Again - nowhere did it state the requirement of the technology being mandated.
As I pointed out elsewhere - prior cases of this kind of technology being mandated is a bit of a moot point. Tracking technology is still young and just now reaching the appropriate level of effectiveness and cost. And ratification of new laws do note require simular previous laws.
The important point is demonstrating a trend. Although, it is far too early to say that it will conclude with a legal mandate.
All I want is an example of a tracking technology that is mandated by the government.
Ahhh. You didn't state that - or at least, I didn't read it that way. I agree, none of those devices are mandatory by law except for the special cases involving prisoner release programs.
p.s. Another post mentioned GPS systems being mandatory in cell phones. Can anyone shed some data on this? The size of these new phones, I can't imagine how they could cram GPS into one.
No, he didn't say "mandatory". But he did note that the technology was coming. Poke around a bit. Slashdot has covered it before.
Having said all that... you're puting too much emphasis on "mandatory". Whether there are already laws that mandate this kind of thing or not is a moot point. Laws do occasionally break new ground - even in directions some find disturbing (witness the DMCA). Secondly, this technology is still relatively new. While earlier generations did exist, they were not as effective or cheap. Its hard to produce prior examples of a technology when it didn't exist earlier.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not convinced that this is one of those things destined to be. But I can see a reasonable series of events that could lead to mandatory use of this technology. And I have offered current examples that point towards that possiblity.
In short, none of the examples you provided show the "slippery slope" type of progression towards mandatory use by law that the original post was so paranoid about.
When did "mandated by law" become the requirement for demonstrating a slippery slope? The origional post only mentioned it as a final action. The challenge to display any such linking did not require that each event needed to have been mandated by law. And laws do not need the standards on which they are based to have been previous legal requirements. In other words, each of these events can easily lead up the the acceptance of such a law without being mandated by law themselves.
Understand that I am not personally convinced this arch will all come to pass. But it is rather easy to show that the basis for an environment where such a law would be accepted is being formed. This kind of technology is being used more and more often and as the public becomes used to it, they are likely to accept it without critical thought. In short, this is not paranoia - it is wariness.
So you're saying Onstar is a manadate government-run tracking technology?
If you so choose to translate the phrase "sold as a premier option" as "mandated by the government", then feel free to. Although, you might want to talk to your English teacher / tutor and work on that whole reading comprehension thing.
I use my turn signal to change lanes. I check my mirrors twice before changing lanes. And I speed regularly when the conditions allow.
I also lived in Germany for some time. Very few speed limits (and when there was a speed limit, you better slow down - there's a damn good reason for it). The policy existed even with roads that are MUCH tighter than the average road in the USA. And I saw far, far fewer accidents.
Speed limits in the USA have much more to do with politics than safety.
1) Tracking cuffs used to track criminals in specialized release programs.
2) Tracking devices (simular to beepers) marketed as child safety devices.
2a) Tracking device marketed to track teenage (still arguably the "child" category) driver.
3) Simular tracking devices widely used in the vehicle rental industry - and gaining acceptance.
4) Onstar - a user-induced tracking system sold as a premier option for anit-theft, safety, and roadside assistance.
Obviously 1 and 2 are fitting the prescribed pattern. 3 and 4 don't fit in the pattern exactly but I included them to demonstrate a trend. 3 is warming up the insurance agency to the "success" of such devices and experience in a civilian marketplace. And 4 is further familiarizing the general market with the obvious positive aspects tracking technology can provide. Its not too large a leap for insurance companies to produce data from 3 and 4 demonstrating the obvious bennifits to the technology, raising rates to cover the "increased risk" of non-tracked vehicles, and providing a small discount to vehicles who voluntarily adopt the technology. Whether the step to legislate adoption would be required, or successful, is questionable - we've definately seen the industry behave in manners that suggest it is certainly plausable.
Yea. I get this attitude a lot when working with IT departments to mitigate various infosec vulnerabilities in their environment. My findings are obviously so much black-helicopter paranoia theory that one would have to be wearing tinfoil hats to buy in to it. I think they check for the hat. Then its a big mystery when a host is compromised, a worm/virus is busy chewing up people's precious data, or someone is caught after a long time of exploiting a hole in some automated tool to embezzle funds in some manner.
