The financial sites, i've used do not trust email for verification of anything--and they give you the choice of account names. It's more of a convenience to the user to get informed of news, but not send anything sensitive. And they use SSL for all of their pages.
Any site that doesn't encrypt all of your data isn't worth trusting with much.
a government can imprison or kill anyone they want (though they usually choose not to to maintain trust)
This shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Can someone in the gov't kill everyone in the country except for themselves? Can the imprison everyone in the entire country except for themselves? These are the things an "immortal" in a game can do. They stand outside the rules of the games. A Government can have a great amount of control but they are bound by the same physical rules that everyone else is.
Who says anyone uses the receive-only email address to send with? I know i don't. So they can't sniff the from address. They are probably setting up their account over SSL, so their ISP can't see you type your new random email address into the form. So if you start getting spam emails first you know there is no way the ISP is involved unless you didn't verify the SSL cert and they man-in-the-middle attacked you.
You do make some good arguments; however, it's not true that you need to know the intention of the owner. That would allow unscrupulous owners to "entrap" people. Just like a CB operator can't make the argument that "unauthorized" people shouldn't hear their transmision (because that wasn't their intent). It's understood that broadcasting on public citizen's band radio is accessible to anyone that wants to listen. At the very lowest and naive level, your network device is simply broadcasting and the AP chooses to take your signal and do work with it. You aren't physically trespassing and the AP is not configured to block anon traffic.
If you connect to a web server that's hidden off somewhere unadvertised, you are on shaky grounds legally (connect by trying various IP's etc, and not via a link from some page owned by the business).
This has already been ruled as legal by the courts. It was reported by slashdot 2-4 years ago. Some company issued reports every year on their website, and someone happened to take the previous year's url and increment the year portion and lo and behold they downloaded that year's report before it was announced. Someone made the mistake of uploading the report early, thinking that no one would find it without a link. They tried to sue and lost in court.
Unless you know that the configuration was done by the owner with the intent to give you free access, I'd be very careful.
If they arrested everyone who every piggybacked, then at least 90% of computer laptop users (XP users) would be felons and in jail for 5 years. That's worse then the drug laws. I would love for some hacker to crack the DA's laptop and send incriminating evidence to all the newspapers that her XP laptop had connected to open WAPs without authorization. In fact, someone should setup some WAPs around her home, and the day her home WAP gets unplugged and her laptop autoconnects to the "linksys" ssid open WAP that they setup for "private use" log her mac address and all her information from her computer and press charges against her. We have to enforce the law uniformally.
If someone was operating an open AP, just so they could harrass people for then using it, I would use legal means to "use up" the shared spectrum they were operating on just to spite them for being such asshats. It's a shared spectrum, so we are all entitled to use it within FCC spec. Having ignorant people hold back the rest of the world because they are too lazy to take some responsiblity for their configurations pisses me off.
Woah. Wi-fi gateways could be said to be intended for people to connect to. And you can't just say most people are unlikely to want anon third parties to use their networks, because the same goes for someone putting up pictures of their family on their webpage. They might want to only share those pictures with their family, but since they don't put an access method on them, anyone can access them.
When an OS on 98% of all computers automatically makes you a criminal under your reading of the law, something is wrong in a BIG way. XP before service packs, would automatically connect you to publically accessable Wi-fi APs. It's a de facto standard that an unsecured AP is an invitation for public use--this is the intented use. Just like people would laugh until it hurt if you tried to suggest that items you placed on a publically accessible web server without access controls were illegal to access.
It's no more "configured to give public access" than a door that's been left unlocked is likewise.
I believe it should be "than a door that's been left open." Closed and locked would be wep or wpa and mac address filtering.
WEP is the closed and locked front door of access points. Just because people are ignorant and are too dumb to close their front front door doesn't mean the rest of the world should suffer.
Case law has helped shape closed front doors in the physical world as legal boundaries; i hope case law catches up and makes a definitive answer that wep, wpa, or other methods are required to act as the front door in the wireless world.
You could go even further then that. If i'm a block away and someone is offering free wireless, I might never see their sign saying it is just for customers. If they don't want you on their network, don't allow them to associate with the AP and don't give them an IP address via dhcp.
Then how do i know if i'm allowed to connect to a person's webserver? Does their webserver legally speak for them? Or is it because the webserver is setup to be publically accessible following understood standards? Why can't you connect to a router wifi access point when it is configured to give public access?
If her claims are fabricated, Flickr stands a chance of being liable for libel
They didn't stand a chance before, but now they do since they are policing content. How much more of a story is there? Her photos are being sold by someone else.
So, do you sympathize with the photographer? If we go by the anti-copyright crowd, she doesn't have a case.
Since you aren't marked as flamebait or as a troll yet, i'll respond.
Why wouldn't you sympathize with the photographer? Someone is infringing her work. Explain how she doesn't have a case?
