> The user leaves his "front door" wide open so anybody can intercept and see > his unencrypted internet, and it's the spy (google) who gets in trouble.
Bad analogy. Google did not "enter" anything in any way. He transmitted his secrets out onto the public street. It's more like displaying them on a billboard in the front yard in foot-high letters.
It was once the law in the USA that anyone was free to listen to any radio transmission and disclose anything they heard. It was up to those operating the transmitter to encrypt their secrets and/or control the direction of their transmissions. This should, IMHO, still be the law. Why should I not be allowed to receive radio signals you send onto my property? Why should I be obligated to protect your secrets after you've blasted them out to the universe?
Some is, some isn't. The problem is that most people have exaggerated notions about what is private and labor under the delusion that it is possible to own information.
Whenever you reveal a fact about yourself to anyone that fact becomes as public as they want to make it. You might be able to sue them if they signed a contract agreeing to keep it secret (a privacy statement on a Web site is not a contract) or file a complaint against them under some misguided "privacy" law but once the data is out there it's out there. Keep your secrets secret. Yes, that can be inconvenient at times. Choose.
> The data may be less valuable to you in terms of your own utility but do not > imagine for a moment that it degrades in value to the archivists.
I think it does, for pretty much everyone except perhaps government. People change over time. Knowing what sort of clothing you were buying five years ago is of much less interest to advertisers than is information about your current fashion statement. In fact old data may even be of negative value if it lacks any sort of timestamp.
If I walk into the store, pick up the box with the printer in it, carry it to the counter, plunk down the requested cash, get a receipt, and walk out with the printer I own it. The only exception would be if the store required that I sign an explicit rental contract before taking my money.
> You don't own the software in the printer...
The storage (ROM, hard disk...) in the printer constitutes a copy (that is, a physical object) of the software. I own the printer therefor I own the storage therefor I own the copy. USA copyright law gives me the right, with no requirement for any bullshit licenses, to use software of which I own a copy.
>...or the driver...
As above for the driver CD.
> You're just licensing that. You're renting a printing service, and the > landlord controls what you can do with the printer.
Even it it was a rental (see above) the terms of the contract would govern what I could do with the printer.
> Read your EULA.
If I didn't agree to it before I left the store it is not a contract (not that I am fool enough to agree to anything without reading it anyway).
> Which part of "opt in" is so fucking hard for you to understand?
It's "read the fucking article" that slashdotters don't understand (I expect that someone will eventually attempt what most of them are misreading this as doing, though).
> I search for all kinds of weird things as it is...
So do I.
> I get all kinds of weird ads as it is...
I don't. Do you think that just might have something to do with the fact that I block all ads and most cookies and scripts? It's your choice to be "targeted".
Well, you can certainly sue: how else is the court to determine that your claims are frivolous and order you to pay HP's expenses due you having been so stupid as to not only buy a "Web connected" printer but also agree to have ads sent to it? It may not be HP's balls that come off, though.
> No test has ever shown any indication they have never caused cancer.
It takes only one counterexample to disprove a theory. In this case the theory is that cellphones cause cancer and it predicted that the referenced study would find a positive correlation between cellphone use and cancer. The study results constitute a counterexample.
> It's tough to prove a negative.
A negative: "The sky is not always blue". Proof: go outside at midnight and look up.
Slashdot Mirror
> And if we're really lucky this kind of incident will help John Q Sixpack
> start thinking about securing his wireless...
But more likely it will start him supporting more repressive laws.
> The user leaves his "front door" wide open so anybody can intercept and see
> his unencrypted internet, and it's the spy (google) who gets in trouble.
Bad analogy. Google did not "enter" anything in any way. He transmitted his secrets out onto the public street. It's more like displaying them on a billboard in the front yard in foot-high letters.
It was once the law in the USA that anyone was free to listen to any radio transmission and disclose anything they heard. It was up to those operating the transmitter to encrypt their secrets and/or control the direction of their transmissions. This should, IMHO, still be the law. Why should I not be allowed to receive radio signals you send onto my property? Why should I be obligated to protect your secrets after you've blasted them out to the universe?
> Personal data is not secret.
Some is, some isn't. The problem is that most people have exaggerated notions about what is private and labor under the delusion that it is possible to own information.
