At that point, why not just use a barcode or magnetic strip, like current documents? It ends up the same as a shielded RFID tag: official/clerk must open document and pass over scanner. Sure, that may require connection to a central database, but the main drawback is that there are no high-tech taggy thingies!
Actually not exactly, the RFID tag still work at a distance as long as the person carying it opens it. I.e. you can scan a busload of people in a sec if they each open their ids without going to each one. Also, and this was a point in the article, apparently people leaning out of cars and dropping documents is a significant issue for border checkpoints - this way you can open the docs in the car without giving them to the person working the border checkpoint. On the other hand, shielded rfid goes against the fundamental definition of this project which requires ability to scan with no action on part of the subject.
This is perhaps the most reasonable approach to RFID technology that I have read on slashdot. A simple idea to combat a complex problem. Thank you, you've made my day.
One of the more interesting suggestions in the article is to make the document into a book-style (like passport) and make the cover from RF blocking material - meaning you have to open the "book" to be scanned.
This is all very intriguing, but how exactly could someone exploit this RFID range to make my life worse? I can only think of things that would make it better. Could someone explain less abstractly than "Didn't you read 1984?"
If you are an American, this has nothing to do with you, if you are visitor , someone MAY be able to read your travel entry visa number... what makes me curious is what exactly can you do with a entry visa id number? Its kinda like being able to read your vehicle VIN number, like having it written on your car... Imagine what would happend if all those evil thiefs can steal your car's VIN number... Then they can.......they can.... I got nothing....
Well, every series 2 Tivo can work with 2 hard drives.
Well, truth be told, every series 1 can work with 2 hard drives, but many series 2 units cannot - at least not without significant modifications to power supply, case and/or cooling. (BTW, there are companies that specialize in such mods)
And if you remember, Go Video made a start by selling a 2 tape deck that allowed you to not only dub but.... watch one tape while taping with the other tape.
Note that "one tape" and "other tape" statements you made? Can you do it with the SAME tape? THAT is what Tivo patented (ammong, I am sure,with other things) THAT is the patent in question here.
Today a TiVo is a pretty basic piece of technology and isn't that innovative. It didn't even support dual tuners (outside of the DirecTiVo version) or offloading shows onto DVDs the last time I checked it out.
Erm, check again, dual tuner support was in DTV systems for over 5 years now and been anounced for standalone S3 system coming out....well, someday... Not to mention that with MRV (standard on all S2+ tivos) you can have as many tuners as you are willing to pay for. As for offloading stuff onto DVD's, thats been around for a few years. And thats not mentioning a simple connecting DVD-R to tivo output. Either way, the point is not "what have you done for me lately", but the fact that they were the first to create and market such a system in a set-top box and got a patent for it. They have a right to enforce such a patent, especialy when they were obviously ripped off.
My point was that you can make a dual hard drive pvr work in this way, just as you could a dual deck vcr. Not that any existing pvr works this way, but you could, and then presumably you're either around the patent, or the dual deck vcr is prior art.
To paraphrase your point than, if you do not violate the patent you would not be violating the patent. In/. terms, Insightful, possibly Interesting but definately Offtopic. Reality is that Echostar violated the patent and are being sued. A more interesting point is as you mentioned ALL PVRs are violating this patent (unless they licensed from Tivo) including DirecTV's Tivo replacement and DVD-R's with hard drives - making me wonder if they will go after them next. As for OSS PVRs, I doubt they will go after them until they are going to significantly impact their sales - i.e. until someone puts somthing like put MythTV into a set-top box and tries to sell it.
LOL, Perhaps you should look into difference between linear and non-linear recording media.
For dummies explanation, dual deck VCR is two VCRs in same case, NOT a single device and it uses two descrete recording medias. I.e. you cant record/playback using controls of deck A on a tape in deck B and vice versa. These are two separate recording/playback devices. Two (or more) hard drives in a PVR act as a single storage media, you do not need to know which hard drive things get recorded to. You can be recording and playing back to same hard drive or different, no difference from end user point of view.
