You know, in my experience I am forced to assume the "legitimate" call centers are staffed by the exact same people as the spammers, and that they likely collect the "legal" information to use for the illegal stuff.
Can't prove this, but pretty much all incoming calls are bullshit these days... unless I know the actual caller, I pretty much treat them all like they're scams. Heck, according to caller ID, apparently I've called myself on a few occasions.
Incoming calls have pretty much become worthless, but occasionally spewing profanity at someone is a nice stress relief. I'm passed the point where I'm willing to treat you like a human.
You're either fraudulent, or trying to sell me some shit I'm not interested in. Which means I place no value on your feelings.
Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
Yup, that's the new model... pay, and then pay again, and then pay some more.
Like them, or hate them, Apple's "Digital Copy" was a one-time download, and didn't have all of this bullshit.
UltraViolet is pretty much crap, and I refuse to use it. It means I need to sign up with pretty much every studio, let them track everything I do, ask their permission to watch the damned movie, and be at their mercy if they ever change their minds.
If I don't get to keep my digital copy on my local machine, put it on a device of my choosing, and play it without an internet connected device... then I refuse to buy the damned things.
UltraViolet basically killed digital movies for me. I will not keep supporting this rent-seeking bullshit, nor will I keep paying to upgrade.
And, no, I don't give a crap about yet another movie format. I see 4K as having zero value, and other than the media companies wanting to sell me a new TV every year or two, I don't see why I should get on it.
UltraViolet is just letting the media companies keep you on an upgrade treadmill, and ensure you keep paying for the same thing.
I saw this coming, and simply refuse to use this UltraViolet bullshit... because sooner or later they'll just tell you that you need to pay more just because they want it.
Well, then take all the words I've said about IFTTT, and read them again.
"if you want to continue to be an IFTTT channel, you need to pay a subscription fee of $X/month". These are simple business propositions.
Right, because what we really want is a world in which every asshole with a startup and no business model randomly demands you pay them money to be part of their awesomeness because they believe you're only successful because of them -- I can imagine all of the stupid already.
If Pinboard doesn't think that IFTTT is useful to them, they don't take the deal, IFTTT drops them, and that's the end of the story.
Pinboard is doing exactly that, quite likely because they don't feed IFTTT is adding much value to them.
IFTTT built a product based on providing whatever the hell they do with someone else's content.
They massively overvalue what they bring to the table, and suddenly think they have the clout to make demands on companies they likely never compensated for their content, and now are feeling so self entitled they're demanding those sites actually maintain the core parts of IFTTT's product and sign license terms.
I'm hostile because I view IFTTT as parasites, who made money delivering someone else's content, feel entitled to something, and are now trying to get others to maintain the infrastructure IFTTT needs to keep working.
I view this "service" as knocking on my door and saying you've refrained from shitting on my lawn all month, and how wouldn't it be a shame if I ended our "relationship" and you were forced to stop refraining from shitting on my lawn. I never asked you for this "service", you place a value on this "service" which you think places you in a position of power, and you seem to think I'm going to be oh-so-grateful that you're "allowing" me to continue receiving this service that I'll build the pieces to keep your service running and sign an exclusive not-shitting-on-my-lawn contract with you.
The self entitled asshole here is IFTTT, who are suddenly claiming their not-shitting-on-your-lawn service has clearly been so beneficial to you that you should build them a podium upon which to not shit.
But, please, don't pretend YOU building YOUR product and YOUR business model by using MY content is providing ME with a "service". And don't think that I've hitched my fortunes to YOUR "service" or that I should be the one to maintain it for you. And don't be surprised when I tell you I see no value whatsoever in your damned "service".
It both overstates your value to me, and tries to legitimize every idiot who thinks he's going to build a "service" and then shake down people to get them to maintain that "service" for you.
IFTTT provides the same service to Pinboard as I do to Pepsi by not poisoning their product.
IFTTT makes money by providing something to access the content provided by someone else. That isn't providing a "service" to Pinboard, that's claiming Pinboard has no value without your service. Pinboard doesn't agree.
The only thing rooted in fact is IFTTT is now demanding someone else maintain the parts which allows IFTTT to generate money, and that in the process they should get consideration under a license which suddenly imposes restrictions on the people whose content they're brokering. You know, "by re-writing your stuff to adhere to our new API you grant us IP rights to anything cool you do" -- wow, awfully nice of them.
You keep saying mail delivery, internet service, and sewer pipes... but you clearly have no understanding of the issue.
NOBODY INVITED IFTTT TO THE TABLE. They've just decreed they add value to Pinboard, and now expect someone else to prop up their business model.
