While I agree with that for moral and philosophical reasons, the fact is that from a strictly practical or functional view, that is essentially incorrect.
Trusted Computing is incredibly insidious. It is essentially the old Microsoft "Embrace, Extend, and Exterminate" tactic. he way Trusted Computing is designed there is absolutely no practical or functional reason NOT to buy a computer with a TPM in it. That's the "Embrace" part. A TPM computer can do everything and anything a normal computer can do. Think of it like speakers - there is absolutely no reason NOT to buy a computer that has built in speakers. If the price is cheaper, or if it's all the store carries, you might as wall accept the computer-with-speakers, take it home, and simple never turn the speakers on.
Their plan is to ship TPMs as standard hardware on all motherboards. If you go in and buy a new PC, you may as well buy the TPM computer, take it home, use it just like a normal computer, and just never "turn on" the TPM chip. It's incredibly insidious... there's no actual reason to reject a TPM computer, so they can just make it standard on all PCs and in just a few years everyone will have a TPM-equipped computer by default.
A TPM computer is a normal computer "plus more", it is a normal computer "plus" it has the option of the new TPM mode. The TPM computer can run all your old programs and read all your old files, "plus" it can enter TPM mode and run the new Trusted programs and it can read the new Trusted files and it can access the new Trusted websites.
If you have an old computer, or if you have a new TPM computer and refuse to use the TPM, then none of the new Trusted stuff works. You can't run the new Trusted software, you can't use any of the new Trusted files, you can't view any of the Trusted websites.
If you buy a TPM computer you have a choice - you can "opt in" and "voluntarily" put on a pair of handcuffs and activate the TPM chip - in which case everything works, all the old stuff works and all the new stuff works. Or you can refuse to turn on the TPM chip and you get screwed, the old stuff still works but none of the new stuff works.
If you by a computer without a TPM chip then you have no choice, you just plain get screwed. he old stuff still works, but you get locked out of all the new stuff.
The really evil part is Trusted Network Connect (TNC). TNC is currently targeted for businesses for securing their internal networks, but in a number of years - maybe a decade or so - it might be used by ISPs. In fact government officials have already called on ISPs to implement something like TNC in order to "secure the National Information Infrastructure against terrorist attack". What does TNC do? It checks the "health" of your computer to make sure that it's not infected by viruses or trojans, and that your operating system is has the latest patches to secure your computer against infection. Because your ISP doesn't want you connecting to their network and spewing virus infections to others. They are protecting their network and they are protecting you. Gee, isn't that good? Gee, isn't TNC a swell thing?
Oh, did I forget to mention.... the way TNC works is that it uses Trusted Computing to do that "health check" on your computer. If your computer doesn't have a TPM then you can't preform the health check. If you computer does have a TPM but you refuse to turn it on, then you can't preform the health check. If you can't or wont do the TPM health check then you can't PASS the health check. And what do you think happens if you don't pass that health check? Well your computer might be infected or be vulnerable to infection. And of course they can't allow an infected machine (or a vulnerable machine) onto their network. So what happens is that TNC "quarantines" your computer. It denies you any internet access until you "fix" your "problem" and pass the TPM health check.
If you reject the TPM you may eventually get effectivel
I, for one, would love the ability to prove to myself that my system hasn't been compromised
You don't need Trusted Computing for that. You could get that from a similar but pro-owner system where you were permitted to know the master key controlling your computer.
It's like a poison apple. They claim that a poison apple is a Good Thing or that it is merely "neutral technology" because it has vitamins and minerals. No, a poison apple designed evil - you could get all of the claimed vitamin and mineral benefits and none of the poison from a plain apple.
The overriding design aspect of Trusted Computing is that the owner of the computer is absolutely FORBIDDEN to know the master key "securing" his system. It is explicitly designed to secure the computer against the owner.
Consider this, two machines with absolutely identical hardware - and therefor with absolutely identical capabilities. The only difference being that you know the master key securing one of your computers but you are denied permission to know the master key securing the other of your computers. They have identical capabilities to secure your computer FOR you. They have identical benefits for you. However since you don't know the key securing the second computer, that computer is secure AGAINST you. For the first computer you do know your master key, and that knowledge gives you the ability to unlock and read your files if you wish. That key gives you the ability to override or alter your security settings if you wish.
The fundamental design criteria of Trusted Computing is to deny you knowledge and control of the key securing your computer. The Primary design criteria is to deny you that full control of your computer. The primary design criteria of Trusted Computing is the ability/feature of locking the computer against the owner.
The meaning of Trusted Computing is that other people can Trust your computer - they can Trust that you computer is secure even against you.
don't worry, if you have the source code, you have the power to remove the DRM. Freedom, yeah, baby.
Unfortunately, incorrect. I'm a programmer and I have studied the Trusted Computing technical specifications in depth.
One of the central points of Trusted Computing is exactly to defeat that. Trusted Computing in fact manages to make the source code substantially useless. Under Trusted Computing you an "remove the DRM" lines of code from the source, but all that does is leave you with unreadable files and an effectively non-functioning software.
The key you need to unlock the files does not exist in the source code, the key does not exist in the executable. The key you need for successful internet communication does not exist in the source code, the key does not exist in the executable.
I'm going to oversimplify here, but essentially the key you need is locked inside the Trusted Platform Module chip. The chip will only supply that key to the exact unmodified executable. If you alter so much as a single line of code, the chip hands over a completely different effectively random key to you. A useless random garbage key. Your modified program cannot read the files you want it to read, and the internet connections you want will fail to open. If you modify so much as a single bit of source - if you modify so much as a single bit of the executable - the software no longer works. The source code is largely useless.