So no, dual deck VCR is not a prior art, nor is dual hard drive PVR exempt. That is not what the patent is about.
According to TFA, they hold a patent on watching one show and recording another at the same time?
I dunno about you guys, but I've had a VCR that could do that since before anyone had come up with the name "TiVo".
really? You had a VCR that lets you watch one tape while recording another show to same tape? I do not think there was a single device with single media that allowed you to do this until tivo.
the guys who with XP-SP1 tried to isolate everybody who had a common serial number?
Ghost has nothing to do with using same serial number. You should always run sysprep or similar before running ghost to make sure you do not have duplicate sec ids on network.
It is a given that unless you are running as root, malware can't quite make it into the core system.
Yes, do not pay attention to all those Linux exploits and worms, they do not exist, nothing to see here. Sorry, anyone who believes Linux/UNIX systems have no security issues and cannot be rooted is highly delusional. Given it is better than windows, but it is also a lot easier to screw up by a simple misconfiguration. I am not even mentioning ever appearing security holes and exploits.
You didn't expect them to say that PCs *are* recoverable if you use an alternative operating system that is not as susceptible to malware, did you?
Please tell what such an "alternative operating system" is? It is a given that if your UNIX-based system has been compromised, the only way to be sure it has been cleaned is to re-install from scratch. Basic security.
You say these things...I do not think that word means what you think it means.:-)
How exactly is this a troll? I merely READ the article and the court opinion and explained it to someone who seems to look at the misleading/. title and misunderstood what this was really about.
Quote directly from the Judge's opinion:
Citrin's breach of his duty of loyalty terminated his agency relationship (more precisely, terminated any rights he might have claimed as IAC's agent--he could not by unilaterally terminating any duties he owed his principal gain an advantage!) and with it his authority to access the laptop, because the only basis of his authority had been that relationship..
Intrusion is different. We're talking about assigned company assets in the possession of the employee intended to use them.
We are not, actually. Their claim is that he terminated his contract and although he still had it in his posession, he was no longer authorized to access the computer when he deleted the files. I do not know if this will really hold up in trial, but I do understand why the judge thought this claim may have SOME merrit.
Defense: "I had unplugged the network cable at the time I deleted the files."
Prosecution Lawer: The act of removing the network wire left the networked computer without wire, therefore it has then became a "wirelessly networked computer".
If the company did not have a backup policy for the laptop, they did not take reasonable precautions to secure and protect their data.
Should the same be true if a hacker connects to your servers and wipes them out? If you did not take reasonable precautions, backups, etc. Is is YOUR fault and the hacker is guilty of NO crime??? If you read the actual court opinion and not the half-assed/. writeup, this is EXACTLY what the court considers have happend here. He no longer had AUTHORIZATION to access the computer in question, yet he logged in and destroyed data, much like the hacker in example above.
For the courts to presume that such a loss constitutes an actual crime is ludicrous.
The loss itself is not the crime here, criminal trespass with intent to cause damage is (or more exactly "may be", as this is not a conviction)
Its not about WHAT he deleted, its about the fact that he deleted something while NOT BEING AUTHORIZED TO EVEN ACCESS THE COMPUTER. Much same as if someone from the street walked in to your office and deleted files from your computer - as soon as he terminated his contract with his employer, he no longer had a right to do anything on this system. At least that is what the judge thought.
Unless the company's written policy was "you cannot delete files from this laptop we've given you" then I can't see where there is a problem. If they really needed those files, they should have taken possession of the laptop BEFORE the fit hit the shan rather than cry foul after the fact.
From what I understand of the courts opinion - his fault is NOT in deleting files on laptop in itself, but in deleting the files AFTER he terminated his contract. Termination of the contract made his access of laptop unauthorized and destroying data on machine you are not authorized to access is a crime, leading me to think that he would have been ok if he deleted the files PRIOR to terminating his contract. They are treating it as if he, after quitting his job, connected to his former employer's network and deleted files on their servers.