If an ISP did this, it would be the equivalent of saying "we inspected your web pages, changed some of the ads to make us money, and now we need you to change how you write your web page to adhere to our spec and also sign this license which grants us control over your new code".
This is a 3rd party service, offering stuff to the end users, and then claiming that they provide much of the value of the source of the content... all while providing nothing tangible in return.
They're not doing a damned thing on behalf of Pinboard or anybody else. They built a product and now want the content they serve to maintain that product and sign away some rights for the fucking privilege.
You're delusional if you can't understand that IFTTT is offering NOTHING OF VALUE to Pinboard here. IFTTT is demanding Pinboard undertake work and sign away rights for the privilege of having their content served by IFTTT and for nothing else in return... Pinboard is saying "we have no such interest in propping up your business model, so when you stop supporting us we will simply not give a damn".
The "service" you claim they're providing to Pinboard is in fact their own damned product. And they can bloody well maintain it themselves. "Nice content, shame if it stopped being featured in our product" is not providing a fucking service.
I very much doubt Pinboard pays IFTTT a damned thing, or has any contract with them. In fact, IFTTT is consuming Pinboard's product.
Pinboard isn't using a damned thing... IFTTT is pulling content from Pinboard, and now is demanding that Pinboard write new code for a new API and sign a license detailing what can be done with that code. As I understand this, IFTTT wrote this, it exists independent of anything Pinboard has every done... and now IFTTT is asserting that Pinboard needs to write new code and sign a license giving rights to IFTTT.
This is someone with whom Pinboard has no actual relationship, suddenly claiming Pinboard needs to do things for them and sign a contract.
I don't think Pinboard expects a damned thing, because Pinboard has no skin in the game for what IFTTT does.
To extend this metaphor... this is the troll who lives in the sewer demanding you change the shape of your toilet to match his mouth, and that you stop eating cabbage because it's upsetting his stomach. The troll is in no damned position to make demands.
Pinboard did not write, does not own, and currently does not maintain any "client code", nor do they have an active relationship with IFTTT. IFTTT wrote client code for Pinboard, and is now demanding Pinboard write new code and sign a license about how that new code is used.
As I said, this is a complete shakedown by a 3rd party who claims the value provided by Pinboard only exists because of IFTTT.
Pinboard is rightly saying "fuck you, we have no relationship with you, and we're not doing any of this stuff"
Oh, and what has really happened is your own customers arranged for the package to be delivered to you (the delivery company), the person sending the package has no relationship with the delivery company and has no idea why the delivery company is in any position to make demands.
Claiming the users couldn't get your package without redirecting it through you... well, that's pretty much bullshit.
This is a company who has built a product around being a middle man, and now suddenly expects the source of their data to provide them with additional services for free. The people who make the content in the first place? They're not dependent on IFTTT at all.
This is purely a shakedown by someone who is saying "without us, your service would be nothing". And, rightly, the guys from Pinbook are saying "that sounds like bullshit to us, and we're not playing this stupid game".
Boo fricking hoo for IFTTT, demanding someone else provide the means of your "service" continuing to work is a nice con job, but nobody with any sense is going to undertake work on behalf of IFTTT or sign licensing terms. You want your "service" to keep working? Write it your own damned self, and piss off with your demands someone else use your API or adhere to your license.
This is a pan-handler asserting he has a lien on my future revenues to protect his fucking business model.
Think of it a bit like package delivery: would you rather live in a place where packages can be delivered or where package delivery operators refuse to go?
That's a terrible analogy. This isn't a package delivery service, and the people most certainly could have gotten these "packages" where they already were -- the user can already reach that content. IFTTT isn't brokering access to something the user can't already access.
This is a 3rd party who has injected themselves into the conversation, now claims that the value they provide is indispensable to you, and then demands you do some extra work for them and sign a license saying the extra work they've asked you to do for them is their property.
IFTTT can provide all of the "service" they want. They provided that "service" without action or obligation on behalf of the sites whose content they "service". And now they're claiming that those sites need to take some action and sign a license. This is asking Pinboard to maintain shit IFTTT wrote, and sign a license agreement with IFTTT -- what moron would do that?
This has nothing at all to do with package delivery; this is more like sending something to a general delivery address, some guy coming in and saying "oh, I can take it to him", slapping a sticker on your package and them claiming you owe him for his services. Sorry, but nobody invited you to the party, so you don't get to claim you're owed something.
IFTTT wasn't engaged to provide a service on behalf of anybody but the users of IFTTT. Nobody owes IFTTT a fucking thing in this situation.