In general it's impossible to crack Trusted Computing in software. There's a chance you might find an exploitable bug defeat DRM in some particular program, but it would only apply to that one program, and they have ways to actually FORCE down patches on everyone to fix that bug (the program will refuse to run at all until you accept the patch, and you could even be any access until you apply operating system patches). The Trusted Computing scheme itself is pretty well immune to software crackage. To beat the Trusted Computing system you need to physically crack the chip on your motherboard. With current deigns you might be able to get away with hacking into the wiring on your motherboard, but once they move the Trust chip inside the CPU you need to physically rip open your Trust chip and read out your key locked in the silicon. And even that is a limited victory. Every computer or other Trusted device has its own unique key. You need to crack them open and physically read out the keys from the devices one by one. If you want four Trust-unlocked computers you pretty well need to physically rip open four microchips and read out four keys. You can't put a key to multiple-use because they will spot that multiple use and revoke that key. Any DRM files you unlocked with that key obviously still have their DRM removed, but that revoked key becomes useless for unlocking any more DRM files, and it no longer enables you to open Trusted internet connections. And even when you do physically crack systems one by one, you still have to be ultra careful that they do not detect that you system is Trust-cracked. If any of your internet connections or any of your software in any way leak the fact that you have cracked your system, in any way leak the fact that you can do things that you're not supposed to be able to do, again, your key gets revoked. That key becomes useless, it can no longer unlock any additional files all attempted Trust-related internet connections will be denied. If they detect that you managed to read your key, if they detect that you managed to regain full control of your computer and override the Trust locks, then they revoke that key and you then need to go out and pay for new physical hardware with a new key locked inside, and you need to physically rip open that chip and read out a new key. Each time they detect that you cracked your computer, they revoke the key and you pretty much need to buy a new computer over and over and over again.
I have simplified and glossed over a huge number of issues. If you have any questions or you want a technical level explanatio
Ansgar Kortem director of Germany's Walter Hohmann Observatory: six out of every seven of them land in water
The earth's surface is 70.8% water and 29.2% land. That means almost exactly five out of seven should be striking water and two should be hitting land.
Either there's something very very hinky going on that meteors are actively avoiding the land, or the observatory director is atrociously bad at math, or he's from some other planet with only half as much land surface compared to earth.
With the recent demonstrations of new 640K RAM computers, analysts now expect the current computer generation to last longer than normal. Signal Hill's Todd Greenwald thinks this cycle may not need to end at all: "Microsoft and Sony have invested so much in their current hardware line, as have third party publishers, that we don't think any party is seriously interested in throwing away these investments and starting over from scratch. For all of these reasons, we think this cycle will last longer than those in the past, and don't see new hardware coming until 2011 at the earliest, and 2012 to 2013 more likely if at all, there may not be a need for another computer cycle."
As I suspected, and as you probably suspected, the case in not the total abomination as the biased description paints it as. In my opinion it is an extremely icky situation, and while the outcome was rather unpleasant there was absolutely nothing improper or unreasonable in the judges' handling of it.
I read the "douchebag" school/first_amendment ruling, and the talk on that one is overblown as well. It wasn't about the student writing "douchebag", the student was inciting other with misinformation flood certain school officials with a disruptive number of calls to "piss them off" and the whole situation was threatening to spiral into a substantial in-school disruption and other details. The only "action taken against the student" was that the administration declined to endorse the student for student body office - and administration endorsement was a requirement to get on the ballot. The intended purpose/qualifications/educational_value of the extracurricular student government system was cooperative productive dispute resolution, and the student's behavior around this incident had been contrary to that. I am extremely queezy with any notion of school officials doing anything on the basis of outside-school-speech, and the ruling made an entirely-not-unreasonable link to in-school disruption, and to giving some latitude and deference to school officials in managing and preventing in-school disruption, and to the minimal and quite relevant nature of the school response in the student's extracurricular privileges. A very ugly case, but hardly gross judicial disregard for the 1st amendment.
The 4th amendment case someone was citing against Sotomayor was particularly absurd. A government agency had reasonable cause to suspect employee misuse of equipment, and examined its OWN computers sitting in its OWN offices. Judge Sotomayor actually did (in my opinion perhaps generously) extend some limited 4th amendment expectation of privacy in the contents of "their" work computers, but ruled that in this case the expectation of privacy was low and that this good-cause employer "search" of the computers was "reasonable".
If these are the worst and most offensive cases they can dig up out of Sotomayor's entire ~3,600 case history, it only serves to convince me she's an exceptionally good judge.
Well, obviously knowing the steps is pure knowledge, but you can't infringe any patent based on mere knowledge. In fact the patent system required the public publication of that knowledge. It's the act of preforming that physical process that is patented. You can know how to transform coal into diamonds and you can give people the instructions for turning coal into diamonds, but it is patent infringement to engage in the act of commercially turning coal into diamonds. There are some exceptions and limits or where it's not infringing.... you can experiment with the process and probably some "non-commercial" activities, but I don't know the exact rules on that.
Would someone else be stopped from using their own property to figure out a similar process to make a similar end product?
Part of the idea behind patents is to encourage exactly that. The patent holder must publish their process, patent law explicitly allows experimentation with that process, and it is considered a Good Thing if you find some way to work around his patent by coming up with a new process to make the identical end product. And you can then patent that new process and go into competing business selling that identical end product (assuming the end product itself is "refined metal" or "diamonds" and not itself a patented inventable-object).
I think your question there is pretty much due to the software patent mess. Software patents are so fuxored that they essentially become process patents on any possible means of reaching the "end product". Process patents are not supposed to do that. A classic example of a normal process patent was the 1800's Hall Process for producing aluminum (aluminum was actually more expensive than gold before the Hall Process was discovered). Such a patent does not cover the end product at all. Other people could still make and sell aluminum, they just had to find a different way to extract solid aluminum from mineral ore. Essentially 100% of all aluminum today is produced by the Hall Process, and obviously that patent expired a long time ago.
I certainly agree that patents in general are an artificial restriction created by laws... the whole "To Promote progress and the Useful Arts" thing... and I certainly agree that patents in general carry a number of costs and cause some problems... but they don't seem TOO bad so long as they are properly restricted to non-obvious physical objects and novel non-obvious physical processes. My main focus is the insanity that has developed with the notion patents for non-physical "inventions" like software patents and business method. And while genes are at least physical, similar insane bending and expansion of standard patent rules has been going on there too.
scrobbler data [] would seem to be of no value as either evidence of "theft" or probable cause for further discovery of evidence.
You are wrong about the law. You are confusing "beyond reasonable doubt evidence in CRIMINAL court" with the infinitely lower "51% probable standard to win a civil case", and the even lower standard of "we are suing someone and we have reason to SUSPECT they MIGHT have information relevant to the case in their possession, so the judge is issuing a subpoena for that information for the court to examine".
The rules for civil cases are vastly different than for criminal cases. Once the RIAA has decided to sue you, they do not need "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to get a subpoena to seize and mirror-copy your computer as evidence. The fact that they have circumstantial evidence that it looks like they might have a civil case against you - the fact that there is an appearance that you may have been infringing their copyright - is plenty for them to get a subpoena for your computer.
