Don't worry. Global warming denial will soon be illegal in Europe and, as crime against humanity, subject to universal jurisdiction. The deniers can then be hauled off to the Hague and tried in the International Criminal Court as many times as necessary to obtain a conviction.
> I'm all for security research but publicly displaying these exploits will > bring ATM mischief to the next level.... If proof-of-concept code gets out on the net, watch out!
Right, because criminals could never figure this out by themselves.
> A lot of little banks and vendors are going to be sorry. And good luck > trying to patch all the millions of machines around the world.
The chance of losing all your money in your debit card account is not.03%. It is.03% times the probability of a thief acquiring possession of your card and using it before you discover that it is gone and cancel it.
What the heck is wrong with most banking regulation? If someone who isn't me makes debit transactions on my account, no matter what the amount, even if they use my card and my PIN...
How the hell are they to know it isn't you? Just because you say so? You know that there are people who would lie to defraud them. I don't see why the bank should be responsible for your loss of control of your card and PIN any more than they are for your loss of control of your cash.
...not vile corporations. They have your best interests at heart. The infallible, incorruptible regulators must have information to do their job of protecting you from the evil businessmen (and, of course, from yourself). Just cooperate and no one will get hurt.
Oh, I think it entirely unlikely that 100 million people chose to disclose that much information.
I have no difficulty at all believing that 100 million people chose to disclose that much information. (the information being a link to their public Facebook profile). Why do you imagine that everyone wants to be secretive?
You make it sound like the users made a conscious, informed decision to allow everyone to see everything when that is far from the only possible explaination.
I just created a dummy Facebook account (I've never bothered with it before). Anyone who is mentally capable of operating a computer and claims that they did not understand what would be public under the default settings is lying. It is extremely obvious from the start that what you are doing is creating a personal, public Web page with the option of restricting access to some parts of it.
So, yes, downloading these torrents would be illegal since they were obtained in a way that violates Facebook's TOS.
Robots.txt is just a convention, not a law, and Facebook's TOS is just CYA grounds for them to terminate your account. If they respond to my GET by sending me a page they just gave me a copy of the page and I am free to disclose the contents of that page.
> Really, their other providers of advertising space are the ones who should > complain, they want legitimate, high value advertising on their sites...
There might be some day when you sit down to use Google and you search for some popular music or terms and all you get is complete unadulterated feces on the first page of search results.
Yes, but that will most likely be because almost all "popular music or terms" are complete unadulterated feces.
> It would be the easiest programming thing in the world to let people manage > all the Flash settings and cookies right on the computer (no internet).
It's your computer. You are free to program it to do whatever you want it to do.
Slashdot Mirror
For the doubting Europeans over in the poll discussion: here's evidence that not all Americans speak English.
> ...how she could just 'forget' they were in her email is hard to fathom.
Not done much tech support, have you?
> The guy works for a call center in India, not Dell in Texas.
That's India, not China. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that India has laws. Also, the call center just might want to keep Dell's business.
You think a free ATM is somehow a UN-promised right?
No, I don't. Whatever made you think I did?
If I put a couple of extra batteries in my old Chevy I think I could get that far on the starter.
> The invisible hand may not always work as we wish, but it can still slap
> down the business models that suck.
Unfortunately it is often handcuffed by government (with patents, in this case).
> The deniers set up multiple goalposts.
Don't worry. Global warming denial will soon be illegal in Europe and, as crime against humanity, subject to universal jurisdiction. The deniers can then be hauled off to the Hague and tried in the International Criminal Court as many times as necessary to obtain a conviction.
> I'm all for security research but publicly displaying these exploits will ... If proof-of-concept code gets out on the net, watch out!
> bring ATM mischief to the next level.
Right, because criminals could never figure this out by themselves.
> A lot of little banks and vendors are going to be sorry. And good luck
> trying to patch all the millions of machines around the world.
They bought cheap crap. Too bad. So sad.
> There is at least one precedent for making owning machines illegal.
There many precedents for loony laws making owning all sorts of things illegal. So what?
The chance of losing all your money in your debit card account is not .03%. It is .03% times the probability of a thief acquiring possession of your card and using it before you discover that it is gone and cancel it.
How the hell are they to know it isn't you? Just because you say so? You know that there are people who would lie to defraud them. I don't see why the bank should be responsible for your loss of control of your card and PIN any more than they are for your loss of control of your cash.
...not vile corporations. They have your best interests at heart. The infallible, incorruptible regulators must have information to do their job of protecting you from the evil businessmen (and, of course, from yourself). Just cooperate and no one will get hurt.
...to require this."
I sure as hell hope not. All we need is a Federal agency regulating browser design.
Ftfy.
I have no difficulty at all believing that 100 million people chose to disclose that much information. (the information being a link to their public Facebook profile). Why do you imagine that everyone wants to be secretive?
I just created a dummy Facebook account (I've never bothered with it before). Anyone who is mentally capable of operating a computer and claims that they did not understand what would be public under the default settings is lying. It is extremely obvious from the start that what you are doing is creating a personal, public Web page with the option of restricting access to some parts of it.
Robots.txt is just a convention, not a law, and Facebook's TOS is just CYA grounds for them to terminate your account. If they respond to my GET by sending me a page they just gave me a copy of the page and I am free to disclose the contents of that page.
> I believe your anger would be better directed at Facebook.
Why is there any need for anger at all? These users made their pages public. This guy created a list of public Facebook pages. So what?
> Until this data dump, the only people doing data mining were Facebook &
> their partners.
Do you seriously believe that no one has ever written such a script before?
Considering that these pages HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE PUBLIC BY THE USERS anyway I say no harm done.
> Really, their other providers of advertising space are the ones who should
> complain, they want legitimate, high value advertising on their sites...
They control what appears on their sites.
> ...articles which are relevant to Britney and Lindsay ...
How can there be relevant articles about irrelevant people?
Yes, but that will most likely be because almost all "popular music or terms" are complete unadulterated feces.
> It would be the easiest programming thing in the world to let people manage
> all the Flash settings and cookies right on the computer (no internet).
It's your computer. You are free to program it to do whatever you want it to do.
> Litigation may even backfire, and a judge might rule that removing Flash
> cookies is considered circumventing DRM on Flash objects,
That's an "amazing" interpretation of the DMCA even for Slashdot.