If a user employs a 3rd party service to fetch and manipulate the content of a web site, the value of that service is between the user and that 3rd party. The 3rd party can fuck off when it comes to making demands on the web site whose content they wrote connector code to access in the first place.
Package delivery service my ass. Making money off providing access to someone else's content and then expecting them to reward them for you it? As I said, complete and utter bullshit.
If the people who use IFTTT find it useful, and IFTTT wrote that "service" themselves, WTF do they expect people to suddenly adhere to the random demands of IFTTT??? IFTTT is in no position to expect anybody to do a damned thing to keep their "service" working, and they're certainly in no position to also attach licensing terms to anybody.
Who gives a shit what IFTTT want here? Randomly asserting someone owes you something because you wrote code to access their stuff is delusional and idiotic.
IFTTT wrote code to access the content on someone else's site. Telling that site they must now use a new API and sign terms of service with you? Oh hell no. You want your shit to keep working, you fucking write it.
Not just maintain their service, but agree to terms of service IFTTT is imposing, and write new code for them.
Wait, what? You integrate with my stuff and you want me to agree to YOUR terms of service? Really? And write you code for free? Gee, sounds awesome.
What legal leg to stand on to IFTTT think they have here? This is a land grab, basically with the thinly veiled threat that IFTTT brings value to site owners, and that they should be signing their contract to keep that happening.
Again, this is so much bullshit it isn't even funny.
The people from IFTTT who wrote that shit are utterly delusional, and have apparently lost sight of the fact that they're providing access to someone else's stuff, and that someone else doesn't owe them a damned thing.
Who the hell would sign any rights away to some random asshole who says "since our stuff uses yours stuff you owe us something"?
I'd rewrite my own terms of service that says "if you're a third party accessing our stuff, or writing tools to access our stuff, you owe us 25% of your revenues" and then tell them to pay up or fuck off.
This is a street busker asserting copyright over the songs he sings. I hope nobody has ever actually signed this, because if they have they've essentially been robbed.
You know, reading that, it's hard not to think IFTTT (which I've never heard of) are being the dicks here... YOU wrote a tool which scrapes content from other sites, and now YOU want THEM to conform to your API, as well as preventing 3rd parties from using your shit? And possibly give YOU rights to THEIR content and retain the right to change the license? Good luck with that.
This sounds like an illegal squatter suing the property owner to upgrade the plumbing and fix the leaky roof.
What, exactly, is IFTTT offering in return other than to say "in order to allow our users to access your site with our stuff, you have to agree to the following". Why would anybody accept random terms and conditions by a third party who merely redistributes your own stuff is a mystery to me.
Sorry, this sounds like a bit of bullshit shakedown, and expecting someone to take steps to support your stuff... my answer would be to ignore them as well.
Everything about this sounds like childish, petulant and over-reaching behavior in which the 3rd party service is asserting some form of control over the original service so the 3rd party can retain their users. What makes you think the original service owes you a damned thing?
Much of what his "wealth" actually is is him over-estimating how valuable it it for him to make revenue, by putting his name on his next swindle - er - venture, in such a way that people throw money at him to let him front a failing project which will never live up to promises, thereby allowing him to walk away making some money while everyone else usually gets screwed.
He's PT fucking Barnum, his "wealth" is a confidence game of lies and bullshit.
The intangible value of his brand is most of his net worth in his mind. But he sure doesn't have real, valued assets which are anywhere near what he claims to be worth.
Dude, not that complicated... everybody is fucking with almost everybody else... and the people you're not fucking with, you probably have allies who are fucking with them and sharing the information with you.
And then everybody is acting outraged at the other guys who are fucking with them, while kinda sorta denying in a half-assed way that they're doing the same thing.
Every now and then to stroke their own ego or boost a little nationalism, they point at someone else and say "hey, you're fucking with us, and we won't stand for it".
The only difference between now and before is it happens much faster, and people can just claim it was someone else, and nobody gets shot at.
Don't go looking for some grand plan, just a bunch of schemers all doing the same thing to one another.
Sure, but you're smart and know about security and take precautions.
But all of the regular consumers out there, running this stuff without additional knowledge about security, behind routers which themselves are probably compromised (assuming they even have a firewall)... I assume there are people out there who are potentially actively being exploited already.
I don't need to assume every single one is being exploited. But, really, a widely known exploit against commodity DVRs used to back CCTV? Yeah, that's been hacked already.
The things that informed people with a healthy dose of fear and skepticism do is nothing like the guy who goes to Circuit City and buys a home surveillance system... and it's those people I assume have a pretty high chance of having been hacked.