People come to the Nazi Party for the atmosphere and the attitude. That's what the flair's about. It's about fun. If you Jews think the bare minimum is enough, then ok. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, ok?
I once read on the Christianity page that it taught about talking snakes and rules for selling your daughter into slavery and polygamy, so I edited out that obvious vandalism.
Hmm, still not convinced. I still believe business method patents are bad for society.
Your "objection" doesn't actually conflict with what he said. He basically said "Not all cars are bad", and you basically replied that you "still believe Humvees are bad". (I first wrote dogs and PitBulls, but changed it to a car analogy:)
Before all of this business methods patent crap and software patents crap, a "process patent" meant an industrial process that physically transformed a physical object to a different state or thing. A physical process to refine ore into metal, a physical process transform graphite into diamonds. You got a patent for inventing a new physical object, or a new physical process for materially transforming a physical object.
As far back as 1876 in Cochrane v. Deener the US Supreme Court defined a process patent as: an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.
US Supreme Court Gottschalk v. Benson 1972: Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.
The latest Supreme Court patent ruling was 1981 Diamond v. Diehr, which directly quoted and reaffirmed that line above from Gottschalk v. Benson. Diamond v. Diehr also specifically WARNS that "insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. To hold otherwise would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection.".
In Parker v Flook 1977 the Supreme Court stated Whether the algorithm was in fact known or unknown at the time of the claimed invention, as one of the 'basic tools of scientific and technological work,' it is treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art.". For patent purposes, no possible algorithm can ever qualify as novel, no possible algorithm can ever qualify as nonobvious. Software itself is nothing but pure algorithm, no possible software can ever qualify as patent-novel or patent-nonobvious.
The idea that "process patents" somehow could be extended to anything other than physical processes is exactly where patent law went insane. In the twenty-odd years that the Supreme Court as neglected to oversee this field, the lower courts have gone wildly and flagrantly in violation of those Supreme Court rulings. A "business method patent" is not validly a process patent. A "software patent" is not validly a process patent.
I am thrilled to see the Supreme Court finally taking up the issue, however I wish it were a slightly different case. The nature of this particular case is such that the Supreme Court could very easily toss out this patent on narrow grounds, without adequately addressing and reiterating the above Supreme Court quotes, failing to address the thousands and thousands of other business method and software patents that have been issued over the last several years.
What support do you have for the notion that because you can do something, you should be allowed to do that thing.
People should not be allowed to commit arson, rape, or murder. The issue, the notion, is that people should have the ability to commit arson, rape, and murder.
That is the insanity going on in this issue. The confusion of crimes vs abilities.
Say someone owns a pile of logs. They are perfectly entitled to post a "flag" on those logs saying "do not burn". They are also perfectly entitled to cover those logs in fire retardant slime making it more difficult to burn those logs. The insanity going on here is the notion that the "do not burn" flag on those signs will actually prevent those logs from being burned, the insanity is the notion that the flag actually has any effect on whether or not it is legal to burn them, the insanity is the notion that speech explaining how to "circumvent" that slime should be criminal, the notion that having the ability to "circumvent" slime should be criminal, the insanity is the notion that the act of "circumventing" the slime to burn the logs should be criminal.
I disagree very strenuously with the notion that this point alone proves that consumers ought to be able copy content marked 'display only'
I most strenuously disagree with you there.
No, I should not burn your logs. That is arson.
Yes, I should have the ability to burn logs with a "do not burn" flag on them. Yes, I should have the ability to burn logs with fire retardant slime on them. Yes, I should have the free speech to explain how to "circumvent" fire retardant slime.
You own your logs, you can put flags on them, you can put slime on them, and you can then go ahead and burn them if you like. They are your logs and it is not a crime for you to burn them. It is not a crime for you to ignore those flags, it is not a crime for you to "circumvent" the fire retardant slime.
You can also sell those slimed & do-not-burn-flagged logs. Once I buy that log, it is not arson for me to burn the particular log I bought. Just because you sold it with a "do not burn" flag, does not mean it becomes arson for me to burn it. Just because you sold it with fire retardant slime on it, does not make it a crime for me to burn it.
Someone can publish a book or a movie with a "do not copy" flag. Yes it is illegal for someone to make infringing copies. However it is not copyright infringement for a student to copy sentences out for a school book report, it is not copyright infringement for someone to make a backup copy of software, it is not copyright infringement for someone to format shift copy music to play on a different device, it is not copyright infringement for someone to copy a movie to edit out violent or sexual scenes for private performance to their children. Just because a movie is flagged "do not copy" does not make it copyright infringement for someone to engage in copying.
No, people should not commit infringement. Yes, people should have the ability to "copy content marked 'display only'".
Someone can publish a book or music or movie in piglatin in an effort to make it more difficult to copy. Yes, they have publish it in funky super-scrambled-piglatin to make it more difficult to copy. That's all DRM is - a somewhat more complex version of piglatin scrambling up the content.
No, people should not infringe that piglatin scrambled content. Yes, people should have the freedom of speech to explain how piglatin works. Yes, people should have the freedom of speech to explain how to descramble piglatin. Yes, people should have the ability to descramble that piglatin. Yes, people should have the ability to copy that content. Copying does not equal infringement. People should not infringe, but yes they should go right ahead and copy when it isn't infringement.
The intent of DRM-scrambling is to prevent copyright infringement. What
Apparently your car currently gets 1 mile per gallon:)
P.S. My uncle is a well-placed lawyer working for an international oil company. One night three years ago I snuck into their secret vault and got my hands on the oil-killer technology that they're suppressing, the engine that runs on water and gets 200 miles to the cup. This article is sooo right. I used to average maybe 25 miles a day driving my regular old gas car. Now that I'm getting 200 miles on a cup of water I've been driving about 86,000,000 miles a day and the extra 900 gallons per day on my water utility bill left me stuck paying the exact same goddamn cost for fuel as before. What the fuck good is this uber-secret oil company suppressed technology, if it doesn't even save me a damn nickel?
Taking a dozen candy wrappers out of the back seat will reduce the weight in your car by maybe a dozen grams and save you maybe 0.0001 MPG.