And what anti-copyright crowd are you talking about? You are going to have to define your strawman a little better before you knock him down. Most people that don't like current US copyrights are against the long terms of it. Are you instead referring to some group that wants to completely abolish copyrights? Who leads that group?
I think he means the energy efficient bulbs with mercury that don't require a hazmat team to dispose of? The ones that use less energy so power plants don't have to release as much mercury into the atmosphere.
I think you mean: "If you want RETROACTIVE protection, you have something to be protected from" to corporations.
In this case it is about extending protections RETROACTIVELY about something you didn't have rights to before. You are missing this key point on purpose. It's not about adding protection; it's about removing the illegality of actions that happened previously. This affects current and on-going court cases and will effectively end them.
No one is asking for retroactive laws in privacy.
I shouldn't have to point this out either, but why should corporations get the same protections as people?
Do you think they could afford to pay more if they fired the "lifers" that can't be fired?
In some sick sense, it seems like by paying paying less you hold onto teachers that really want to teach and have less people enter that want to make tenure and ride out making money. I wonder if that works better then paying a decent salary and attracting better talent.
I think that there is a glut of teachers and only the ones that really want to teach will keep teaching because of the poor salaries.
I wish i would have known this. Because that means i can shoot you, beat you, steal from you, arrest you. Now i just need to know which people are visitors to the US so i can take advantage of them having no rights.
Check this out: Blizzard's WoW software incorporates a component known as "Warden" that serves as a technological measure that effectively protects Blizzard's rights as a copyright owner by restricting users' ability to make unauthorized copies of WoW.
You are not up-to-date on US copyright law. You don't have to put notices to get copyright protection--it it automatically granted upon creation.
from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.htm
Notice of Copyright
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.
Today anything affixed to media is automatically copyrighted (if it is possible to be copyrighted ie: not facts or other such things)
That encrypted data stored in areas not defined in the partition table will look like noise? It's ok if they discover that only half the drive is partitioned. They have to prove that there is illegal content on the drive. So know not only do they have to make they case that you were facilitating copyright infringment but also they have to convince people that the Works are hidden on your drive even though they can't recover them. Even if they can certify that the rest of the disk is encrypted, they still have to make the case that their Works are in that section.
Maybe your encryption method should create fake partition tables showing only 250 GBs formated on your 500GB disk.
How thorough are they going to be looking at your drive? If the partition table comes up as 250GBs, and the system disk looks normal, they wouldn't be looking very much further. Even if they clone the drive, they rest of the encrypted disk will just look like noise.
I can't believe they are going to let people talk to each other on planes. Just think how bad it is going to be when you hear both sides of the conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
The financial sites, i've used do not trust email for verification of anything--and they give you the choice of account names. It's more of a convenience to the user to get informed of news, but not send anything sensitive. And they use SSL for all of their pages.
Any site that doesn't encrypt all of your data isn't worth trusting with much.
a government can imprison or kill anyone they want (though they usually choose not to to maintain trust)
This shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Can someone in the gov't kill everyone in the country except for themselves? Can the imprison everyone in the entire country except for themselves? These are the things an "immortal" in a game can do. They stand outside the rules of the games. A Government can have a great amount of control but they are bound by the same physical rules that everyone else is.
try: http://pcsforeveryone.com/ The sell 3U storage servers with drive space for 12 drives i think?
Who says anyone uses the receive-only email address to send with? I know i don't. So they can't sniff the from address. They are probably setting up their account over SSL, so their ISP can't see you type your new random email address into the form. So if you start getting spam emails first you know there is no way the ISP is involved unless you didn't verify the SSL cert and they man-in-the-middle attacked you.
How do you filter your mail? On the imap or pop3 side? Or you use outlook and client side rules, yuck!
You do make some good arguments; however, it's not true that you need to know the intention of the owner. That would allow unscrupulous owners to "entrap" people. Just like a CB operator can't make the argument that "unauthorized" people shouldn't hear their transmision (because that wasn't their intent). It's understood that broadcasting on public citizen's band radio is accessible to anyone that wants to listen. At the very lowest and naive level, your network device is simply broadcasting and the AP chooses to take your signal and do work with it. You aren't physically trespassing and the AP is not configured to block anon traffic.
If you connect to a web server that's hidden off somewhere unadvertised, you are on shaky grounds legally (connect by trying various IP's etc, and not via a link from some page owned by the business).
This has already been ruled as legal by the courts. It was reported by slashdot 2-4 years ago. Some company issued reports every year on their website, and someone happened to take the previous year's url and increment the year portion and lo and behold they downloaded that year's report before it was announced. Someone made the mistake of uploading the report early, thinking that no one would find it without a link. They tried to sue and lost in court.
Unless you know that the configuration was done by the owner with the intent to give you free access, I'd be very careful.
