Yeah, well, it's also in the DMCA that companies are making a sworn statement but nobody has every been charged with perjury.
Because when they bought the laws they gave themselves all sorts of exemptions so they could do anything without penalty and just say "oops", while using it as a weapon against everybody else.
And then they got the federal government to be their enforcement arm.
Absolutely NOTHING about the DMCA has EVER held corporations accountable. They can pretty much make any old bullshit up and say "ow, wow, a drunken intern did that, we though it was real".. even if it's fairly obvious they're lying.
It's about fscking time we started telling the copyright owners that there are non-infringing uses which are considered fair use and aren't robbing you of revenue. People aren't setting out to do something which is depriving you of income, they're taking cute videos of their damned babies and putting them on YouTube.
Nothing at all about a video like this cuts into their revenue or adversely impacts them... it's just assholes deciding there is no such thing as fair use. And the labels whining that it puts undue burden on copyright holders
is exactly the fucking point... as opposed to them placing an undue burden on the entire world to not ever let anything happen unless they've pre-cleared it to copyright holders.
A brief snippet of a baby dancing to a Prince song (with low quality audio and everything) is pretty much the definition of fair use. It sure as hell isn't going to harm Prince in terms of record sales.
The copyright lobby seems to have decided the world operates solely at their sufferance. It's about time they got reminded it doesn't work like that.
But does this man have such hubris that he thinks he can actually quantify it in any meaningful way?
Of course not.
He thinks he can have a business model to leverage the synergies of holistically tracking of the buzz-wordification of the educationalizing of people as it pertains to encouraging companies to place value on his system, thereby affording him a platform to optimize his return on his own personal branding in a lucrative fashion.
This is just more examples of companies trying to tell us what the way of the future is for education, while trying to capitalize on it, and without any supporting evidence.
Follow degreed.
I mean, can you imagine a bunch of little micro-acomplishments like self-assigned gold stars on someone's resume? "In October Larry watched 8 videos on how to do something, representing a year-over-year increase of 100% for that period." I just don't see this happening.
Now, the data acquired by a bunch of people reporting what they've watched, and the accompany ability to monetize and exploit that... well, I'm sure that's all part of phase 2.
Yeah, right... do you actually believe the bullshit that the free market solves these problems? Nobody could have drank that much kool aid.
The "free market" is incapable of fixing these kinds of things.
And the assumption that the free market works due to honest players, with complete information, making rational choices is a pile of shit. It's the assumption that people aren't lying cheating bastards, and that's pretty much false.
There never has been, and never will be a free market.. because it simply can't exist and work as claimed.
So basically have all technology set to be controlled by the government just in case they need to?
Wow, can we extend this to the internet, cell phones, cars, news reports, and everything else? That way they can just turn off anything they disagree with.
Sorry, but in this day and age there isn't a government on the planet I'd trust with that, because they'd abuse the shit out of it. In case you haven't noticed, they're pretty much all willing to be self-serving lying bastards if it suits them.
The copyright cartel has FAR better lobbyists, and essentially the FBI and DHS are now the ones who enforce these things.
Getting DHS responsible for copyright enforcement (via ICE) means they can now pretty much do anything their corporate masters ask of them.
Which is astounding since it means the US government now jumps at the call of multinational corporations. Which is a pretty sweet deal if you're a multinational corporation.
10 years ago I would have called someone saying that delusional too.
But the last 10 years have taught me that almost nothing is too far fetched to believe. Years ago the nerds all went "yeah, right, they can't actually do that you know".
Post-Snowden, however, lots of people are going "holy crap, we're not paranoid enough".
And there's so many people saying "well, if it's to protect the children or stop the terrorists it must be OK". Sadly, we seem to be racing towards a surveillance society, and people seem to not be outraged by it.
I'm no longer kidding when I say such things. And that is scary, because it means being tinfoil-hat-crazy is now a normal state, and founded in reality.
But always remember: All of this data collected by these things is pretty much under secret US jurisdiction, just like the stuff from Microsoft is. So, yes, Big Brother really is watching.
I see no reason at all for a fitness tracker to outright require that data be uploaded to someone else's hard drive
Really? Is vendor lock in too obvious for you?
If they sold you a device where you had all of your own data, and they weren't in the loop (with an EULA which says it's their data) you'd buy it once and they'd have no ability to make money off it and keep you coming back.