Dude, if you've got enough food wrappers in your back seat for it to detectably affect your gas mileage, then I think the extra 200 pounds of fat you're hauling in the driver's seat is already costing cost you a full MPG.:D
Yet, I don't think in this politically charged atmosphere we are going to find anything but politically patronized studies.
How about basic physics?
Visible solar energy - sunlight - comes down through the atmosphere, strikes and warms the surface of the earth, and then is released as infrared thermal radiation. The atmosphere is like a transparent window to visible light, but it is a partially-dark window in the infrared. The solar energy comes down and warms the earth, but the heat is partially blocked and has trouble escaping to cool the earth back down. The "greenhouse effect".
The normal greenhouse effect is already about 50 degrees F. Before pollution, before cars, before the industrial revolution, before anything, the normal earth greenhouse effect and the normal CO2 levels and other atmospheric greenhouse gases already keeping the earth about 50 degrees F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. The non-greenhouse-effect state of the planet would be sub-freezing-point almost from pole to pole.
Venus is a bit closer to the sun and it gets a fair percentage stronger sunlight than the earth, but that's not why Venus is so hot. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt soft metal, because the planet has a thick atmosphere of mostly CO2. The atmosphere is a completely black closed window to infrared light.
The thicker the greenhouse blanket is, the more heat it traps. It is trivial provable directly testable fact that CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gases factually *do* let sunlight come in and then act to block infrared heat from escaping. The thicker the blanket, the warmer you get under that blanket.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that earth's CO2 levels were about 260ppm before the industrial revolution.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that earth's CO2 levels have now risen to over 380ppm.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that we are currently emitting about 27 GIGAtons of CO2 per year. (Note: All volcanoes combined release somewhere in the ballpark of 200 megatons of CO2 per year.)
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due almost exclusively to man made causes, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes that methane levels (an even more powerful greenhouse gas) have also shot up due to man-made causes.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes that Chlorofluorocarbons and other artificial compounds are of exclusively man-made origins, and that they have a vastly more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2.
The simple physics that certain atmospheric gases *do* let in warming sunlight energy and then block the escape of heat, the simple physics that a thicker blanket of those gases traps more heat, and the undisputed fact that humans have increased the levels of those gases in the atmosphere and even introduced new more powerful ones, that leads to the absolute result that yes, the effect real, it is a warming effect, and that human activities are causing this effect.
The size of the effect is a complex issue. There are other effects operating in parallel with this effect, making things even more complex. Predicting the future impact this will have on the global climate is extremely difficult and extremely complex. Predicting the secondary impacts this effect will have on the planet and upon us is insanely difficult. Deciding what, if anything, we should do about it is an economic and political question, not a scientific issue.
However what is simple is that this effect is real. It exists. It is an indisputable scientific fact.
There can be rational discussion of the size of the effect, there absolutely is substantial uncertainty in trying to predicting the future growth of the effect and trying to model what impact it will have on the overall climate, there absolutely is substantial uncertainty in the secondary impacts it will cause, there absolutely is substa
Who the hell do you think you are using someone else's network for free and then complaining that they check up on your behavior from time-to-time?/
If someone at a phone company decided to eaves drop on customer's phone conversations, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
This isn't your ISP.
If McDonald's or any other company were to offer free phone service while you eat, and they were to eaves drop on customer's phone conversations, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
The fact that I make a phone call to my wife/doctor/lawyer/priest/whoever via Voice Over IP internet call does not make it A-OK for a company to eaves drop on my phone conversation. Just because a company offers free local-calls phonecalls while I eat does not make it A-OK for them to eaves drop on my conversations. Nor does it make it OK for them to eaves drop on my data-conversations like by internet bank account login password or my medical searches or whatever else.
If McDonald's offers free car washes while I eat, cool. However if I then discover they are directing their employees to search my car trunk looking for drugs or dead bodies to get me arrested, I'm going to scream bloody murder.
If McDonald's wants to offer local-filtered free phone calls, swell, if they want to offer filtered free internet connections, swell, if they want to offer some sort of limited free car wash service, swell. However it is outrageous for them to abuse any of that access to snoop on customers, and it is most especially outrageous to do it specifically to use against their customers.
I assume you have no heroin in your trunk, but I assume you would be non-too-pleased to learn a company offered you a free carwash or free valet service and directed their employees to search your trunk looking to have you arrested, or if they offered you free local phone calls any listened in looking to find anything to have you arrested for.
I dislike filtering and think it's generally a dumb idea, but I see nothing particularly objectionable in a person or a company offering pretty much any kin of limited or filtered service they feel like offering.
What I find objectionable is a company offering a communication service, and deliberately snooping on those conversations or other communications. If I have a phone conversation with my wife or my priest or my lawyer or anyone else, they should not be eaves dropping on that conversation, whether it is an ordinary phone line or an internet VOIP call. If I log into Slashdot or my bank account, they should not be eaves dropping on my password. If I go to Google or Wikipedia, they should not be eaves dropping on my searches for STDs or breast cancer or Scientology or anything else.
I find it extremely objectionable that they are deliberately snooping on customer's communications, and I find it outrageous that they are doing so explicitly to use against their customers.
If someone at the phone company were to do this, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
If some company were to offer free phone service, and they did this, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
Just because a phone call is done by Voice Over IP does not change the fact that the communication provider should not be snooping on that conversation. Just because my communication is digital rather than voice does not change the fact that the communication provider should not be snooping on my conversations.
If McDonald's wants to offer free phone service, but "filters" to only offer free local calls or otherwise limits the approved destinations that can be called, fine. But they should not be snooping on those calls, and they most especially should not be abusing their physical access to those communications to use against their customers.
If McDonalds wants to offer free car washes while you sit down and eat, great! But I am going to scream bloody murder if I discover McDonald's is directing its employees to search my trunk looking for drugs or dead bodies to report to the police.
Slashdot Mirror
don't buy it if it's using the TPM hardware
While I agree with that for moral and philosophical reasons, the fact is that from a strictly practical or functional view, that is essentially incorrect.
Trusted Computing is incredibly insidious. It is essentially the old Microsoft "Embrace, Extend, and Exterminate" tactic. he way Trusted Computing is designed there is absolutely no practical or functional reason NOT to buy a computer with a TPM in it. That's the "Embrace" part. A TPM computer can do everything and anything a normal computer can do. Think of it like speakers - there is absolutely no reason NOT to buy a computer that has built in speakers. If the price is cheaper, or if it's all the store carries, you might as wall accept the computer-with-speakers, take it home, and simple never turn the speakers on.