Sure - if you want to get in to name calling, its fairly easy to label anybody raising these concerns as a conspiracy-nut. But then, its also just as easy to label anybody refusing to look at the issue as sheep.
One of my favorite dysfunctional security guidelines documents involved "hide the keyboard". Apparently the concept was that a keyboard visible from a room's entrance would act as a magnet and draw in wiley hackers. Hiding the keyboard was the first step to twarting such riff-raff.
We've all heard talk of over-built data networks and "dark fiber". What interests me is how this apparent over-capacity does not seem to match up the price of bandwidth and the apparent bandwidth management of consumer-level heavy users.
Is there a mismatch? Do we actually have a demand that's being held in check by an inappropriate pricing schedule (perhapse even businesses with a lack of vision)? Or does potential capacity fail to overcome the cost of "lighting up" and maintaining these over-built networks?
I believe we're basically saying the same thing. My point is that this is, in fact, a virus if it involves code that infects and replicates itself. Period. It may also have a payload, in this case exlpoiting a bug in the device's MODEM. But just because it is using a known exploit does not make it less a virus.
If, in fact, that is what's going on. Its hard to tell as the article was a bit confusing and woefully light on detail (passing up on oportunity to bash TechTV).
From what I read of the article... its just as likely that this is a simple exploit from a mass emailing. Microsoft's tech support might be over reacting by reseting customer's devices. Perhapse. Don't know.
Harsh. If you purchase a product then the very least you should do is purchase the correct number of licences. This is the nature of commercial software after all.
I don't find that harsh at all. Some of the licensing programs and ultimatums (akin to purchase a site license or we audit) are wastefull at best and outright blackmail otherwise.
You can't use lazyness and sloppyness as an excuse for violating a licence. Whatever that licence is.
I have to agree there. In this day and age, if you have software that you simply can't keep track of, switch to software licensed in a manner that it doesn't make such demands on you. This will either provide a windfall for Open Source software and smaller software companies willing to make more allowances, or it will cause the larger software houses to start backing off. The consumer would ultimately win.
You're referring to site licenses and I believe Microsoft has been pushing hard to get away from those. Granted - if you were large enough, you could convince Microsoft to accomodate you. Heck - I've even heard of Microsoft talking about helping to get IE running on Linux for one such large-enough-to-demand-it customer.
Its not a virus, Its something thats been going on for years, its an old trick/exploit.hack
That's akin to saying "this so-called 'virus' that deletes files is not a virus - I've been deleting files for years!" Its the behavior of the code, not its payload, that defines it. In other words - if the email itself includes code that infects the host device and then attempts to replicate, its pretty much met the definition of a virus.
Granted - this article is rather light on detail. It doesn't specifically state that is what's going on - only that Microsoft tech support is reseting devices. It could simply be a mass emailing.
Of course, that might be the point HanzoSan was trying to make.
JSC houses a considerable collection of rocks they picked up from the ground from various sites around the world. They are meteorite fragments. In fact, this very case involved not just lunar rocks but samples of the infamous Mars meteorite. What do you think JSC security would think about you waltzing in there and just picking one or two up to take home?
Many museums have extensive rock and mineral collections. Some consist of precious stones. Some are simply examples of more common minerals. You would find the same kind of reaction from their security if you decided to take home a sample from there too.
Now - what if you launched your own moonshot a'la Salvage1. Then you would be free to pick up as many rocks as you wished and take them home to Costa Rica. Or begin a brisk business on eBay and complicate the FBI's future lunar sample theft investigations.
This is not correct. The court ordered Yahoo not to make such content accessible to French citizens in France. Yahoo claimed that this is impossible.
There's quite a difference here in my book.
I would argue that it is essentially the same thing.
First, Yahoo would have to map out French IP space - any mistake and they're open to further litigation. Then they would have to tackle situations like a proxy that exists outside of France, but a French citizen uses to access Yahoo. How about cached copies of offending content?
Secondly, Yahoo would have to entirely change their infrastructure. Remember, we're not firewalling off France - we're blocking specific content. The Jerry Lewis Video Collection - OK. A German 'SS' uniform insignia - block! What if some content makes it through whatever filter system is put in place? Further litigation.
