This is about companies that sell encryption software, where 2 phones are pre-setup with additional software to be secure when talking to each other (not about standard phone calls.) Essentially we could re-write this article for ssh simply saying Open-SSH isn't secure because it doesn't detect trojans installed on the PC. The server room isn't "trivial" because all of the data is encrypted at that point, requires significant computing resources to first crack the stream, and that can be done in real time, even by the NSA. Yes, the phone un-encrypts the audio out stream and also encrypts the audio in, that is why the weak point is at the phone, not the server room. Same with SSH, logging the data at the server room is very difficult to un-encrypt, much easier to just install a back door on the PC.
All these applications must run on the phones at both ends of the call, so recording it in the middle would be largely of no use if the exchange of keys was secure and the encryption was up to standard (256-bit AES). And The author acknowledged he couldn't break that encryption (and only speculated this was feasible with a distributed computing network.) Hacking the device is the low hanging fruit was the point. Seams only A backdoor for the NSA/etc, in these applications would change that.
where did you find the link to that? I went to http://google.com/phone, no link their. I selected the tMobile plan, get a new page, still not linked that I could find. Select to purchase, couple more pages enter name, credit check... agree to tmobile contract ($200 early termination clearly spelled out.) STILL NO MENTION. What once I have transferred my number would the tell me?
I tested this out just now, the problem was it is presented far into the deal, IE they convince me I want it with the highlights and the advantages, I feel like we have a verbal contract minus some legal crap. So I decide yes, sounds good I go through 3 more pages and then fill in all my personal information, then I am finally presented with a little tag "agree to tmobile contract", read the contract... oh $200 early termination that's reasonable check and move on. Credit card details, choose your plan... now 30 minutes of time vested into the thing, oh wait google wants another $180 wtf? I thought we had a agreement? This is better than over the phone, where Qwest made me a good deal on internet $35 a month...became $45 after 30 minutes of giving lots of details on the phone, oh yeah taxes fees (asked that at the beginning was assured $35) but oh well time already invested, a OK deal I was less excited... I give notice to current provider, send back my other box, then get the hardware with another contract, and more crap like this. Well now I have sunk alott of time and effort and my other options are more costly than before we had a agreement, than when I got the final contract. This is bait and switch IMHO, that is what google is doing IMHO, that is what these contracts seam designed to do. This is a justified investigation, spread the word and get google to post the final cost more prominently (which they are starting to do, just now.)
You missed the best features 1) Voice to text of all voicemail, search-able... 2) the lowest international call rates. 3) follow me on incoming calls (can dial your home+work+cell you pick the cheapest/convenient) 4) app to transfer, 3 way calling... although this is where voice or data cdma might suck. (not sure if the google app could do some in-band dtmf to transfer data on top of your open call?) All theory, I have a GV number but no smart-phone to make worth messing with.
I could just up and leave AT&T and my Google Voice number would just follow me
Also your voicemail history and contact list would; not true with LNP (need something like bitpim to transfer the contacts.) Apple did also force AT&T to spend allot of money to upgrade their voice servers for that mail app to have that little scroll list. Verizon didn't spend this, so if Apple switches to Verizon (or others) the only way to provide this feature (likely) is with google voice. Since I doubt Verizon is going to bend over backwards for Apple, having droid already. So had Apple worked with Google to integrate their app into the iPhone, they could have encouraged their customers to go GV even on AT&T, and switching their existing customers to any other network painlessly (giving Apple negotiation clout.) Granted it would make switching to android easier, but really most of Apples customers are loyal.
My employer has developed hundreds of these type of rules (ignored after the first month) as a reaction to a single incident. And has lots of warnings signs in response to some fluke that seamed like a big deal at the time. This seams like one of those rules that may make sense for you, but is it only because you were involved at the time, or is it really the best solution? I am guilty of in-acting many a practice thinking it would save the world, don't take it personal if it is just viewed as a waste of time to others. Personally I would try to use the non-compliance to come up with a novel new solution (like a central backup-server) that would make me look favorable to both the manager and the users. Not make me look like one of the rule nazi's that IT gets looked down on for being.
generally true, I did have a job where it seamed HR was out to get me, but my direct manager and job were really good. I still left fairly quick, more because if my manager couldn't deflect the HR gal (she married the owner) it was going to become crappy at some point (and it did when the owner died and she took over, she left the funeral to go back into work and fire half of engineering.) But now working for a fortune 500 company, many people who were at jeopardy to be fired by one manager got into a different facilities first (I might qualify as one of them, I was in danger of being laid off though, not fired.)