Their plan is to ship TPMs as standard hardware on all motherboards. If you go in and buy a new PC, you may as well buy the TPM computer, take it home, use it just like a normal computer, and just never "turn on" the TPM chip. It's incredibly insidious... there's no actual reason to reject a TPM computer, so they can just make it standard on all PCs and in just a few years everyone will have a TPM-equipped computer by default.
A TPM computer is a normal computer "plus more", it is a normal computer "plus" it has the option of the new TPM mode. The TPM computer can run all your old programs and read all your old files, "plus" it can enter TPM mode and run the new Trusted programs and it can read the new Trusted files and it can access the new Trusted websites.
If you have an old computer, or if you have a new TPM computer and refuse to use the TPM, then none of the new Trusted stuff works. You can't run the new Trusted software, you can't use any of the new Trusted files, you can't view any of the Trusted websites.
If you buy a TPM computer you have a choice - you can "opt in" and "voluntarily" put on a pair of handcuffs and activate the TPM chip - in which case everything works, all the old stuff works and all the new stuff works. Or you can refuse to turn on the TPM chip and you get screwed, the old stuff still works but none of the new stuff works.
If you by a computer without a TPM chip then you have no choice, you just plain get screwed. he old stuff still works, but you get locked out of all the new stuff.
The really evil part is Trusted Network Connect (TNC). TNC is currently targeted for businesses for securing their internal networks, but in a number of years - maybe a decade or so - it might be used by ISPs. In fact government officials have already called on ISPs to implement something like TNC in order to "secure the National Information Infrastructure against terrorist attack". What does TNC do? It checks the "health" of your computer to make sure that it's not infected by viruses or trojans, and that your operating system is has the latest patches to secure your computer against infection. Because your ISP doesn't want you connecting to their network and spewing virus infections to others. They are protecting their network and they are protecting you. Gee, isn't that good? Gee, isn't TNC a swell thing?
Oh, did I forget to mention.... the way TNC works is that it uses Trusted Computing to do that "health check" on your computer. If your computer doesn't have a TPM then you can't preform the health check. If you computer does have a TPM but you refuse to turn it on, then you can't preform the health check. If you can't or wont do the TPM health check then you can't PASS the health check. And what do you think happens if you don't pass that health check? Well your computer might be infected or be vulnerable to infection. And of course they can't allow an infected machine (or a vulnerable machine) onto their network. So what happens is that TNC "quarantines" your computer. It denies you any internet access until you "fix" your "problem" and pass the TPM health check.
If you reject the TPM you may eventually get effectivel
I, for one, would love the ability to prove to myself that my system hasn't been compromised
You don't need Trusted Computing for that. You could get that from a similar but pro-owner system where you were permitted to know the master key controlling your computer.
It's like a poison apple. They claim that a poison apple is a Good Thing or that it is merely "neutral technology" because it has vitamins and minerals. No, a poison apple designed evil - you could get all of the claimed vitamin and mineral benefits and none of the poison from a plain apple.
The overriding design aspect of Trusted Computing is that the owner of the computer is absolutely FORBIDDEN to know the master key "securing" his system. It is explicitly designed to secure the computer against the owner.
Consider this, two machines with absolutely identical hardware - and therefor with absolutely identical capabilities. The only difference being that you know the master key securing one of your computers but you are denied permission to know the master key securing the other of your computers. They have identical capabilities to secure your computer FOR you. They have identical benefits for you. However since you don't know the key securing the second computer, that computer is secure AGAINST you. For the first computer you do know your master key, and that knowledge gives you the ability to unlock and read your files if you wish. That key gives you the ability to override or alter your security settings if you wish.
The fundamental design criteria of Trusted Computing is to deny you knowledge and control of the key securing your computer. The Primary design criteria is to deny you that full control of your computer. The primary design criteria of Trusted Computing is the ability/feature of locking the computer against the owner.
The meaning of Trusted Computing is that other people can Trust your computer - they can Trust that you computer is secure even against you.
-
don't worry, if you have the source code, you have the power to remove the DRM. Freedom, yeah, baby.
Unfortunately, incorrect. I'm a programmer and I have studied the Trusted Computing technical specifications in depth.
One of the central points of Trusted Computing is exactly to defeat that. Trusted Computing in fact manages to make the source code substantially useless. Under Trusted Computing you an "remove the DRM" lines of code from the source, but all that does is leave you with unreadable files and an effectively non-functioning software.
The key you need to unlock the files does not exist in the source code, the key does not exist in the executable. The key you need for successful internet communication does not exist in the source code, the key does not exist in the executable.
I'm going to oversimplify here, but essentially the key you need is locked inside the Trusted Platform Module chip. The chip will only supply that key to the exact unmodified executable. If you alter so much as a single line of code, the chip hands over a completely different effectively random key to you. A useless random garbage key. Your modified program cannot read the files you want it to read, and the internet connections you want will fail to open. If you modify so much as a single bit of source - if you modify so much as a single bit of the executable - the software no longer works. The source code is largely useless.
In general it's impossible to crack Trusted Computing in software. There's a chance you might find an exploitable bug defeat DRM in some particular program, but it would only apply to that one program, and they have ways to actually FORCE down patches on everyone to fix that bug (the program will refuse to run at all until you accept the patch, and you could even be any access until you apply operating system patches). The Trusted Computing scheme itself is pretty well immune to software crackage. To beat the Trusted Computing system you need to physically crack the chip on your motherboard. With current deigns you might be able to get away with hacking into the wiring on your motherboard, but once they move the Trust chip inside the CPU you need to physically rip open your Trust chip and read out your key locked in the silicon. And even that is a limited victory. Every computer or other Trusted device has its own unique key. You need to crack them open and physically read out the keys from the devices one by one. If you want four Trust-unlocked computers you pretty well need to physically rip open four microchips and read out four keys. You can't put a key to multiple-use because they will spot that multiple use and revoke that key. Any DRM files you unlocked with that key obviously still have their DRM removed, but that revoked key becomes useless for unlocking any more DRM files, and it no longer enables you to open Trusted internet connections. And even when you do physically crack systems one by one, you still have to be ultra careful that they do not detect that you system is Trust-cracked. If any of your internet connections or any of your software in any way leak the fact that you have cracked your system, in any way leak the fact that you can do things that you're not supposed to be able to do, again, your key gets revoked. That key becomes useless, it can no longer unlock any additional files all attempted Trust-related internet connections will be denied. If they detect that you managed to read your key, if they detect that you managed to regain full control of your computer and override the Trust locks, then they revoke that key and you then need to go out and pay for new physical hardware with a new key locked inside, and you need to physically rip open that chip and read out a new key. Each time they detect that you cracked your computer, they revoke the key and you pretty much need to buy a new computer over and over and over again.