However, no one seems to be marketing to this particular niche
Because it doesn't make them money.
So all of these fancy internet connected things? They mostly exist to provide your data to corporations, so they can lock you in, monetize and sell your data, and ensure you need to keep going back to them.
Which means people need to realize they don't give a shit about what you want. You're just the meat puppet who buys the device to populate their data.
All this crap which wants to connect to the internet and give you an app? It's about someone making money off your data. Me, I refuse to buy this crap.
By which you mean "provide enough campaign contributions"?
Throw in a "think of the children" and "becuz national security", and it won't be long. In order to keep us safe, you see.
That it will also be heavily monetized is just a side effect.
But someone somewhere is salivating at the prospect of the entire citizenry being tagged and monitored, and they'll say it's to defend freedom. Give it a a little more time.
Yes, absolutely... but 14 years ago was when Americans started thinking it was patriotic and accepted it with open arms.
So while Americans used to say "give me liberty or give me death", and used to joke about "papers please comrade"... suddenly I'm betting a majority will all say "well, as long as it's to stop terrorists, or drug dealers, or kiddie fiddlers... or pretty much anything you can think of.. then we're OK with it."
And the people who have historically been the most leery of government intrusion are just as likely to be cheerleaders of this.
You know... you should be far more terrified of people who think they're doing the right thing, and fervently believe in all the crap they say.
Those people? Those fucking people are scary motherfuckers who will do anything if they can justify it to themselves. And if they can avoid getting caught, they'll do even more.
A bunch of people who sincerely believe in all the crap they do... those people are dangerous, unhinged, and will simply do anything they feel they need to.
You can't have a free society protected by thugs who ignore the basic tenets of that free society. It just doesn't work. And they can't protect freedoms by taking them away.
At this point, they can either try to protect your lives, or your way of life... but what they've been doing is incompatible with both.
So the spies and fascists who have been ignoring the Constitution and demanding technology can be less secure so they can fumble around like idiots claiming to make us more secure.. spying on Congress and lying about it... coming up with the form of perjury known as "parallel construction" (which is perjury because it's intended to lie about if they had legally obtained information or probable cause, and to deny the opportunity to see the evidence)...
Suddenly these fucking clowns are feeling all misunderstood and don't understand why there is hostility?
I'm sorry, this is Chairman Fucking Mao talking about counter-revolutionary elements who must be purged... "Blaming resistance on "people who are trying to undermine" the intelligence mission" is code for "all those pinko commies who expect us to respect fucking civil liberties".
Every asshole fascist claims to be a patriot. They're still asshole fascists.
Only criminals want anonymity... you want anonymity... Citizen, why are you planning criminal activity?
You'll need to come along with us for questioning. Papers please, comrade.
This is a shady security department reaching out to a small town police force to make a "suggestion" to the library about all of the evils which could ensue.
That's about as completely scary as you can imagine, really. Freedom can be taken away with veiled innuendo by an agency who claims to be just pointing this stuff out.
DHS spokesman Shawn Neudauer said the agent was simply providing "visibility/situational awareness," and did not have any direct contact with the Lebanon police or library. "The use of a Tor browser is not, in [or] of itself, illegal and there are legitimate purposes for its use,"
It's legal, and there are legitimate uses for it... but we're going to list off a bunch of scary hypotheticals, and insinuate how you'd be responsible for everything on the planet.
I hope the library board sends back a big fuck you like librarians sometimes do... give up the right to anonymity on the notion that it might might lead to something bad is the argument of cowards and fascists.
No matter what anybody likes to think, the US stopped being a free country or a champion of liberty and democracy 14 years ago. And you'll never get it back.
Years ago a girl I knew was trying to do some modelling.
The lady who ran the agency/taught them some of the model-y stuff was like... I can run a mile in heels, run up or down stairs, and pretty much do anything in heels... by the end you will be as well.
Women who wear heels all the time are totally comfortable in them.
You know, do it a little more often and it's not so bad as long as you're buying shirts that actually fit.
On occasion, I've had to wear a shirt and tie for a whole day or even most days.
It's not my first choice, but it comes in handy to have the ability to do it comfortably. That way if you ever have to be in a wedding (or attend a funeral) you won't look like the idiot who is always yanking at his tie.