The only way Yahoo could have reasonable assurance of not serving illegal content to a French citizen would be by simply removing access to any such content to anybody in the world.
Of course - this doesn't even touch on the issue of whether Yahoo (or anybody else) would WANT to set such a precedent. The French forbid Nazi paraphernalia. The Saudis forbid brewing accessories and imagery of "excessive" female skin. The Royal Republic of Mondovia finds coconuts and coconut products offensive. The list gets long and convoluted rather quickly.
Although the Babylon5 quote means much the same, and is obviously designed echo events of WWII, it might not have the same impact on those who didn't appreaciate B5.:)
The whole physical possession issue still applies to the citizens accessing illegal data / commiting illegal acts. If the citizens are doing something illegal within a government's boarders and that government's agents catch them, they're likely to be prosecuted. Doesn't matter where the server was sitting at the time.
But therein lies the catch - specifically, catching those commiting illegal acts. It is often difficult to pluck the criminals from the masses. Its much easier to target the focal point - be it an illegal casino, drug lab, speak easy, or printing press.
Re:Powerful Industry Group Lobbies for Spam
on
Spam Doesn't Work?
·
· Score: 2
I think you confused people - they weren't sure if you were being funny or clueless.:)
Re:I doubt even TV ads work anymore...
on
Spam Doesn't Work?
·
· Score: 2
If TV ads did work there would not be such a drive to develop new advertising gimmicks such as the 'pop-up' ads beind devised for network television.
I'd offer that advertising changes because we are driven to change - it is part of the environment for the professional and hobbiest alike. We haven't stopped refining the automobile. Computers are imfamously improving by leaps and bounds. There is more than one single cookie recipe - heck, look at how many variations exist for "chocolate chip" alone! Just because something is "good", doesn't mean it can't be "better".
Sure. Advertising does have to change as their audience begins to react differently (often becoming more indifferent, jaded, and resistant to the "message"). But even if current advertising still works, professionals are compelled to improve its effectiveness for various reasons; joy in the process, recognition from peers, bonus pay, promotions, etc.
One final thought - advertisers are focused on advertisements. Effective advertising is their ultimate goal. Sometimes these professionals get so wrapped up in achieving that goal... they seem genuinly startled by any backlash generated when their newest project angers the public (due to interfering with the product, privacy issues, taste, etc).
Another interesting thing is that TV Ads are considered successful if they get noticed (OK - that's not ENTIRELY correct... the Taco Bell dog was axed after popularity wasn't leading to increased sales). However, web advertisements seem to be considered a failure if they don't generate immediate click-throughs.
OK. Sure. I'll play along. We wouldn't want to ruin the little fantasy, would we? Just like all those "hot babes" you spend your time talking to in chat rooms and for $1.99/min on the phone.
If it's an American company making content in American and hosting it in France for a French audience, most slashdotters seem to feel that American laws should apply.
I'm guessing you are referring to the Yahoo case here. I might misunderstand the issue - but the way I remember it, the French government wanted Nazi items removed from Yahoo's US sites. The French claimed jurisdiction since Yahoo has a French site and has offices in France. The kicker is that the content in question was specific to Yahoo's US servers and, arguably, US audience and were not illegal in the US. In summery - an American company with American content on American servers for an American audience. And French legal action.
Or consider another case. If an American company make an online gambling website, markets it to Americans, but hosts it in the Cayman Islands, whose laws should apply?
Now THIS is an excellent point. The idealistic freedom of the Internet runs in to one ugly physical world fact - possession is 9/10s of the law. Content is only as free as the laws of the country where its server is located allow it to be - assuming it doesn't begin to play whack-a-mole and jump around locations. This is why data havens are so intriguing (and why Sealand gets casinos as a major customer). And it highlights just why governments get so bent out of shape over the Internet. Its hard to control what you can't put your hands on.
The answer to world government problems, of course, is the ability to get a friendly government to lend you a hand in nabbing that annoying server. And this is where the real problems of jurisdiction, laws, and citizen rights begin.
Slashdot Mirror
Again - nowhere did it state the requirement of the technology being mandated.
As I pointed out elsewhere - prior cases of this kind of technology being mandated is a bit of a moot point. Tracking technology is still young and just now reaching the appropriate level of effectiveness and cost. And ratification of new laws do note require simular previous laws.