Should the American Association of Authors / Author's Guild have the right to speak for all American book copyright owners?
No, and they didn't. Very similar to the union situation at my job, they proposed agreed to and basically endorse the agreement. They then put the agreement out for discussion. Since it is impossible to get everyone to agree, if they get more positive than negative endorsement it goes forward. In this case anyone can then opt out(or not), seams very foolish to do so IMHO.
But google is paying those rights holder a pretty good sum, 63% of Google's revenue, minimum of $60. With percentages like that, the only thing a author is likely to be pissed about, is that their publisher could start printing the books again and they would be stuck getting the less than $1 per book, that is currently typical for even known authors (I am assuming google charges more than $1 for the e-books they scan.)
ALL books available for searching (aka, reading in their entirety if you want)
True, if you want to spend most of your time reading a paragraph, searching for the next paragraph then repeating. Google put in limits, so even this is only working if using tor, and deleting cookies.
inevitable lawsuits can be ignored.
since google pays the authors, of out of print books, more ( 63% of profits) than publishers typically pay those with in print books. Who is going to sue, if the publishers are on board? Granted this deal was in reaction to a lawsuit, with both sides less than 100% confident of the outcome, so each side gave some. That's actually how the system is supposed to work, to find a reasonable middle ground.
distribute it as much as possible without paying you a single cent
actually google pays you * 63% of Revenues Earned in Google Book Search And a minimum of $63, that is until you complain, then they stop selling it unless they reach a new agreement with you.
I wasn't clear: item #1 is selling the book, involves getting the book/e-book from your publisher (currently Google just gets the advertisement revenue for sending the sale to retailers like amazon) item #2 is selling copies/e-books that Google creates from scanning books from a library.
FYI, reading the settlement. Until you (the copyright holder) complains 2 things happen. 1) google can exercise a "fair use" right to use portions of your book, to sell your book. 2) if your book is not in print, google can sell your book, giving you 63% of the revenue. On item 2, if they can't locate you, they give that money to the authors guild to distribute, until you contact them to receive your payment.
No, she's complaining that all books are assumed "orphaned" by Google, unless the author notices and tells otherwise.
Not true at all from my reading of the settlement. Only if the book is out of print, did this settlement give up anything but "fair use" rights. Yes authors do have to opt out, if they don't want google showing small portions of the book, in a effort to sell the book. That is not what she was complaining about.
IMHO google did pay to avoid the risk of loosing part of this "fair use" argument (this is showing small parts of the book in attempt to sell that book, currently selling is all through a third party like amazon.) The orphaned books were a different part of the deal for books no-longer in print. If the book is not in print, google would have the exclusive right to sell a e-book/copied version they scanned, and give 63% of the revenue to the rights holder on record. Until the rights holder opts out, then google would have to stop selling.
The google case is only about 2 things 1) out of print "orphaned books." 2) showing small sections of all other books. She is only complaining about the orphaned books. I would support her if she was proposing some way of saving these books, it appears to me her real motive is she doesn't want google awaking competition to her books. Her only proposals seamed aimed solely at increasing the cost to google, not increasing access to these books.
Just be aware it would have to take on the capabilities of the Verizon network. Things like your voicemail being search-able would only occur if you could install the google app. Not being able to use the internet, and phone at the same time. Possibly losing a unlimited data plan. Of course reliability is well worth it to me. But then again the iPhone marketing never interested me in the least.
I think it would be colossally stupid for B&N to push their own DRM onto customers.
