that Apple is intentionally crippling their store on purpose? What do they stand to gain by making ordering their product more difficult?
Have you considered that, just maybe, there's actually a large number of people who want one? The people I know with iPhones are a fanatical bunch, and I know an awful lot of people who wish that they too had one.
That's friggin' hilarious ... I'm sure Jobs would pay money for that husband and wife duo on with the PC and Mac guys in a commercial. ;-)
Well, everyone likes to deny it when people say they like Apple products because they give such a nice experience, or that you can get more function from device X for less money. I know people who don't have any other technology gadgets, and they think their iPhones are the coolest things ever, and use 'em for practically everything. I've known people with graduate degrees in computer science who, at home, prefer to use a Mac because they don't want to muck about with it -- it just goes is the usual refrain.
Heck, from what I've been reading about the iPad, I'm buying one this week. All of the things people describe as limitations make me think "now that is a device that just gets it". I don't want to multitask or make spreadsheets. I don't want to type much on it -- I want to sit in a comfy chair and hold it like a book doing completely different things completely differently, and not using a mouse and a keyboard. I'm not buying it as a device to work on, but as something to play with. Instead of surfing the web or whatever being chained to a desk, it unhooks you so completely it sounds awesome.
It just seems to stripped down to the essentials of what that device wants to be, and it gets rid of the fiddly bits. Now, it could never replace my laptop that I use for work, but it looks like it can do so many other things. A wireless infotainment appliance for kicking around at home or doing some research on the web or what have you.
As true as those numbers are, it ignores the fact that without people going into space, Hubble would be floating up there blind as a bat.
It may come to pass that we can put Really Complex Things up into space and have them work and stay working. For now, Hubble could never have happened without manned space flight.
Besides, maybe it's because I'm old and have a romantic attachment to it, but I do think it's a shame that I both remember the beginning and the end of the Shuttle program. When the first ones launched, they used to stop classes and watch it live.
I'm sure it is cheaper and safer. I just seems somehow, less cool. :(
Oh, but kudos to the Japanese for deploying a frickin' solar sail!! That rocks! Go Team!
I thought that was Thailand? ;-)
You know, I'm planning on buying an iPad this week.
The beret thing sounds kind of fun ...