I have simplified and glossed over a huge number of issues. If you have any questions or you want a technical level explanatio
Ansgar Kortem director of Germany's Walter Hohmann Observatory: six out of every seven of them land in water
The earth's surface is 70.8% water and 29.2% land. That means almost exactly five out of seven should be striking water and two should be hitting land.
Either there's something very very hinky going on that meteors are actively avoiding the land, or the observatory director is atrociously bad at math, or he's from some other planet with only half as much land surface compared to earth.
-
Yeah yeah yeah.... 'you all look alike to me'.
Damn bigot.
-
Too bad Ballmer's father didn't pull out.
-
With the recent demonstrations of new 640K RAM computers, analysts now expect the current computer generation to last longer than normal. Signal Hill's Todd Greenwald thinks this cycle may not need to end at all: "Microsoft and Sony have invested so much in their current hardware line, as have third party publishers, that we don't think any party is seriously interested in throwing away these investments and starting over from scratch. For all of these reasons, we think this cycle will last longer than those in the past, and don't see new hardware coming until 2011 at the earliest, and 2012 to 2013 more likely if at all, there may not be a need for another computer cycle."
-
DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software.
How ironic, they announce new Mac and Linux versions and tell you not to download them unless you use Windows.
-
I couldn't find the official court description/ruling on the case, but I did find this vastly more informative and balanced description of the case.
As I suspected, and as you probably suspected, the case in not the total abomination as the biased description paints it as. In my opinion it is an extremely icky situation, and while the outcome was rather unpleasant there was absolutely nothing improper or unreasonable in the judges' handling of it.
I read the "douchebag" school/first_amendment ruling, and the talk on that one is overblown as well. It wasn't about the student writing "douchebag", the student was inciting other with misinformation flood certain school officials with a disruptive number of calls to "piss them off" and the whole situation was threatening to spiral into a substantial in-school disruption and other details. The only "action taken against the student" was that the administration declined to endorse the student for student body office - and administration endorsement was a requirement to get on the ballot. The intended purpose/qualifications/educational_value of the extracurricular student government system was cooperative productive dispute resolution, and the student's behavior around this incident had been contrary to that. I am extremely queezy with any notion of school officials doing anything on the basis of outside-school-speech, and the ruling made an entirely-not-unreasonable link to in-school disruption, and to giving some latitude and deference to school officials in managing and preventing in-school disruption, and to the minimal and quite relevant nature of the school response in the student's extracurricular privileges. A very ugly case, but hardly gross judicial disregard for the 1st amendment.
The 4th amendment case someone was citing against Sotomayor was particularly absurd. A government agency had reasonable cause to suspect employee misuse of equipment, and examined its OWN computers sitting in its OWN offices. Judge Sotomayor actually did (in my opinion perhaps generously) extend some limited 4th amendment expectation of privacy in the contents of "their" work computers, but ruled that in this case the expectation of privacy was low and that this good-cause employer "search" of the computers was "reasonable".
If these are the worst and most offensive cases they can dig up out of Sotomayor's entire ~3,600 case history, it only serves to convince me she's an exceptionally good judge.
-
the United States of Backwardia.
You mean Jesusland? :)
-
the process itself is still pure knowledge?
Well, obviously knowing the steps is pure knowledge, but you can't infringe any patent based on mere knowledge. In fact the patent system required the public publication of that knowledge. It's the act of preforming that physical process that is patented. You can know how to transform coal into diamonds and you can give people the instructions for turning coal into diamonds, but it is patent infringement to engage in the act of commercially turning coal into diamonds. There are some exceptions and limits or where it's not infringing.... you can experiment with the process and probably some "non-commercial" activities, but I don't know the exact rules on that.
Would someone else be stopped from using their own property to figure out a similar process to make a similar end product?
Part of the idea behind patents is to encourage exactly that. The patent holder must publish their process, patent law explicitly allows experimentation with that process, and it is considered a Good Thing if you find some way to work around his patent by coming up with a new process to make the identical end product. And you can then patent that new process and go into competing business selling that identical end product (assuming the end product itself is "refined metal" or "diamonds" and not itself a patented inventable-object).
I think your question there is pretty much due to the software patent mess. Software patents are so fuxored that they essentially become process patents on any possible means of reaching the "end product". Process patents are not supposed to do that. A classic example of a normal process patent was the 1800's Hall Process for producing aluminum (aluminum was actually more expensive than gold before the Hall Process was discovered). Such a patent does not cover the end product at all. Other people could still make and sell aluminum, they just had to find a different way to extract solid aluminum from mineral ore. Essentially 100% of all aluminum today is produced by the Hall Process, and obviously that patent expired a long time ago.
I certainly agree that patents in general are an artificial restriction created by laws... the whole "To Promote progress and the Useful Arts" thing... and I certainly agree that patents in general carry a number of costs and cause some problems... but they don't seem TOO bad so long as they are properly restricted to non-obvious physical objects and novel non-obvious physical processes. My main focus is the insanity that has developed with the notion patents for non-physical "inventions" like software patents and business method. And while genes are at least physical, similar insane bending and expansion of standard patent rules has been going on there too.
-
scrobbler data [] would seem to be of no value as either evidence of "theft" or probable cause for further discovery of evidence.
You are wrong about the law. You are confusing "beyond reasonable doubt evidence in CRIMINAL court" with the infinitely lower "51% probable standard to win a civil case", and the even lower standard of "we are suing someone and we have reason to SUSPECT they MIGHT have information relevant to the case in their possession, so the judge is issuing a subpoena for that information for the court to examine".
The rules for civil cases are vastly different than for criminal cases. Once the RIAA has decided to sue you, they do not need "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to get a subpoena to seize and mirror-copy your computer as evidence. The fact that they have circumstantial evidence that it looks like they might have a civil case against you - the fact that there is an appearance that you may have been infringing their copyright - is plenty for them to get a subpoena for your computer.