But that is exactly what B&N appears to have done (although only at B&N.com not fictionwise.com). But they do allow you to download a application, to most devices that accept applications, to view their DRM files. Although I guess B&N does seam to use a known DRM format, and use your credit card number as the key. That is more open than Amazon that uses a hidden kindle ID, that isn't meant to be known. At least with the B&N, you can replace your nook and move your DRM content. It is a shame B&N 1) often charge more at fictionwise for some of the same content 2) do not sell any non DRM content at B&N.com, but will sell some of the same e-books at fiction-wise without DRM. I am supposed to get the nook I ordered for the GF this week, since I know how to strip the B&N DRM do I set her up with a account at B&N, and ignore my dislike of DRM. Or do I setup a account with fictionwise (at additional cost) and encourage her to look for no DRM files. Or do I just volunteer to pirate any content she wants. Probably some combination of 1&2.
Maybe the price of the phone is decreasing, but the monthly fees are actually increasing. Sure I would like a smart phone, but a smart phone costs 2-3* as much per month. Currently I pay $70 for 2 cell-phones per month ($35). The Droid plan I was looking at was $75 per line, and the iPhone was around $90 per line (last I checked).
It does, until people give up. At my work the "must have a capital, and a character, and a number, be 8-10 chars, change every month, not be too similar to the last 7 attempts". means most people choose a section of keyboard near the numbers, and just change the capitalization point. So I am guessing it wouldn't take long to come up with a new dictionary set of "qwERty5%" "qwERty6^"... will hit at my company pretty fast. I think the username being 8 characters of last name +first initial means I could choose a few key combination and hit a bunch of user names and would get a login fairly quick. (see I tried using something very unique, but the whole figuring out what would get past the next password change was painful. the computer similar pattern knows "Qwerty" to "qWerty" are same keys. It doesn't know that "34%^" and "#$56" are the same keys.
I doubt it is Apple, they don't have book content or a all that desirable of a brick and mortar presence. Barnes & Noble is a content provider, and being a droid, has a development kit and a emulator so it will have apps in no time. Having a small LCD and 802.11 to play with will give it a (IMHO) huge advantage. I could see the nook e-reader add-on to any game/game system. since it has 802.11 wireless it could easily be a extra screen. This would be very handy for multi-player games, IE select your plays for football without the opponent in the same room seeing your options. Pass it around for any time of strategy/puzzle game. Or just have it giving extra directions or tips.
I figured it was more like AT&T & Verizon tries to pick up iPhone, iPhone says don't worry about speed, spend all your money on making you email pretty and search-able, marketing and give me lots of your money. Verizon says no, AT&T does it. iPhone says thank you and hooks up with AT&T, but immediately starts blaming AT&T for doing everything iPhone asks of it. Eventually iPhone wakes up and sees the mess she has made of AT&T, and sees how much nicer Verizon is for not listening. She now dumps AT&T in a really messy brake up with lots of blame. Now she sees Verizon is so much better off for listing to others, and tries to hook up with Verizon, only to hear that Verizon has a new friend Google and won't give her anything but a pity hook-up.
I do wonder how much of this is Apples fault. Apple forced AT&T to spend on updating their voice-mail system so that it would be search-able, and other make it look cool features. Apple also siphons off a bunch of the per user revenue of customer they bring in, and bringing in a bandwidth hog onto the network. Had apple chosen to tell AT&T what bandwidth to have instead of what shiny features to have, then the customers would have been happier with AT&T, but the iPhone wouldn't have been the cool thing. So Apple may have forced AT&T to take all the blame, and can soon leave them with all the stink when the exclusive contract is up, but that doesn't mean they weren't to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about companies that sell encryption software, where 2 phones are pre-setup with additional software to be secure when talking to each other (not about standard phone calls.) Essentially we could re-write this article for ssh simply saying Open-SSH isn't secure because it doesn't detect trojans installed on the PC.
The server room isn't "trivial" because all of the data is encrypted at that point, requires significant computing resources to first crack the stream, and that can be done in real time, even by the NSA. Yes, the phone un-encrypts the audio out stream and also encrypts the audio in, that is why the weak point is at the phone, not the server room. Same with SSH, logging the data at the server room is very difficult to un-encrypt, much easier to just install a back door on the PC.