Besides, there are times when even a geek needs to scrub up all purty like to impress. Women like men who can clean up well.
I'm pretty sure the privacy destroying abominations are caused by the management and business people... you know, the sociopaths in charge.
I'm sorry, but I have yet to meet the corporate analog to a position involving thoughtful introspection about corporate motivations to guide the company towards optimizing fondness and responsibility.
So you'll pardon me for thinking that your notion of someone skilled in self reflection will make any fucking difference in how companies are ran.
Greedy bastards focusing only on this quarter to maximize their bonuses are the ones who make these kinds of decisions. And they're not gonna listen to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd.
If you think a couple of liberal arts majors will change corporate behavior you're out of your mind.
Given the innate natural tendency for men to want to try to show off in front of attractive women, this seems like it could actually work.
Given the historical amounts of epic stupidity committed in the name of men showing off for women... you really don't want this as part of your corporate culture.
The women have to walk a fine line between appearing interested but not too interested in any one guy to avoid anger and jealousy.
No, pretty much the point at which this can happen is why this was a failure from the get to.
If the guys are showing off, and honestly believe they're going to have some sexual contact as part of this... you're really only going to get the worst forms of stupidity and harassment.
This just screams "huge problems waiting to happen".
I think it's a cultural thing, but I'm largely talking out of my ass.
In Asian cultures (from my limited exposure from TV and the like) there seems to be a much higher prevalence of this "curated enthusiasm" as well as the accompanying "hostess" type things where the perky young girls are there to keep the enthusiasm up.
From the Japanese tendency to have that morning "let's all go" thing, to the hostesses in Karaoke bars it's there but I've never grokked it.
This would seriously annoy the hell out of me, but my threshold for perky and enthusiastic is pretty much nil.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well, it's also in the DMCA that companies are making a sworn statement but nobody has every been charged with perjury.
Because when they bought the laws they gave themselves all sorts of exemptions so they could do anything without penalty and just say "oops", while using it as a weapon against everybody else.
And then they got the federal government to be their enforcement arm.
Absolutely NOTHING about the DMCA has EVER held corporations accountable. They can pretty much make any old bullshit up and say "ow, wow, a drunken intern did that, we though it was real" .. even if it's fairly obvious they're lying.
They have never recognized fair use.
It's about fscking time we started telling the copyright owners that there are non-infringing uses which are considered fair use and aren't robbing you of revenue. People aren't setting out to do something which is depriving you of income, they're taking cute videos of their damned babies and putting them on YouTube.
Nothing at all about a video like this cuts into their revenue or adversely impacts them ... it's just assholes deciding there is no such thing as fair use. And the labels whining that it puts undue burden on copyright holders
is exactly the fucking point ... as opposed to them placing an undue burden on the entire world to not ever let anything happen unless they've pre-cleared it to copyright holders.
A brief snippet of a baby dancing to a Prince song (with low quality audio and everything) is pretty much the definition of fair use. It sure as hell isn't going to harm Prince in terms of record sales.
The copyright lobby seems to have decided the world operates solely at their sufferance. It's about time they got reminded it doesn't work like that.
Of course not.
He thinks he can have a business model to leverage the synergies of holistically tracking of the buzz-wordification of the educationalizing of people as it pertains to encouraging companies to place value on his system, thereby affording him a platform to optimize his return on his own personal branding in a lucrative fashion.
This is just more examples of companies trying to tell us what the way of the future is for education, while trying to capitalize on it, and without any supporting evidence.
Follow degreed.
I mean, can you imagine a bunch of little micro-acomplishments like self-assigned gold stars on someone's resume? "In October Larry watched 8 videos on how to do something, representing a year-over-year increase of 100% for that period." I just don't see this happening.
Now, the data acquired by a bunch of people reporting what they've watched, and the accompany ability to monetize and exploit that ... well, I'm sure that's all part of phase 2.
Yeah, right ... do you actually believe the bullshit that the free market solves these problems? Nobody could have drank that much kool aid.
The "free market" is incapable of fixing these kinds of things.
And the assumption that the free market works due to honest players, with complete information, making rational choices is a pile of shit. It's the assumption that people aren't lying cheating bastards, and that's pretty much false.
There never has been, and never will be a free market .. because it simply can't exist and work as claimed.
So basically have all technology set to be controlled by the government just in case they need to?