You are completely an utterly wrong on this point. Google for "a2dp."
I assume you meant I am wrong about my understanding of bluetooth tech, not about THIS product, which IS NOT Bluetooth.
However regarding the bluetooth bandwidth, I stand corrected. Actually looking up bandwidth spec I find it is about 1mbps on BT 1.2 (2.1 mbps on BT 2.0), which, assuming it is possible to get anything near that bandwidth in real life, should be sufficient for basic audio operations. Which leaves me still wondering about lack of bluetooth audio gear.
It is my understanding that Bluetooth lacks distance and more significantly bandwidth to send decent quality audio - headset for a phone is ok, but it is not anywhere near decent enough for music. I could be wrong on this, but if this could be done in bluetooth, I bet we'd see a LOT of overpriced bluetooth mp3 players/headphones
Well, in Thunderbird, I'd just have one big inbox folder, then use saved searches on labels (which I presume Google would add as some sort of standard header). So I could just as easily use my labeling there.
Yeah, but then how is this different from using POP to do same? The main benefit of IMAP is consistent multi-folder support.
I did not mean to say that it is an unsolvable problem, just one that does not have an EASY GOOD solution, and while I use IMAP everywhere - I do not see immediate benefit of using it with GMail.
Slashdot Mirror
At that point, why not just use a barcode or magnetic strip, like current documents? It ends up the same as a shielded RFID tag: official/clerk must open document and pass over scanner. Sure, that may require connection to a central database, but the main drawback is that there are no high-tech taggy thingies!
Actually not exactly, the RFID tag still work at a distance as long as the person carying it opens it. I.e. you can scan a busload of people in a sec if they each open their ids without going to each one. Also, and this was a point in the article, apparently people leaning out of cars and dropping documents is a significant issue for border checkpoints - this way you can open the docs in the car without giving them to the person working the border checkpoint. On the other hand, shielded rfid goes against the fundamental definition of this project which requires ability to scan with no action on part of the subject.
This is perhaps the most reasonable approach to RFID technology that I have read on slashdot. A simple idea to combat a complex problem. Thank you, you've made my day.
One of the more interesting suggestions in the article is to make the document into a book-style (like passport) and make the cover from RF blocking material - meaning you have to open the "book" to be scanned.
This is all very intriguing, but how exactly could someone exploit this RFID range to make my life worse? I can only think of things that would make it better. Could someone explain less abstractly than "Didn't you read 1984?"
If you are an American, this has nothing to do with you, if you are visitor , someone MAY be able to read your travel entry visa number... what makes me curious is what exactly can you do with a entry visa id number? Its kinda like being able to read your vehicle VIN number, like having it written on your car... Imagine what would happend if all those evil thiefs can steal your car's VIN number... Then they can.......they can.... I got nothing....
-Em
There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night. :-)
erm, this does nothing for landmines and other stationary explosives. That being said, it would be an awesome thing to add to a helicopter though.
-Em
Well, every series 2 Tivo can work with 2 hard drives.
Well, truth be told, every series 1 can work with 2 hard drives, but many series 2 units cannot - at least not without significant modifications to power supply, case and/or cooling. (BTW, there are companies that specialize in such mods)
And if you remember, Go Video made a start by selling a 2 tape deck that allowed you to not only dub but.... watch one tape while taping with the other tape.
Note that "one tape" and "other tape" statements you made? Can you do it with the SAME tape? THAT is what Tivo patented (ammong, I am sure,with other things) THAT is the patent in question here.
-Em
Today a TiVo is a pretty basic piece of technology and isn't that innovative. It didn't even support dual tuners (outside of the DirecTiVo version) or offloading shows onto DVDs the last time I checked it out.