All these applications must run on the phones at both ends of the call, so recording it in the middle would be largely of no use if the exchange of keys was secure and the encryption was up to standard (256-bit AES). And The author acknowledged he couldn't break that encryption (and only speculated this was feasible with a distributed computing network.)
Hacking the device is the low hanging fruit was the point. Seams only A backdoor for the NSA/etc, in these applications would change that.
where did you find the link to that? I went to http://google.com/phone, no link their. I selected the tMobile plan, get a new page, still not linked that I could find. Select to purchase, couple more pages enter name, credit check... agree to tmobile contract ($200 early termination clearly spelled out.) STILL NO MENTION. What once I have transferred my number would the tell me?
I tested this out just now, the problem was it is presented far into the deal, IE they convince me I want it with the highlights and the advantages, I feel like we have a verbal contract minus some legal crap. So I decide yes, sounds good I go through 3 more pages and then fill in all my personal information, then I am finally presented with a little tag "agree to tmobile contract", read the contract... oh $200 early termination that's reasonable check and move on. Credit card details, choose your plan... now 30 minutes of time vested into the thing, oh wait google wants another $180 wtf? I thought we had a agreement? This is better than over the phone, where Qwest made me a good deal on internet $35 a month...became $45 after 30 minutes of giving lots of details on the phone, oh yeah taxes fees (asked that at the beginning was assured $35) but oh well time already invested, a OK deal I was less excited... I give notice to current provider, send back my other box, then get the hardware with another contract, and more crap like this. Well now I have sunk alott of time and effort and my other options are more costly than before we had a agreement, than when I got the final contract.
This is bait and switch IMHO, that is what google is doing IMHO, that is what these contracts seam designed to do. This is a justified investigation, spread the word and get google to post the final cost more prominently (which they are starting to do, just now.)
You missed the best features 1) Voice to text of all voicemail, search-able... 2) the lowest international call rates. 3) follow me on incoming calls (can dial your home+work+cell you pick the cheapest/convenient) 4) app to transfer, 3 way calling... although this is where voice or data cdma might suck. (not sure if the google app could do some in-band dtmf to transfer data on top of your open call?)
All theory, I have a GV number but no smart-phone to make worth messing with.
I could just up and leave AT&T and my Google Voice number would just follow me
Also your voicemail history and contact list would; not true with LNP (need something like bitpim to transfer the contacts.) Apple did also force AT&T to spend allot of money to upgrade their voice servers for that mail app to have that little scroll list. Verizon didn't spend this, so if Apple switches to Verizon (or others) the only way to provide this feature (likely) is with google voice. Since I doubt Verizon is going to bend over backwards for Apple, having droid already. So had Apple worked with Google to integrate their app into the iPhone, they could have encouraged their customers to go GV even on AT&T, and switching their existing customers to any other network painlessly (giving Apple negotiation clout.) Granted it would make switching to android easier, but really most of Apples customers are loyal.
My employer has developed hundreds of these type of rules (ignored after the first month) as a reaction to a single incident. And has lots of warnings signs in response to some fluke that seamed like a big deal at the time. This seams like one of those rules that may make sense for you, but is it only because you were involved at the time, or is it really the best solution? I am guilty of in-acting many a practice thinking it would save the world, don't take it personal if it is just viewed as a waste of time to others. Personally I would try to use the non-compliance to come up with a novel new solution (like a central backup-server) that would make me look favorable to both the manager and the users. Not make me look like one of the rule nazi's that IT gets looked down on for being.
why would you want to continue to work for them?
generally true, I did have a job where it seamed HR was out to get me, but my direct manager and job were really good. I still left fairly quick, more because if my manager couldn't deflect the HR gal (she married the owner) it was going to become crappy at some point (and it did when the owner died and she took over, she left the funeral to go back into work and fire half of engineering.)
But now working for a fortune 500 company, many people who were at jeopardy to be fired by one manager got into a different facilities first (I might qualify as one of them, I was in danger of being laid off though, not fired.)