I was wondering how someone with that small of a block could force this, but I guess it depends on the way the company charter and other stuff is written.
I guess if it says "a block of 1% shall be sufficient" or something like that, sure.
But otherwise you'd think the board could say "over-ruled".
The sad thing is, I don't think this is limited to certain hospitals... their core competency is health care, and the fact that IT in hospitals has been underfunded or badly done for years isn't exactly news.
We've been hearing these same stories for years now.
Yes, brilliant, let's hope hospitals go out of business so we can waste money starting from scratch, that will totally be efficient.
If these things are so trivially hacked, how would you know?
Everything from knowing if someone is away from home to actually erasing footage is entirely possible with this exploit. As much as we laugh at movies which show this, why would you assume it can't happen once you realize there's tons of these things with little or no security?
If it can be exploited it probably will. And if cameras have GPS, or you can somehow determine whose PVR you've hacked (which likely isn't that tough since you know the IP you hacked it with and geolocation isn't exactly new)... then it's likely not that tough to know exactly where you're looking.
The problem with shit security and internet connected things is it can snowball in ways nobody really expected.
Can I cite a specific place where I know this was exploited? Absolutely not. Would anybody know if it had happened? Who knows.
But once a hack becomes plausible and then downright easy, you should probably assume it's being used.
However it could just be a manipulation and intended for the lulz.
Of course it is:
This is because her responses are learned by the conversations she has with real humans online - and real humans like to say weird stuff online and enjoy hijacking corporate attempts at PR.
I'm sorry, but if you put an AI on the internet which is going to learn from the conversations it has online, and people KNOW this fact... this is pretty much inevitable.
Anybody who didn't think this would happen was a frigging idiot.
You want an AI which conforms to some expectations, don't let a bunch of random people on Twitter be the ones to train it. The internet doesn't care about your desired outcomes.
It does care about how badly they can screw up your AI which is learning from Twitter conversations. And it looks like they succeeded.
Issues that should be civil and handled by the corporation's at their cost are legislated into criminal issues where the taxpayers bear the cost burden. Privatize the profits, socialize the expenses.
Absolutely true.
Notice how neatly they've maneuvered the DHS and ICE into policing copyright?
Notice how they've paid the US to force this into "trade" negotiations, and effectively write new laws for other countries?
America is absolutely leading the charge in the globalization of corporate welfare to ensure that corporations have more rights than people. And they've taken the public stance that them being on the payroll of corporations is somehow going to be better for us all... I have no idea if they believe this or not, or they're just laughing as they take money from corporate interests to sell out ours.
Welcome to the global oligarchy, because they now enjoy many legal rights you and I no longer have.... like having the police protect us from abuse of the law.
The police now exist to enforce the will of their corporate overlords. Holy fuck, you can't even make this shit up.
But, make no mistake about it, the will of the corporations carries far more weight than any rights we think we're supposed to have, and the system is now stacked against us. And that was bought and sold in the open by lobbyists.
Where the fuck is Reg the Blank when you need him?
he has assisted others in potentially performing now criminal acts
So, if you sell someone a gun, have you assisted them in "potentially" performing criminal acts?
Is visiting a website a criminal act? Linking to a website? What is our threshold for the hypothetical act of hypothetically allowing people to commit hypothetical crimes for which only they are actually responsible for hypothetically doing?
Sending someone to prison for running a web proxy to bypass a restriction placed on ISPs by a court as per a court order brought by a private corporation.. if this is what we're calling "a criminal act", then the assholes running this copyright shakedown have been given FAR too much leeway.
This entire thing sounds like bullshit, because as far as I can tell, there isn't a single law this guy has actually broken.
A DVR which is backing the CCTV feed of surveillance cameras. Yup, totally boring.
Why, nobody would want to have access to the take from a bunch of surveillance cameras, right?
Or, this is the full on movie-scenario where the shadowy organization hacks into the video feeds of various places that every complains isn't realistic.
The endless stream of shitty security we keep hearing about has a lot of potential ways to be misused, and apparently very little stopping it.
"At one point, the company even had people taking photographs of the motherboards in the computer servers it was using, then mark down exactly what each chip was, to make sure everything was fully understood."
You know, 15 years ago, give or take, this would have been considered the most absurd tin-foil hat bullshit imaginable.
Suddenly, we find ourselves in a world where this makes total sense... which scares the shit out of me.
It's like the nasty dystopian future, but without cool skater chicks and designer digital drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, in my experience I am forced to assume the "legitimate" call centers are staffed by the exact same people as the spammers, and that they likely collect the "legal" information to use for the illegal stuff.