The important point is demonstrating a trend. Although, it is far too early to say that it will conclude with a legal mandate.
No. I was providing a series of technologies that could follow the path as outlined. Nowhere did it state "currently mandated".
Having said all that... you're puting too much emphasis on "mandatory". Whether there are already laws that mandate this kind of thing or not is a moot point. Laws do occasionally break new ground - even in directions some find disturbing (witness the DMCA). Secondly, this technology is still relatively new. While earlier generations did exist, they were not as effective or cheap. Its hard to produce prior examples of a technology when it didn't exist earlier.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not convinced that this is one of those things destined to be. But I can see a reasonable series of events that could lead to mandatory use of this technology. And I have offered current examples that point towards that possiblity.
Understand that I am not personally convinced this arch will all come to pass. But it is rather easy to show that the basis for an environment where such a law would be accepted is being formed. This kind of technology is being used more and more often and as the public becomes used to it, they are likely to accept it without critical thought. In short, this is not paranoia - it is wariness.
I use my turn signal to change lanes. I check my mirrors twice before changing lanes. And I speed regularly when the conditions allow.
I also lived in Germany for some time. Very few speed limits (and when there was a speed limit, you better slow down - there's a damn good reason for it). The policy existed even with roads that are MUCH tighter than the average road in the USA. And I saw far, far fewer accidents.
Speed limits in the USA have much more to do with politics than safety.
1) Tracking cuffs used to track criminals in specialized release programs.
2) Tracking devices (simular to beepers) marketed as child safety devices.
2a) Tracking device marketed to track teenage (still arguably the "child" category) driver.
3) Simular tracking devices widely used in the vehicle rental industry - and gaining acceptance.
4) Onstar - a user-induced tracking system sold as a premier option for anit-theft, safety, and roadside assistance.
Obviously 1 and 2 are fitting the prescribed pattern. 3 and 4 don't fit in the pattern exactly but I included them to demonstrate a trend. 3 is warming up the insurance agency to the "success" of such devices and experience in a civilian marketplace. And 4 is further familiarizing the general market with the obvious positive aspects tracking technology can provide. Its not too large a leap for insurance companies to produce data from 3 and 4 demonstrating the obvious bennifits to the technology, raising rates to cover the "increased risk" of non-tracked vehicles, and providing a small discount to vehicles who voluntarily adopt the technology. Whether the step to legislate adoption would be required, or successful, is questionable - we've definately seen the industry behave in manners that suggest it is certainly plausable.
Yea. I get this attitude a lot when working with IT departments to mitigate various infosec vulnerabilities in their environment. My findings are obviously so much black-helicopter paranoia theory that one would have to be wearing tinfoil hats to buy in to it. I think they check for the hat. Then its a big mystery when a host is compromised, a worm/virus is busy chewing up people's precious data, or someone is caught after a long time of exploiting a hole in some automated tool to embezzle funds in some manner.
Sure - if you want to get in to name calling, its fairly easy to label anybody raising these concerns as a conspiracy-nut. But then, its also just as easy to label anybody refusing to look at the issue as sheep.
Address the issue.
One of my favorite dysfunctional security guidelines documents involved "hide the keyboard". Apparently the concept was that a keyboard visible from a room's entrance would act as a magnet and draw in wiley hackers. Hiding the keyboard was the first step to twarting such riff-raff.
We've all heard talk of over-built data networks and "dark fiber". What interests me is how this apparent over-capacity does not seem to match up the price of bandwidth and the apparent bandwidth management of consumer-level heavy users.
Is there a mismatch? Do we actually have a demand that's being held in check by an inappropriate pricing schedule (perhapse even businesses with a lack of vision)? Or does potential capacity fail to overcome the cost of "lighting up" and maintaining these over-built networks?
I believe we're basically saying the same thing. My point is that this is, in fact, a virus if it involves code that infects and replicates itself. Period. It may also have a payload, in this case exlpoiting a bug in the device's MODEM. But just because it is using a known exploit does not make it less a virus.
If, in fact, that is what's going on. Its hard to tell as the article was a bit confusing and woefully light on detail (passing up on oportunity to bash TechTV).