Should the American Association of Authors / Author's Guild have the right to speak for all American book copyright owners?
No, and they didn't. Very similar to the union situation at my job, they proposed agreed to and basically endorse the agreement. They then put the agreement out for discussion. Since it is impossible to get everyone to agree, if they get more positive than negative endorsement it goes forward. In this case anyone can then opt out(or not), seams very foolish to do so IMHO.
The agreement pertains only to orphaned books, ones without a known copyright owner.
Actually I think the Grandparent comment is more accurate; the agreement is for all persons and entities that, as of January 5, 2009, own a U.S. copyright interest in one or more Books or Inserts
And the books google will be allowed to sell without opting out is all out of print books, not unknown copyrights:
http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q29
But google is paying those rights holder a pretty good sum, 63% of Google's revenue, minimum of $60. With percentages like that, the only thing a author is likely to be pissed about, is that their publisher could start printing the books again and they would be stuck getting the less than $1 per book, that is currently typical for even known authors (I am assuming google charges more than $1 for the e-books they scan.)
ALL books available for searching (aka, reading in their entirety if you want)
True, if you want to spend most of your time reading a paragraph, searching for the next paragraph then repeating. Google put in limits, so even this is only working if using tor, and deleting cookies.
inevitable lawsuits can be ignored.
since google pays the authors, of out of print books, more ( 63% of profits) than publishers typically pay those with in print books. Who is going to sue, if the publishers are on board? Granted this deal was in reaction to a lawsuit, with both sides less than 100% confident of the outcome, so each side gave some. That's actually how the system is supposed to work, to find a reasonable middle ground.
distribute it as much as possible without paying you a single cent
actually google pays you * 63% of Revenues Earned in Google Book Search
And a minimum of $63, that is until you complain, then they stop selling it unless they reach a new agreement with you.
I wasn't clear:
item #1 is selling the book, involves getting the book/e-book from your publisher (currently Google just gets the advertisement revenue for sending the sale to retailers like amazon)
item #2 is selling copies/e-books that Google creates from scanning books from a library.
FYI, reading the settlement. Until you (the copyright holder) complains 2 things happen.
1) google can exercise a "fair use" right to use portions of your book, to sell your book.
2) if your book is not in print, google can sell your book, giving you 63% of the revenue.
On item 2, if they can't locate you, they give that money to the authors guild to distribute, until you contact them to receive your payment.
No, she's complaining that all books are assumed "orphaned" by Google, unless the author notices and tells otherwise.
Not true at all from my reading of the settlement. Only if the book is out of print, did this settlement give up anything but "fair use" rights. Yes authors do have to opt out, if they don't want google showing small portions of the book, in a effort to sell the book. That is not what she was complaining about.
IMHO google did pay to avoid the risk of loosing part of this "fair use" argument (this is showing small parts of the book in attempt to sell that book, currently selling is all through a third party like amazon.) The orphaned books were a different part of the deal for books no-longer in print. If the book is not in print, google would have the exclusive right to sell a e-book/copied version they scanned, and give 63% of the revenue to the rights holder on record. Until the rights holder opts out, then google would have to stop selling.
The google case is only about 2 things 1) out of print "orphaned books." 2) showing small sections of all other books.
She is only complaining about the orphaned books. I would support her if she was proposing some way of saving these books, it appears to me her real motive is she doesn't want google awaking competition to her books. Her only proposals seamed aimed solely at increasing the cost to google, not increasing access to these books.
Q: How does the artwork determine the reserve price for the auction? A: There is no reserve, but the initial bid is set at the last sale price.
So it is guaranteed to retain it's value, or the purchaser keeps it until it does. Basically if you paid enough for it, you would keep it. You will only lose the 15%+ shipping costs at the most. Or be stuck with it.
I assume it will quickly price it's self out of the market for long periods of time.
Just be aware it would have to take on the capabilities of the Verizon network. Things like your voicemail being search-able would only occur if you could install the google app. Not being able to use the internet, and phone at the same time. Possibly losing a unlimited data plan.
Of course reliability is well worth it to me. But then again the iPhone marketing never interested me in the least.