Can't prove this, but pretty much all incoming calls are bullshit these days ... unless I know the actual caller, I pretty much treat them all like they're scams. Heck, according to caller ID, apparently I've called myself on a few occasions.
Incoming calls have pretty much become worthless, but occasionally spewing profanity at someone is a nice stress relief. I'm passed the point where I'm willing to treat you like a human.
You're either fraudulent, or trying to sell me some shit I'm not interested in. Which means I place no value on your feelings.
Yup, that's the new model ... pay, and then pay again, and then pay some more.
Like them, or hate them, Apple's "Digital Copy" was a one-time download, and didn't have all of this bullshit.
UltraViolet is pretty much crap, and I refuse to use it. It means I need to sign up with pretty much every studio, let them track everything I do, ask their permission to watch the damned movie, and be at their mercy if they ever change their minds.
If I don't get to keep my digital copy on my local machine, put it on a device of my choosing, and play it without an internet connected device ... then I refuse to buy the damned things.
UltraViolet basically killed digital movies for me. I will not keep supporting this rent-seeking bullshit, nor will I keep paying to upgrade.
And, no, I don't give a crap about yet another movie format. I see 4K as having zero value, and other than the media companies wanting to sell me a new TV every year or two, I don't see why I should get on it.
UltraViolet is just letting the media companies keep you on an upgrade treadmill, and ensure you keep paying for the same thing.
I saw this coming, and simply refuse to use this UltraViolet bullshit ... because sooner or later they'll just tell you that you need to pay more just because they want it.
My god, man ... you've just provided the information to hack almost every router on the planet.
You're going to jail for being a terrorist!! :-P
Well, then take all the words I've said about IFTTT, and read them again.
Right, because what we really want is a world in which every asshole with a startup and no business model randomly demands you pay them money to be part of their awesomeness because they believe you're only successful because of them -- I can imagine all of the stupid already.
Pinboard is doing exactly that, quite likely because they don't feed IFTTT is adding much value to them.
IFTTT built a product based on providing whatever the hell they do with someone else's content.
They massively overvalue what they bring to the table, and suddenly think they have the clout to make demands on companies they likely never compensated for their content, and now are feeling so self entitled they're demanding those sites actually maintain the core parts of IFTTT's product and sign license terms.
I'm hostile because I view IFTTT as parasites, who made money delivering someone else's content, feel entitled to something, and are now trying to get others to maintain the infrastructure IFTTT needs to keep working.
I view this "service" as knocking on my door and saying you've refrained from shitting on my lawn all month, and how wouldn't it be a shame if I ended our "relationship" and you were forced to stop refraining from shitting on my lawn. I never asked you for this "service", you place a value on this "service" which you think places you in a position of power, and you seem to think I'm going to be oh-so-grateful that you're "allowing" me to continue receiving this service that I'll build the pieces to keep your service running and sign an exclusive not-shitting-on-my-lawn contract with you.
The self entitled asshole here is IFTTT, who are suddenly claiming their not-shitting-on-your-lawn service has clearly been so beneficial to you that you should build them a podium upon which to not shit.
But, please, don't pretend YOU building YOUR product and YOUR business model by using MY content is providing ME with a "service". And don't think that I've hitched my fortunes to YOUR "service" or that I should be the one to maintain it for you. And don't be surprised when I tell you I see no value whatsoever in your damned "service".
It both overstates your value to me, and tries to legitimize every idiot who thinks he's going to build a "service" and then shake down people to get them to maintain that "service" for you.
You seem to be implying some level of standard for "real men" and the creation of children.
You clearly haven't been out in public lately and observed just who is procreating, because that's pretty far from reality.
Again, bullshit.
IFTTT provides the same service to Pinboard as I do to Pepsi by not poisoning their product.
IFTTT makes money by providing something to access the content provided by someone else. That isn't providing a "service" to Pinboard, that's claiming Pinboard has no value without your service. Pinboard doesn't agree.
The only thing rooted in fact is IFTTT is now demanding someone else maintain the parts which allows IFTTT to generate money, and that in the process they should get consideration under a license which suddenly imposes restrictions on the people whose content they're brokering. You know, "by re-writing your stuff to adhere to our new API you grant us IP rights to anything cool you do" -- wow, awfully nice of them.
You keep saying mail delivery, internet service, and sewer pipes ... but you clearly have no understanding of the issue.
NOBODY INVITED IFTTT TO THE TABLE. They've just decreed they add value to Pinboard, and now expect someone else to prop up their business model.