Erm, check again, dual tuner support was in DTV systems for over 5 years now and been anounced for standalone S3 system coming out....well, someday... Not to mention that with MRV (standard on all S2+ tivos) you can have as many tuners as you are willing to pay for. As for offloading stuff onto DVD's, thats been around for a few years. And thats not mentioning a simple connecting DVD-R to tivo output. Either way, the point is not "what have you done for me lately", but the fact that they were the first to create and market such a system in a set-top box and got a patent for it. They have a right to enforce such a patent, especialy when they were obviously ripped off.
My point was that you can make a dual hard drive pvr work in this way, just as you could a dual deck vcr. Not that any existing pvr works this way, but you could, and then presumably you're either around the patent, or the dual deck vcr is prior art.
/. terms, Insightful, possibly Interesting but definately Offtopic. Reality is that Echostar violated the patent and are being sued. A more interesting point is as you mentioned ALL PVRs are violating this patent (unless they licensed from Tivo) including DirecTV's Tivo replacement and DVD-R's with hard drives - making me wonder if they will go after them next. As for OSS PVRs, I doubt they will go after them until they are going to significantly impact their sales - i.e. until someone puts somthing like put MythTV into a set-top box and tries to sell it.
To paraphrase your point than, if you do not violate the patent you would not be violating the patent. In
-Em
Vista, of course. It has Trusted Computing, so I know I'll never have to worry about security again.
You never have to worry about security in windows. There is nothing to worry about.
But seriously, I think this is EXACTLY the point of this anouncement. Start building the FUD for Vista.
LOL, Perhaps you should look into difference between linear and non-linear recording media.
For dummies explanation, dual deck VCR is two VCRs in same case, NOT a single device and it uses two descrete recording medias. I.e. you cant record/playback using controls of deck A on a tape in deck B and vice versa. These are two separate recording/playback devices. Two (or more) hard drives in a PVR act as a single storage media, you do not need to know which hard drive things get recorded to. You can be recording and playing back to same hard drive or different, no difference from end user point of view.
So no, dual deck VCR is not a prior art, nor is dual hard drive PVR exempt. That is not what the patent is about.
-Em
According to TFA, they hold a patent on watching one show and recording another at the same time?
I dunno about you guys, but I've had a VCR that could do that since before anyone had come up with the name "TiVo".
really? You had a VCR that lets you watch one tape while recording another show to same tape? I do not think there was a single device with single media that allowed you to do this until tivo.
-Em
the guys who with XP-SP1 tried to isolate everybody who had a common serial number?
Ghost has nothing to do with using same serial number. You should always run sysprep or similar before running ghost to make sure you do not have duplicate sec ids on network.
It is a given that unless you are running as root, malware can't quite make it into the core system.
Yes, do not pay attention to all those Linux exploits and worms, they do not exist, nothing to see here. Sorry, anyone who believes Linux/UNIX systems have no security issues and cannot be rooted is highly delusional. Given it is better than windows, but it is also a lot easier to screw up by a simple misconfiguration. I am not even mentioning ever appearing security holes and exploits.
-Em
And this process was named... "LINUX" ! ...that you can clean a compromised Linux system without wiping it clean.... oh, wait... oops...
-Em
You didn't expect them to say that PCs *are* recoverable if you use an alternative operating system that is not as susceptible to malware, did you?
Please tell what such an "alternative operating system" is? It is a given that if your UNIX-based system has been compromised, the only way to be sure it has been cleaned is to re-install from scratch. Basic security.
-Em
They did not have an automated process to wipe and rebuild the systems, so it became a burden. They had to design a process real fast,
"Quick, bob, run to the store and get Ghost..."
Nice troll
:-)
/. title and misunderstood what this was really about.
You say these things...I do not think that word means what you think it means.