-
People come to the Nazi Party for the atmosphere and the attitude. That's what the flair's about. It's about fun.
If you Jews think the bare minimum is enough, then ok. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, ok?
-
Next up, eldavojohn will engage in a +5 Insightful critique of the Goatse guy's photography technique.
-
Wait.... you mean BadAnalogyGuy is also the Goatse guy?
Wow, the interwebs never cease to shock and amaze.
-
I once read on the Christianity page that it taught about talking snakes and rules for selling your daughter into slavery and polygamy, so I edited out that obvious vandalism.
-
>>...not ALL method patents are bad...
Hmm, still not convinced. I still believe business method patents are bad for society.
Your "objection" doesn't actually conflict with what he said. He basically said "Not all cars are bad", and you basically replied that you "still believe Humvees are bad". (I first wrote dogs and PitBulls, but changed it to a car analogy :)
Before all of this business methods patent crap and software patents crap, a "process patent" meant an industrial process that physically transformed a physical object to a different state or thing. A physical process to refine ore into metal, a physical process transform graphite into diamonds. You got a patent for inventing a new physical object, or a new physical process for materially transforming a physical object.
As far back as 1876 in Cochrane v. Deener the US Supreme Court defined a process patent as:
an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.
US Supreme Court Gottschalk v. Benson 1972:
Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.
The latest Supreme Court patent ruling was 1981 Diamond v. Diehr, which directly quoted and reaffirmed that line above from Gottschalk v. Benson. Diamond v. Diehr also specifically WARNS that "insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. To hold otherwise would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection.".
In Parker v Flook 1977 the Supreme Court stated Whether the algorithm was in fact known or unknown at the time of the claimed invention, as one of the 'basic tools of scientific and technological work,' it is treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art.". For patent purposes, no possible algorithm can ever qualify as novel, no possible algorithm can ever qualify as nonobvious. Software itself is nothing but pure algorithm, no possible software can ever qualify as patent-novel or patent-nonobvious.
The idea that "process patents" somehow could be extended to anything other than physical processes is exactly where patent law went insane. In the twenty-odd years that the Supreme Court as neglected to oversee this field, the lower courts have gone wildly and flagrantly in violation of those Supreme Court rulings. A "business method patent" is not validly a process patent. A "software patent" is not validly a process patent.
I am thrilled to see the Supreme Court finally taking up the issue, however I wish it were a slightly different case. The nature of this particular case is such that the Supreme Court could very easily toss out this patent on narrow grounds, without adequately addressing and reiterating the above Supreme Court quotes, failing to address the thousands and thousands of other business method and software patents that have been issued over the last several years.
-
What support do you have for the notion that because you can do something, you should be allowed to do that thing.
People should not be allowed to commit arson, rape, or murder.
The issue, the notion, is that people should have the ability to commit arson, rape, and murder.
That is the insanity going on in this issue. The confusion of crimes vs abilities.
Say someone owns a pile of logs. They are perfectly entitled to post a "flag" on those logs saying "do not burn". They are also perfectly entitled to cover those logs in fire retardant slime making it more difficult to burn those logs. The insanity going on here is the notion that the "do not burn" flag on those signs will actually prevent those logs from being burned, the insanity is the notion that the flag actually has any effect on whether or not it is legal to burn them, the insanity is the notion that speech explaining how to "circumvent" that slime should be criminal, the notion that having the ability to "circumvent" slime should be criminal, the insanity is the notion that the act of "circumventing" the slime to burn the logs should be criminal.
I disagree very strenuously with the notion that this point alone proves that consumers ought to be able copy content marked 'display only'
I most strenuously disagree with you there.
No, I should not burn your logs. That is arson.
Yes, I should have the ability to burn logs with a "do not burn" flag on them.
Yes, I should have the ability to burn logs with fire retardant slime on them.
Yes, I should have the free speech to explain how to "circumvent" fire retardant slime.
You own your logs, you can put flags on them, you can put slime on them, and you can then go ahead and burn them if you like. They are your logs and it is not a crime for you to burn them. It is not a crime for you to ignore those flags, it is not a crime for you to "circumvent" the fire retardant slime.
You can also sell those slimed & do-not-burn-flagged logs.
Once I buy that log, it is not arson for me to burn the particular log I bought.
Just because you sold it with a "do not burn" flag, does not mean it becomes arson for me to burn it.
Just because you sold it with fire retardant slime on it, does not make it a crime for me to burn it.
Someone can publish a book or a movie with a "do not copy" flag. Yes it is illegal for someone to make infringing copies. However it is not copyright infringement for a student to copy sentences out for a school book report, it is not copyright infringement for someone to make a backup copy of software, it is not copyright infringement for someone to format shift copy music to play on a different device, it is not copyright infringement for someone to copy a movie to edit out violent or sexual scenes for private performance to their children. Just because a movie is flagged "do not copy" does not make it copyright infringement for someone to engage in copying.
No, people should not commit infringement.
Yes, people should have the ability to "copy content marked 'display only'".
Someone can publish a book or music or movie in piglatin in an effort to make it more difficult to copy. Yes, they have publish it in funky super-scrambled-piglatin to make it more difficult to copy. That's all DRM is - a somewhat more complex version of piglatin scrambling up the content.
No, people should not infringe that piglatin scrambled content.
Yes, people should have the freedom of speech to explain how piglatin works.
Yes, people should have the freedom of speech to explain how to descramble piglatin.
Yes, people should have the ability to descramble that piglatin.
Yes, people should have the ability to copy that content.
Copying does not equal infringement.
People should not infringe, but yes they should go right ahead and copy when it isn't infringement.
The intent of DRM-scrambling is to prevent copyright infringement. What
Apparently your car currently gets 1 mile per gallon :)
P.S.
My uncle is a well-placed lawyer working for an international oil company. One night three years ago I snuck into their secret vault and got my hands on the oil-killer technology that they're suppressing, the engine that runs on water and gets 200 miles to the cup. This article is sooo right. I used to average maybe 25 miles a day driving my regular old gas car. Now that I'm getting 200 miles on a cup of water I've been driving about 86,000,000 miles a day and the extra 900 gallons per day on my water utility bill left me stuck paying the exact same goddamn cost for fuel as before. What the fuck good is this uber-secret oil company suppressed technology, if it doesn't even save me a damn nickel?