If an ISP did this, it would be the equivalent of saying "we inspected your web pages, changed some of the ads to make us money, and now we need you to change how you write your web page to adhere to our spec and also sign this license which grants us control over your new code".
This is a 3rd party service, offering stuff to the end users, and then claiming that they provide much of the value of the source of the content ... all while providing nothing tangible in return.
They're not doing a damned thing on behalf of Pinboard or anybody else. They built a product and now want the content they serve to maintain that product and sign away some rights for the fucking privilege.
You're delusional if you can't understand that IFTTT is offering NOTHING OF VALUE to Pinboard here. IFTTT is demanding Pinboard undertake work and sign away rights for the privilege of having their content served by IFTTT and for nothing else in return ... Pinboard is saying "we have no such interest in propping up your business model, so when you stop supporting us we will simply not give a damn".
The "service" you claim they're providing to Pinboard is in fact their own damned product. And they can bloody well maintain it themselves. "Nice content, shame if it stopped being featured in our product" is not providing a fucking service.
Pinboard doesn't owe IFTTT a damned thing here.
I very much doubt Pinboard pays IFTTT a damned thing, or has any contract with them. In fact, IFTTT is consuming Pinboard's product.
Pinboard isn't using a damned thing ... IFTTT is pulling content from Pinboard, and now is demanding that Pinboard write new code for a new API and sign a license detailing what can be done with that code. As I understand this, IFTTT wrote this, it exists independent of anything Pinboard has every done ... and now IFTTT is asserting that Pinboard needs to write new code and sign a license giving rights to IFTTT.
This is someone with whom Pinboard has no actual relationship, suddenly claiming Pinboard needs to do things for them and sign a contract.
I don't think Pinboard expects a damned thing, because Pinboard has no skin in the game for what IFTTT does.
To extend this metaphor ... this is the troll who lives in the sewer demanding you change the shape of your toilet to match his mouth, and that you stop eating cabbage because it's upsetting his stomach. The troll is in no damned position to make demands.
Pinboard did not write, does not own, and currently does not maintain any "client code", nor do they have an active relationship with IFTTT. IFTTT wrote client code for Pinboard, and is now demanding Pinboard write new code and sign a license about how that new code is used.
As I said, this is a complete shakedown by a 3rd party who claims the value provided by Pinboard only exists because of IFTTT.
Pinboard is rightly saying "fuck you, we have no relationship with you, and we're not doing any of this stuff"
Oh, and what has really happened is your own customers arranged for the package to be delivered to you (the delivery company), the person sending the package has no relationship with the delivery company and has no idea why the delivery company is in any position to make demands.
Claiming the users couldn't get your package without redirecting it through you ... well, that's pretty much bullshit.
This is a company who has built a product around being a middle man, and now suddenly expects the source of their data to provide them with additional services for free. The people who make the content in the first place? They're not dependent on IFTTT at all.
This is purely a shakedown by someone who is saying "without us, your service would be nothing". And, rightly, the guys from Pinbook are saying "that sounds like bullshit to us, and we're not playing this stupid game".
Boo fricking hoo for IFTTT, demanding someone else provide the means of your "service" continuing to work is a nice con job, but nobody with any sense is going to undertake work on behalf of IFTTT or sign licensing terms. You want your "service" to keep working? Write it your own damned self, and piss off with your demands someone else use your API or adhere to your license.
This is a pan-handler asserting he has a lien on my future revenues to protect his fucking business model.
That's a terrible analogy. This isn't a package delivery service, and the people most certainly could have gotten these "packages" where they already were -- the user can already reach that content. IFTTT isn't brokering access to something the user can't already access.
This is a 3rd party who has injected themselves into the conversation, now claims that the value they provide is indispensable to you, and then demands you do some extra work for them and sign a license saying the extra work they've asked you to do for them is their property.
IFTTT can provide all of the "service" they want. They provided that "service" without action or obligation on behalf of the sites whose content they "service". And now they're claiming that those sites need to take some action and sign a license. This is asking Pinboard to maintain shit IFTTT wrote, and sign a license agreement with IFTTT -- what moron would do that?
This has nothing at all to do with package delivery; this is more like sending something to a general delivery address, some guy coming in and saying "oh, I can take it to him", slapping a sticker on your package and them claiming you owe him for his services. Sorry, but nobody invited you to the party, so you don't get to claim you're owed something.
IFTTT wasn't engaged to provide a service on behalf of anybody but the users of IFTTT. Nobody owes IFTTT a fucking thing in this situation.