Whenever you reveal a fact about yourself to anyone that fact becomes as public as they want to make it. You might be able to sue them if they signed a contract agreeing to keep it secret (a privacy statement on a Web site is not a contract) or file a complaint against them under some misguided "privacy" law but once the data is out there it's out there. Keep your secrets secret. Yes, that can be inconvenient at times. Choose.
> The data may be less valuable to you in terms of your own utility but do not
> imagine for a moment that it degrades in value to the archivists.
I think it does, for pretty much everyone except perhaps government. People change over time. Knowing what sort of clothing you were buying five years ago is of much less interest to advertisers than is information about your current fashion statement. In fact old data may even be of negative value if it lacks any sort of timestamp.
You gave those OTHERS that information.
Secrets are things you don't tell other people.
Read the damn paper, or at least the abstract, ok? The horsepucky all comes from the university PR flacks, amplified by the Slashdot editors.
Except in Australia...
> Have you seen what's on TV these days?
No, but from the reports it appears that it's what has always been there.
> It's not "your" printer.
If I walk into the store, pick up the box with the printer in it, carry it to the counter, plunk down the requested cash, get a receipt, and walk out with the printer I own it. The only exception would be if the store required that I sign an explicit rental contract before taking my money.
> You don't own the software in the printer...
The storage (ROM, hard disk...) in the printer constitutes a copy (that is, a physical object) of the software. I own the printer therefor I own the storage therefor I own the copy. USA copyright law gives me the right, with no requirement for any bullshit licenses, to use software of which I own a copy.
> ...or the driver...
As above for the driver CD.
> You're just licensing that. You're renting a printing service, and the
> landlord controls what you can do with the printer.
Even it it was a rental (see above) the terms of the contract would govern what I could do with the printer.
> Read your EULA.
If I didn't agree to it before I left the store it is not a contract (not that I am fool enough to agree to anything without reading it anyway).
> Which part of "opt in" is so fucking hard for you to understand?
It's "read the fucking article" that slashdotters don't understand (I expect that someone will eventually attempt what most of them are misreading this as doing, though).
I find it amusing that not only would a company call itself Yahoo but that millions of people would voluntarily do business with it.
> What worries me is that some hacker finds a way to exploit the system to
> send SPAM.
Some cracker will, which is why Web-connected everything is a very bad idea. Unfortunately, its time has come.
Why not just not buy the damn printer?
If it isn't "ok" with you don't do it. If it's ok with other people it's their business, not yours.
> At a rough guess, I'd say probably around about the time that commercial
> radio and television broadcasting was pioneered.
I'm fairly sure that free ad-supported newspapers are older than radio.
> I search for all kinds of weird things as it is...
So do I.
> I get all kinds of weird ads as it is...
I don't. Do you think that just might have something to do with the fact that I block all ads and most cookies and scripts? It's your choice to be "targeted".
> Now instead of someone in the office screwing up, it will be a corporation
> arbitrarily printing on them.
No. It will be someone in the office screwing up by buying this printer, agreeing to have ads sent to it, and then using it for payroll.
BTW using this printer for payroll could have much worse consequences than the mere waste of some expensive paper.
> I can sue their balls off yes?
Well, you can certainly sue: how else is the court to determine that your claims are frivolous and order you to pay HP's expenses due you having been so stupid as to not only buy a "Web connected" printer but also agree to have ads sent to it? It may not be HP's balls that come off, though.
On me, of course. Sometimes literally, when I stack the old junker pcs too high.
Right. Use PostgreSQL.
> But, do you have as many vocal, paranoid, hypochondriac idiots over there?
They have many, many more. Consider the "frankenfoods" crap, for example.
> its better safe than sorry.
Right. What if living in houses causes cancer? It's never been proven that it doesn't. Better live outside.
> Count me in with the "nut jobs"...
Ok.
> No test has ever shown any indication they have never caused cancer.
It takes only one counterexample to disprove a theory. In this case the theory is that cellphones cause cancer and it predicted that the referenced study would find a positive correlation between cellphone use and cancer. The study results constitute a counterexample.
> It's tough to prove a negative.
A negative: "The sky is not always blue". Proof: go outside at midnight and look up.
...has been conclusively demonstrated. Cellphones are known (even to the state of California) not to cause cancer.