-
Take the food wrappers out of the back seat.
Taking a dozen candy wrappers out of the back seat will reduce the weight in your car by maybe a dozen grams and save you maybe 0.0001 MPG.
Dude, if you've got enough food wrappers in your back seat for it to detectably affect your gas mileage, then I think the extra 200 pounds of fat you're hauling in the driver's seat is already costing cost you a full MPG. :D
-
Yet, I don't think in this politically charged atmosphere we are going to find anything but politically patronized studies.
How about basic physics?
Visible solar energy - sunlight - comes down through the atmosphere, strikes and warms the surface of the earth, and then is released as infrared thermal radiation. The atmosphere is like a transparent window to visible light, but it is a partially-dark window in the infrared. The solar energy comes down and warms the earth, but the heat is partially blocked and has trouble escaping to cool the earth back down. The "greenhouse effect".
The normal greenhouse effect is already about 50 degrees F. Before pollution, before cars, before the industrial revolution, before anything, the normal earth greenhouse effect and the normal CO2 levels and other atmospheric greenhouse gases already keeping the earth about 50 degrees F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. The non-greenhouse-effect state of the planet would be sub-freezing-point almost from pole to pole.
Venus is a bit closer to the sun and it gets a fair percentage stronger sunlight than the earth, but that's not why Venus is so hot. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt soft metal, because the planet has a thick atmosphere of mostly CO2. The atmosphere is a completely black closed window to infrared light.
The thicker the greenhouse blanket is, the more heat it traps. It is trivial provable directly testable fact that CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gases factually *do* let sunlight come in and then act to block infrared heat from escaping. The thicker the blanket, the warmer you get under that blanket.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that earth's CO2 levels were about 260ppm before the industrial revolution.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that earth's CO2 levels have now risen to over 380ppm.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that we are currently emitting about 27 GIGAtons of CO2 per year. (Note: All volcanoes combined release somewhere in the ballpark of 200 megatons of CO2 per year.)
As far as I am aware, no one disputes the fact that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due almost exclusively to man made causes, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes that methane levels (an even more powerful greenhouse gas) have also shot up due to man-made causes.
As far as I am aware, no one disputes that Chlorofluorocarbons and other artificial compounds are of exclusively man-made origins, and that they have a vastly more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2.
The simple physics that certain atmospheric gases *do* let in warming sunlight energy and then block the escape of heat, the simple physics that a thicker blanket of those gases traps more heat, and the undisputed fact that humans have increased the levels of those gases in the atmosphere and even introduced new more powerful ones, that leads to the absolute result that yes, the effect real, it is a warming effect, and that human activities are causing this effect.
The size of the effect is a complex issue. There are other effects operating in parallel with this effect, making things even more complex. Predicting the future impact this will have on the global climate is extremely difficult and extremely complex. Predicting the secondary impacts this effect will have on the planet and upon us is insanely difficult. Deciding what, if anything, we should do about it is an economic and political question, not a scientific issue.
However what is simple is that this effect is real. It exists. It is an indisputable scientific fact.
There can be rational discussion of the size of the effect, there absolutely is substantial uncertainty in trying to predicting the future growth of the effect and trying to model what impact it will have on the overall climate, there absolutely is substantial uncertainty in the secondary impacts it will cause, there absolutely is substa
... us ...
We are God. Atheism is Futile. Thou Shalt Be Assimilated.
-
Who the hell do you think you are using someone else's network for free and then complaining that they check up on your behavior from time-to-time?/
If someone at a phone company decided to eaves drop on customer's phone conversations, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
This isn't your ISP.
If McDonald's or any other company were to offer free phone service while you eat, and they were to eaves drop on customer's phone conversations, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
The fact that I make a phone call to my wife/doctor/lawyer/priest/whoever via Voice Over IP internet call does not make it A-OK for a company to eaves drop on my phone conversation. Just because a company offers free local-calls phonecalls while I eat does not make it A-OK for them to eaves drop on my conversations. Nor does it make it OK for them to eaves drop on my data-conversations like by internet bank account login password or my medical searches or whatever else.
If McDonald's offers free car washes while I eat, cool. However if I then discover they are directing their employees to search my car trunk looking for drugs or dead bodies to get me arrested, I'm going to scream bloody murder.
If McDonald's wants to offer local-filtered free phone calls, swell, if they want to offer filtered free internet connections, swell, if they want to offer some sort of limited free car wash service, swell. However it is outrageous for them to abuse any of that access to snoop on customers, and it is most especially outrageous to do it specifically to use against their customers.
I assume you have no heroin in your trunk, but I assume you would be non-too-pleased to learn a company offered you a free carwash or free valet service and directed their employees to search your trunk looking to have you arrested, or if they offered you free local phone calls any listened in looking to find anything to have you arrested for.
-
Note that I was not objecting to the filtering.
I dislike filtering and think it's generally a dumb idea, but I see nothing particularly objectionable in a person or a company offering pretty much any kin of limited or filtered service they feel like offering.
What I find objectionable is a company offering a communication service, and deliberately snooping on those conversations or other communications. If I have a phone conversation with my wife or my priest or my lawyer or anyone else, they should not be eaves dropping on that conversation, whether it is an ordinary phone line or an internet VOIP call. If I log into Slashdot or my bank account, they should not be eaves dropping on my password. If I go to Google or Wikipedia, they should not be eaves dropping on my searches for STDs or breast cancer or Scientology or anything else.
I find it extremely objectionable that they are deliberately snooping on customer's communications, and I find it outrageous that they are doing so explicitly to use against their customers.
If someone at the phone company were to do this, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
If some company were to offer free phone service, and they did this, WE WOULD PUT THEM IN PRISON.
Just because a phone call is done by Voice Over IP does not change the fact that the communication provider should not be snooping on that conversation. Just because my communication is digital rather than voice does not change the fact that the communication provider should not be snooping on my conversations.
If McDonald's wants to offer free phone service, but "filters" to only offer free local calls or otherwise limits the approved destinations that can be called, fine. But they should not be snooping on those calls, and they most especially should not be abusing their physical access to those communications to use against their customers.
If McDonalds wants to offer free car washes while you sit down and eat, great! But I am going to scream bloody murder if I discover McDonald's is directing its employees to search my trunk looking for drugs or dead bodies to report to the police.
-
Heay douchebag, you can't get free redhead porn on the internet.
-