If a user employs a 3rd party service to fetch and manipulate the content of a web site, the value of that service is between the user and that 3rd party. The 3rd party can fuck off when it comes to making demands on the web site whose content they wrote connector code to access in the first place.
Package delivery service my ass. Making money off providing access to someone else's content and then expecting them to reward them for you it? As I said, complete and utter bullshit.
If the people who use IFTTT find it useful, and IFTTT wrote that "service" themselves, WTF do they expect people to suddenly adhere to the random demands of IFTTT??? IFTTT is in no position to expect anybody to do a damned thing to keep their "service" working, and they're certainly in no position to also attach licensing terms to anybody.
Who gives a shit what IFTTT want here? Randomly asserting someone owes you something because you wrote code to access their stuff is delusional and idiotic.
IFTTT wrote code to access the content on someone else's site. Telling that site they must now use a new API and sign terms of service with you? Oh hell no. You want your shit to keep working, you fucking write it.
Not just maintain their service, but agree to terms of service IFTTT is imposing, and write new code for them.
Wait, what? You integrate with my stuff and you want me to agree to YOUR terms of service? Really? And write you code for free? Gee, sounds awesome.
What legal leg to stand on to IFTTT think they have here? This is a land grab, basically with the thinly veiled threat that IFTTT brings value to site owners, and that they should be signing their contract to keep that happening.
Again, this is so much bullshit it isn't even funny.
The people from IFTTT who wrote that shit are utterly delusional, and have apparently lost sight of the fact that they're providing access to someone else's stuff, and that someone else doesn't owe them a damned thing.
Who the hell would sign any rights away to some random asshole who says "since our stuff uses yours stuff you owe us something"?
I'd rewrite my own terms of service that says "if you're a third party accessing our stuff, or writing tools to access our stuff, you owe us 25% of your revenues" and then tell them to pay up or fuck off.
This is a street busker asserting copyright over the songs he sings. I hope nobody has ever actually signed this, because if they have they've essentially been robbed.
You know, reading that, it's hard not to think IFTTT (which I've never heard of) are being the dicks here ... YOU wrote a tool which scrapes content from other sites, and now YOU want THEM to conform to your API, as well as preventing 3rd parties from using your shit? And possibly give YOU rights to THEIR content and retain the right to change the license? Good luck with that.
This sounds like an illegal squatter suing the property owner to upgrade the plumbing and fix the leaky roof.
What, exactly, is IFTTT offering in return other than to say "in order to allow our users to access your site with our stuff, you have to agree to the following". Why would anybody accept random terms and conditions by a third party who merely redistributes your own stuff is a mystery to me.
Sorry, this sounds like a bit of bullshit shakedown, and expecting someone to take steps to support your stuff ... my answer would be to ignore them as well.
Everything about this sounds like childish, petulant and over-reaching behavior in which the 3rd party service is asserting some form of control over the original service so the 3rd party can retain their users. What makes you think the original service owes you a damned thing?
Two words: Fuck that.
Much of what his "wealth" actually is is him over-estimating how valuable it it for him to make revenue, by putting his name on his next swindle - er - venture, in such a way that people throw money at him to let him front a failing project which will never live up to promises, thereby allowing him to walk away making some money while everyone else usually gets screwed.
He's PT fucking Barnum, his "wealth" is a confidence game of lies and bullshit.
The intangible value of his brand is most of his net worth in his mind. But he sure doesn't have real, valued assets which are anywhere near what he claims to be worth.
Dude, not that complicated ... everybody is fucking with almost everybody else ... and the people you're not fucking with, you probably have allies who are fucking with them and sharing the information with you.
And then everybody is acting outraged at the other guys who are fucking with them, while kinda sorta denying in a half-assed way that they're doing the same thing.
Every now and then to stroke their own ego or boost a little nationalism, they point at someone else and say "hey, you're fucking with us, and we won't stand for it".
The only difference between now and before is it happens much faster, and people can just claim it was someone else, and nobody gets shot at.
Don't go looking for some grand plan, just a bunch of schemers all doing the same thing to one another.
Sure, but you're smart and know about security and take precautions.
But all of the regular consumers out there, running this stuff without additional knowledge about security, behind routers which themselves are probably compromised (assuming they even have a firewall) ... I assume there are people out there who are potentially actively being exploited already.
I don't need to assume every single one is being exploited. But, really, a widely known exploit against commodity DVRs used to back CCTV? Yeah, that's been hacked already.
The things that informed people with a healthy dose of fear and skepticism do is nothing like the guy who goes to Circuit City and buys a home surveillance system ... and it's those people I assume have a pretty high chance of having been hacked.