I think it would be colossally stupid for B&N to push their own DRM onto customers.
But that is exactly what B&N appears to have done (although only at B&N.com not fictionwise.com). But they do allow you to download a application, to most devices that accept applications, to view their DRM files. Although I guess B&N does seam to use a known DRM format, and use your credit card number as the key. That is more open than Amazon that uses a hidden kindle ID, that isn't meant to be known. At least with the B&N, you can replace your nook and move your DRM content.
It is a shame B&N 1) often charge more at fictionwise for some of the same content 2) do not sell any non DRM content at B&N.com, but will sell some of the same e-books at fiction-wise without DRM. I am supposed to get the nook I ordered for the GF this week, since I know how to strip the B&N DRM do I set her up with a account at B&N, and ignore my dislike of DRM. Or do I setup a account with fictionwise (at additional cost) and encourage her to look for no DRM files. Or do I just volunteer to pirate any content she wants. Probably some combination of 1&2.
Eventually, non-smartphones will fade away.
Maybe the price of the phone is decreasing, but the monthly fees are actually increasing. Sure I would like a smart phone, but a smart phone costs 2-3* as much per month. Currently I pay $70 for 2 cell-phones per month ($35). The Droid plan I was looking at was $75 per line, and the iPhone was around $90 per line (last I checked).
It does, until people give up. At my work the "must have a capital, and a character, and a number, be 8-10 chars, change every month, not be too similar to the last 7 attempts". means most people choose a section of keyboard near the numbers, and just change the capitalization point. So I am guessing it wouldn't take long to come up with a new dictionary set of "qwERty5%" "qwERty6^" ... will hit at my company pretty fast. I think the username being 8 characters of last name +first initial means I could choose a few key combination and hit a bunch of user names and would get a login fairly quick. (see I tried using something very unique, but the whole figuring out what would get past the next password change was painful. the computer similar pattern knows "Qwerty" to "qWerty" are same keys. It doesn't know that "34%^" and "#$56" are the same keys.
I doubt it is Apple, they don't have book content or a all that desirable of a brick and mortar presence. Barnes & Noble is a content provider, and being a droid, has a development kit and a emulator so it will have apps in no time. Having a small LCD and 802.11 to play with will give it a (IMHO) huge advantage.
I could see the nook e-reader add-on to any game/game system. since it has 802.11 wireless it could easily be a extra screen. This would be very handy for multi-player games, IE select your plays for football without the opponent in the same room seeing your options. Pass it around for any time of strategy/puzzle game. Or just have it giving extra directions or tips.
I figured it was more like AT&T & Verizon tries to pick up iPhone, iPhone says don't worry about speed, spend all your money on making you email pretty and search-able, marketing and give me lots of your money. Verizon says no, AT&T does it. iPhone says thank you and hooks up with AT&T, but immediately starts blaming AT&T for doing everything iPhone asks of it. Eventually iPhone wakes up and sees the mess she has made of AT&T, and sees how much nicer Verizon is for not listening. She now dumps AT&T in a really messy brake up with lots of blame. Now she sees Verizon is so much better off for listing to others, and tries to hook up with Verizon, only to hear that Verizon has a new friend Google and won't give her anything but a pity hook-up.
Can anyone with a droid confirm if the "can't surf and talk" is true? The droid features on Verizon specifically state that the multi-tasking OS "does" "Make a call, take a picture, answer a IM, and switch between up to 6 apps at once". So I guess that AT&T really means is what a black-berry doesn't?
I do wonder how much of this is Apples fault. Apple forced AT&T to spend on updating their voice-mail system so that it would be search-able, and other make it look cool features. Apple also siphons off a bunch of the per user revenue of customer they bring in, and bringing in a bandwidth hog onto the network. Had apple chosen to tell AT&T what bandwidth to have instead of what shiny features to have, then the customers would have been happier with AT&T, but the iPhone wouldn't have been the cool thing. So Apple may have forced AT&T to take all the blame, and can soon leave them with all the stink when the exclusive contract is up, but that doesn't mean they weren't to blame.