Wow, can we extend this to the internet, cell phones, cars, news reports, and everything else? That way they can just turn off anything they disagree with.
Sorry, but in this day and age there isn't a government on the planet I'd trust with that, because they'd abuse the shit out of it. In case you haven't noticed, they're pretty much all willing to be self-serving lying bastards if it suits them.
So the thing is this seems to rely on people giving a crap, and going to great pains to implement these features.
It assumes voluntary compliance ... at which point you can pretty much conclude it's meaningless crap.
The copyright cartel has FAR better lobbyists, and essentially the FBI and DHS are now the ones who enforce these things.
Getting DHS responsible for copyright enforcement (via ICE) means they can now pretty much do anything their corporate masters ask of them.
Which is astounding since it means the US government now jumps at the call of multinational corporations. Which is a pretty sweet deal if you're a multinational corporation.
See, that's the great thing about being a corporation ... no actual liability.
Your staff does something shady? Well, you can fire them and say "the person responsible has been sacked".
Your management tells your staff to do something shady? Well, you can pretend like it was a rogue employee and deny all responsibility.
As you say, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe some tech guy just decided to do this on his own. I don't believe that at all.
10 years ago I would have called someone saying that delusional too.
But the last 10 years have taught me that almost nothing is too far fetched to believe. Years ago the nerds all went "yeah, right, they can't actually do that you know".
Post-Snowden, however, lots of people are going "holy crap, we're not paranoid enough ".
And there's so many people saying "well, if it's to protect the children or stop the terrorists it must be OK". Sadly, we seem to be racing towards a surveillance society, and people seem to not be outraged by it.
I'm no longer kidding when I say such things. And that is scary, because it means being tinfoil-hat-crazy is now a normal state, and founded in reality.
But always remember: All of this data collected by these things is pretty much under secret US jurisdiction, just like the stuff from Microsoft is. So, yes, Big Brother really is watching.
Really? Is vendor lock in too obvious for you?
If they sold you a device where you had all of your own data, and they weren't in the loop (with an EULA which says it's their data) you'd buy it once and they'd have no ability to make money off it and keep you coming back.
Because it doesn't make them money.
So all of these fancy internet connected things? They mostly exist to provide your data to corporations, so they can lock you in, monetize and sell your data, and ensure you need to keep going back to them.
Which means people need to realize they don't give a shit about what you want. You're just the meat puppet who buys the device to populate their data.
All this crap which wants to connect to the internet and give you an app? It's about someone making money off your data. Me, I refuse to buy this crap.
By which you mean "provide enough campaign contributions"?
Throw in a "think of the children" and "becuz national security", and it won't be long. In order to keep us safe, you see.
That it will also be heavily monetized is just a side effect.
But someone somewhere is salivating at the prospect of the entire citizenry being tagged and monitored, and they'll say it's to defend freedom. Give it a a little more time.
Really? You can't read the very plain to see "12:23:40"? I find that hard to believe.
I won't dispute that it's crazy expensive and a little over the top ... but it's not like it's hard to read the damned thing.
It's more of a feat of technology than anything, but let's face it ... you could slap Star Wars on a butt-plug and people would buy it.
Yeah, you can't defend the Constitution by completely ignoring it.
These guys have been bypassing it, ignoring it, lying about it, and pretty much anything they can think of.
You don't "protect" something by undermining it.
Yes, absolutely ... but 14 years ago was when Americans started thinking it was patriotic and accepted it with open arms.
So while Americans used to say "give me liberty or give me death", and used to joke about "papers please comrade" ... suddenly I'm betting a majority will all say "well, as long as it's to stop terrorists, or drug dealers, or kiddie fiddlers ... or pretty much anything you can think of .. then we're OK with it."
And the people who have historically been the most leery of government intrusion are just as likely to be cheerleaders of this.
You know ... you should be far more terrified of people who think they're doing the right thing, and fervently believe in all the crap they say.
Those people? Those fucking people are scary motherfuckers who will do anything if they can justify it to themselves. And if they can avoid getting caught, they'll do even more.
A bunch of people who sincerely believe in all the crap they do ... those people are dangerous, unhinged, and will simply do anything they feel they need to.
You can't have a free society protected by thugs who ignore the basic tenets of that free society. It just doesn't work. And they can't protect freedoms by taking them away.