Oh, come now, the number of ad shitware my ad blocker needs to block on Yahoo mail is at an all time high. :-P
And I only use Yahoo mail because my ISP partnered with them and off-loaded my email to them, and mostly to receive email from the ISP.
Other than that, Yahoo is surviving on sheer inertia of people too lazy to switch away.
I was wondering how someone with that small of a block could force this, but I guess it depends on the way the company charter and other stuff is written.
I guess if it says "a block of 1% shall be sufficient" or something like that, sure.
But otherwise you'd think the board could say "over-ruled".
The sad thing is, I don't think this is limited to certain hospitals ... their core competency is health care, and the fact that IT in hospitals has been underfunded or badly done for years isn't exactly news.
We've been hearing these same stories for years now.
Yes, brilliant, let's hope hospitals go out of business so we can waste money starting from scratch, that will totally be efficient.
Pretty much this ... the new cash cow us just figuring out how to charge for the old cash cow all over again.
If these things are so trivially hacked, how would you know?
Everything from knowing if someone is away from home to actually erasing footage is entirely possible with this exploit. As much as we laugh at movies which show this, why would you assume it can't happen once you realize there's tons of these things with little or no security?
If it can be exploited it probably will. And if cameras have GPS, or you can somehow determine whose PVR you've hacked (which likely isn't that tough since you know the IP you hacked it with and geolocation isn't exactly new) ... then it's likely not that tough to know exactly where you're looking.
The problem with shit security and internet connected things is it can snowball in ways nobody really expected.
Can I cite a specific place where I know this was exploited? Absolutely not. Would anybody know if it had happened? Who knows.
But once a hack becomes plausible and then downright easy, you should probably assume it's being used.
Of course it is:
I'm sorry, but if you put an AI on the internet which is going to learn from the conversations it has online, and people KNOW this fact ... this is pretty much inevitable.
Anybody who didn't think this would happen was a frigging idiot.
You want an AI which conforms to some expectations, don't let a bunch of random people on Twitter be the ones to train it. The internet doesn't care about your desired outcomes.
It does care about how badly they can screw up your AI which is learning from Twitter conversations. And it looks like they succeeded.
Fitting, in that they both seem to control government much more than anybody else does.
We don't need a fucking illuminati when the government is on the payroll of corporations and now officially responsible for policing their interests.
Because that is literally the situation we find ourselves in.
Absolutely true.
Notice how neatly they've maneuvered the DHS and ICE into policing copyright?
Notice how they've paid the US to force this into "trade" negotiations, and effectively write new laws for other countries?
America is absolutely leading the charge in the globalization of corporate welfare to ensure that corporations have more rights than people. And they've taken the public stance that them being on the payroll of corporations is somehow going to be better for us all ... I have no idea if they believe this or not, or they're just laughing as they take money from corporate interests to sell out ours.
Welcome to the global oligarchy, because they now enjoy many legal rights you and I no longer have .... like having the police protect us from abuse of the law.
The police now exist to enforce the will of their corporate overlords. Holy fuck, you can't even make this shit up.
But, make no mistake about it, the will of the corporations carries far more weight than any rights we think we're supposed to have, and the system is now stacked against us. And that was bought and sold in the open by lobbyists.
Where the fuck is Reg the Blank when you need him?
So, if you sell someone a gun, have you assisted them in "potentially" performing criminal acts?
Is visiting a website a criminal act? Linking to a website? What is our threshold for the hypothetical act of hypothetically allowing people to commit hypothetical crimes for which only they are actually responsible for hypothetically doing?
Sending someone to prison for running a web proxy to bypass a restriction placed on ISPs by a court as per a court order brought by a private corporation .. if this is what we're calling "a criminal act", then the assholes running this copyright shakedown have been given FAR too much leeway.
This entire thing sounds like bullshit, because as far as I can tell, there isn't a single law this guy has actually broken.
A DVR which is backing the CCTV feed of surveillance cameras. Yup, totally boring.
Why, nobody would want to have access to the take from a bunch of surveillance cameras, right?
Or, this is the full on movie-scenario where the shadowy organization hacks into the video feeds of various places that every complains isn't realistic.
The endless stream of shitty security we keep hearing about has a lot of potential ways to be misused, and apparently very little stopping it.
You know, 15 years ago, give or take, this would have been considered the most absurd tin-foil hat bullshit imaginable.
Suddenly, we find ourselves in a world where this makes total sense ... which scares the shit out of me.
It's like the nasty dystopian future, but without cool skater chicks and designer digital drugs.