From what I read of the article... its just as likely that this is a simple exploit from a mass emailing. Microsoft's tech support might be over reacting by reseting customer's devices. Perhapse. Don't know.
Would that be the Microsoft, Linux, or *BSD Zealots?
You're referring to site licenses and I believe Microsoft has been pushing hard to get away from those. Granted - if you were large enough, you could convince Microsoft to accomodate you. Heck - I've even heard of Microsoft talking about helping to get IE running on Linux for one such large-enough-to-demand-it customer.
Granted - this article is rather light on detail. It doesn't specifically state that is what's going on - only that Microsoft tech support is reseting devices. It could simply be a mass emailing.
Of course, that might be the point HanzoSan was trying to make.
JSC houses a considerable collection of rocks they picked up from the ground from various sites around the world. They are meteorite fragments. In fact, this very case involved not just lunar rocks but samples of the infamous Mars meteorite. What do you think JSC security would think about you waltzing in there and just picking one or two up to take home?
Many museums have extensive rock and mineral collections. Some consist of precious stones. Some are simply examples of more common minerals. You would find the same kind of reaction from their security if you decided to take home a sample from there too.
Now - what if you launched your own moonshot a'la Salvage1. Then you would be free to pick up as many rocks as you wished and take them home to Costa Rica. Or begin a brisk business on eBay and complicate the FBI's future lunar sample theft investigations.
I would argue that it is essentially the same thing.
First, Yahoo would have to map out French IP space - any mistake and they're open to further litigation. Then they would have to tackle situations like a proxy that exists outside of France, but a French citizen uses to access Yahoo. How about cached copies of offending content?
Secondly, Yahoo would have to entirely change their infrastructure. Remember, we're not firewalling off France - we're blocking specific content. The Jerry Lewis Video Collection - OK. A German 'SS' uniform insignia - block! What if some content makes it through whatever filter system is put in place? Further litigation.
The only way Yahoo could have reasonable assurance of not serving illegal content to a French citizen would be by simply removing access to any such content to anybody in the world.
Of course - this doesn't even touch on the issue of whether Yahoo (or anybody else) would WANT to set such a precedent. The French forbid Nazi paraphernalia. The Saudis forbid brewing accessories and imagery of "excessive" female skin. The Royal Republic of Mondovia finds coconuts and coconut products offensive. The list gets long and convoluted rather quickly.
I think the better quote is "I believe it is peace in our time".
:)
Although the Babylon5 quote means much the same, and is obviously designed echo events of WWII, it might not have the same impact on those who didn't appreaciate B5.
The whole physical possession issue still applies to the citizens accessing illegal data / commiting illegal acts. If the citizens are doing something illegal within a government's boarders and that government's agents catch them, they're likely to be prosecuted. Doesn't matter where the server was sitting at the time.
But therein lies the catch - specifically, catching those commiting illegal acts. It is often difficult to pluck the criminals from the masses. Its much easier to target the focal point - be it an illegal casino, drug lab, speak easy, or printing press.
I think you confused people - they weren't sure if you were being funny or clueless. :)
Sure. Advertising does have to change as their audience begins to react differently (often becoming more indifferent, jaded, and resistant to the "message"). But even if current advertising still works, professionals are compelled to improve its effectiveness for various reasons; joy in the process, recognition from peers, bonus pay, promotions, etc.
One final thought - advertisers are focused on advertisements. Effective advertising is their ultimate goal. Sometimes these professionals get so wrapped up in achieving that goal... they seem genuinly startled by any backlash generated when their newest project angers the public (due to interfering with the product, privacy issues, taste, etc).
Another interesting thing is that TV Ads are considered successful if they get noticed (OK - that's not ENTIRELY correct... the Taco Bell dog was axed after popularity wasn't leading to increased sales). However, web advertisements seem to be considered a failure if they don't generate immediate click-throughs.
OK. Sure. I'll play along. We wouldn't want to ruin the little fantasy, would we? Just like all those "hot babes" you spend your time talking to in chat rooms and for $1.99/min on the phone.
The answer to world government problems, of course, is the ability to get a friendly government to lend you a hand in nabbing that annoying server. And this is where the real problems of jurisdiction, laws, and citizen rights begin.
What if its a scimitar?
Reverse your grip.