How exactly is this a troll? I merely READ the article and the court opinion and explained it to someone who seems to look at the misleading
Quote directly from the Judge's opinion:
Citrin's breach of his duty of loyalty terminated his agency relationship (more precisely, terminated any rights he might have claimed as IAC's agent--he could not by unilaterally terminating any duties he owed his principal gain an advantage!) and with it his authority to access the laptop, because the only basis of his authority had been that relationship..
-Em
Intrusion is different. We're talking about assigned company assets in the possession of the employee intended to use them.
We are not, actually. Their claim is that he terminated his contract and although he still had it in his posession, he was no longer authorized to access the computer when he deleted the files. I do not know if this will really hold up in trial, but I do understand why the judge thought this claim may have SOME merrit.
-Em
Defense: "I had unplugged the network cable at the time I deleted the files."
Prosecution Lawer: The act of removing the network wire left the networked computer without wire, therefore it has then became a "wirelessly networked computer".
(you know they'd say it in a heartbeat too)
If the company did not have a backup policy for the laptop, they did not take reasonable precautions to secure and protect their data.
/. writeup, this is EXACTLY what the court considers have happend here. He no longer had AUTHORIZATION to access the computer in question, yet he logged in and destroyed data, much like the hacker in example above.
Should the same be true if a hacker connects to your servers and wipes them out? If you did not take reasonable precautions, backups, etc. Is is YOUR fault and the hacker is guilty of NO crime??? If you read the actual court opinion and not the half-assed
For the courts to presume that such a loss constitutes an actual crime is ludicrous.
The loss itself is not the crime here, criminal trespass with intent to cause damage is (or more exactly "may be", as this is not a conviction)
-Em
-- HOW does IAC know WHAT he deleted?
Its not about WHAT he deleted, its about the fact that he deleted something while NOT BEING AUTHORIZED TO EVEN ACCESS THE COMPUTER. Much same as if someone from the street walked in to your office and deleted files from your computer - as soon as he terminated his contract with his employer, he no longer had a right to do anything on this system. At least that is what the judge thought.
-Em
Unless the company's written policy was "you cannot delete files from this laptop we've given you" then I can't see where there is a problem. If they really needed those files, they should have taken possession of the laptop BEFORE the fit hit the shan rather than cry foul after the fact.
From what I understand of the courts opinion - his fault is NOT in deleting files on laptop in itself, but in deleting the files AFTER he terminated his contract. Termination of the contract made his access of laptop unauthorized and destroying data on machine you are not authorized to access is a crime, leading me to think that he would have been ok if he deleted the files PRIOR to terminating his contract. They are treating it as if he, after quitting his job, connected to his former employer's network and deleted files on their servers.
-Em
You are completely an utterly wrong on this point. Google for "a2dp."
I assume you meant I am wrong about my understanding of bluetooth tech, not about THIS product, which IS NOT Bluetooth.
However regarding the bluetooth bandwidth, I stand corrected. Actually looking up bandwidth spec I find it is about 1mbps on BT 1.2 (2.1 mbps on BT 2.0), which, assuming it is possible to get anything near that bandwidth in real life, should be sufficient for basic audio operations. Which leaves me still wondering about lack of bluetooth audio gear.
-Em
It is NOT in fact bluetooth, just 2.4GHz wireless
It is my understanding that Bluetooth lacks distance and more significantly bandwidth to send decent quality audio - headset for a phone is ok, but it is not anywhere near decent enough for music. I could be wrong on this, but if this could be done in bluetooth, I bet we'd see a LOT of overpriced bluetooth mp3 players/headphones
-Em
Well, in Thunderbird, I'd just have one big inbox folder, then use saved searches on labels (which I presume Google would add as some sort of standard header). So I could just as easily use my labeling there.
Yeah, but then how is this different from using POP to do same? The main benefit of IMAP is consistent multi-folder support.
I did not mean to say that it is an unsolvable problem, just one that does not have an EASY GOOD solution, and while I use IMAP everywhere - I do not see immediate benefit of using it with GMail.
Invites insanity is so over - just sign up.