At this point, they can either try to protect your lives, or your way of life ... but what they've been doing is incompatible with both.
Holy fuck, seriously?
So the spies and fascists who have been ignoring the Constitution and demanding technology can be less secure so they can fumble around like idiots claiming to make us more secure .. spying on Congress and lying about it ... coming up with the form of perjury known as "parallel construction" (which is perjury because it's intended to lie about if they had legally obtained information or probable cause, and to deny the opportunity to see the evidence) ...
Suddenly these fucking clowns are feeling all misunderstood and don't understand why there is hostility?
I'm sorry, this is Chairman Fucking Mao talking about counter-revolutionary elements who must be purged ... "Blaming resistance on "people who are trying to undermine" the intelligence mission" is code for "all those pinko commies who expect us to respect fucking civil liberties".
Every asshole fascist claims to be a patriot. They're still asshole fascists.
Yeah, right ... tell us another fucking lie.
Only criminals want anonymity ... you want anonymity ... Citizen, why are you planning criminal activity?
You'll need to come along with us for questioning. Papers please, comrade.
This is a shady security department reaching out to a small town police force to make a "suggestion" to the library about all of the evils which could ensue.
That's about as completely scary as you can imagine, really. Freedom can be taken away with veiled innuendo by an agency who claims to be just pointing this stuff out.
God I'm so sick of this bullshit:
It's legal, and there are legitimate uses for it ... but we're going to list off a bunch of scary hypotheticals, and insinuate how you'd be responsible for everything on the planet.
I hope the library board sends back a big fuck you like librarians sometimes do ... give up the right to anonymity on the notion that it might might lead to something bad is the argument of cowards and fascists.
No matter what anybody likes to think, the US stopped being a free country or a champion of liberty and democracy 14 years ago. And you'll never get it back.
Years ago a girl I knew was trying to do some modelling.
The lady who ran the agency/taught them some of the model-y stuff was like ... I can run a mile in heels, run up or down stairs, and pretty much do anything in heels ... by the end you will be as well.
Women who wear heels all the time are totally comfortable in them.
I am completely not surprised by this.
Honestly, are you expecting some form of "journalism" in which the "editors" are actively involved in proof reading and fact checking?
Because that has never been part of the job of editors on Slashdot.
Not even a little.
You know, do it a little more often and it's not so bad as long as you're buying shirts that actually fit.
On occasion, I've had to wear a shirt and tie for a whole day or even most days.
It's not my first choice, but it comes in handy to have the ability to do it comfortably. That way if you ever have to be in a wedding (or attend a funeral) you won't look like the idiot who is always yanking at his tie.
Besides, there are times when even a geek needs to scrub up all purty like to impress. Women like men who can clean up well.
I'm pretty sure the privacy destroying abominations are caused by the management and business people ... you know, the sociopaths in charge.
I'm sorry, but I have yet to meet the corporate analog to a position involving thoughtful introspection about corporate motivations to guide the company towards optimizing fondness and responsibility.
So you'll pardon me for thinking that your notion of someone skilled in self reflection will make any fucking difference in how companies are ran.
Greedy bastards focusing only on this quarter to maximize their bonuses are the ones who make these kinds of decisions. And they're not gonna listen to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd.
If you think a couple of liberal arts majors will change corporate behavior you're out of your mind.
You know what? Learn to dress like an adult anyway.
Sooner or later the ability to wear grown up clothes, possibly including a tie, and not fidget like some damned 4 year old is an important life skill.
Given the historical amounts of epic stupidity committed in the name of men showing off for women ... you really don't want this as part of your corporate culture.
No, pretty much the point at which this can happen is why this was a failure from the get to.
If the guys are showing off, and honestly believe they're going to have some sexual contact as part of this ... you're really only going to get the worst forms of stupidity and harassment.
This just screams "huge problems waiting to happen".
I think it's a cultural thing, but I'm largely talking out of my ass.
In Asian cultures (from my limited exposure from TV and the like) there seems to be a much higher prevalence of this "curated enthusiasm" as well as the accompanying "hostess" type things where the perky young girls are there to keep the enthusiasm up.
From the Japanese tendency to have that morning "let's all go" thing, to the hostesses in Karaoke bars it's there but I've never grokked it.
This would seriously annoy the hell out of me, but my threshold for perky and enthusiastic is pretty much nil.