If they arrested everyone who every piggybacked, then at least 90% of computer laptop users (XP users) would be felons and in jail for 5 years. That's worse then the drug laws. I would love for some hacker to crack the DA's laptop and send incriminating evidence to all the newspapers that her XP laptop had connected to open WAPs without authorization. In fact, someone should setup some WAPs around her home, and the day her home WAP gets unplugged and her laptop autoconnects to the "linksys" ssid open WAP that they setup for "private use" log her mac address and all her information from her computer and press charges against her. We have to enforce the law uniformally.
If someone was operating an open AP, just so they could harrass people for then using it, I would use legal means to "use up" the shared spectrum they were operating on just to spite them for being such asshats. It's a shared spectrum, so we are all entitled to use it within FCC spec. Having ignorant people hold back the rest of the world because they are too lazy to take some responsiblity for their configurations pisses me off.
Woah. Wi-fi gateways could be said to be intended for people to connect to. And you can't just say most people are unlikely to want anon third parties to use their networks, because the same goes for someone putting up pictures of their family on their webpage. They might want to only share those pictures with their family, but since they don't put an access method on them, anyone can access them.
When an OS on 98% of all computers automatically makes you a criminal under your reading of the law, something is wrong in a BIG way. XP before service packs, would automatically connect you to publically accessable Wi-fi APs. It's a de facto standard that an unsecured AP is an invitation for public use--this is the intented use. Just like people would laugh until it hurt if you tried to suggest that items you placed on a publically accessible web server without access controls were illegal to access.
It's no more "configured to give public access" than a door that's been left unlocked is likewise.
I believe it should be "than a door that's been left open." Closed and locked would be wep or wpa and mac address filtering.
WEP is the closed and locked front door of access points. Just because people are ignorant and are too dumb to close their front front door doesn't mean the rest of the world should suffer.
Case law has helped shape closed front doors in the physical world as legal boundaries; i hope case law catches up and makes a definitive answer that wep, wpa, or other methods are required to act as the front door in the wireless world.
You could go even further then that. If i'm a block away and someone is offering free wireless, I might never see their sign saying it is just for customers. If they don't want you on their network, don't allow them to associate with the AP and don't give them an IP address via dhcp.
Then how do i know if i'm allowed to connect to a person's webserver? Does their webserver legally speak for them? Or is it because the webserver is setup to be publically accessible following understood standards? Why can't you connect to a router wifi access point when it is configured to give public access?
Good post. Except that LTO3 can store 400GB and LTO4 can store 800GB.
If her claims are fabricated, Flickr stands a chance of being liable for libel
They didn't stand a chance before, but now they do since they are policing content. How much more of a story is there? Her photos are being sold by someone else.
So, do you sympathize with the photographer? If we go by the anti-copyright crowd, she doesn't have a case.
Since you aren't marked as flamebait or as a troll yet, i'll respond.
Why wouldn't you sympathize with the photographer? Someone is infringing her work. Explain how she doesn't have a case?
And what anti-copyright crowd are you talking about? You are going to have to define your strawman a little better before you knock him down. Most people that don't like current US copyrights are against the long terms of it. Are you instead referring to some group that wants to completely abolish copyrights? Who leads that group?
I think he means the energy efficient bulbs with mercury that don't require a hazmat team to dispose of? The ones that use less energy so power plants don't have to release as much mercury into the atmosphere.
I think you mean: "If you want RETROACTIVE protection, you have something to be protected from" to corporations.
In this case it is about extending protections RETROACTIVELY about something you didn't have rights to before. You are missing this key point on purpose. It's not about adding protection; it's about removing the illegality of actions that happened previously. This affects current and on-going court cases and will effectively end them.
No one is asking for retroactive laws in privacy.
I shouldn't have to point this out either, but why should corporations get the same protections as people?
Do you think they could afford to pay more if they fired the "lifers" that can't be fired?
In some sick sense, it seems like by paying paying less you hold onto teachers that really want to teach and have less people enter that want to make tenure and ride out making money. I wonder if that works better then paying a decent salary and attracting better talent.
I think that there is a glut of teachers and only the ones that really want to teach will keep teaching because of the poor salaries.
However, just because I may or may not have any rights, that does not grant you the right to shoot, beat, or steal from me.
What? What protects you if you don't have any rights? If you don't have the right to own property, then why can't i take it?
Wow. You really enjoy trolling.
Obviously there is a difference between having no rights and having less rights. But you already knew that, didn't you?
What things would you like included into the legal framework that aren't covered? Are there additional things that need to be included?
I have no rights as a visitor to the US.
I wish i would have known this. Because that means i can shoot you, beat you, steal from you, arrest you. Now i just need to know which people are visitors to the US so i can take advantage of them having no rights.
Check this out:
Blizzard's WoW software incorporates a component known as "Warden" that serves as a technological measure that effectively protects Blizzard's rights as a copyright owner by restricting users' ability to make unauthorized copies of WoW.
Isn't that a flat out lie? Can you lie in court?
What is wrong?
That encrypted data stored in areas not defined in the partition table will look like noise? It's ok if they discover that only half the drive is partitioned. They have to prove that there is illegal content on the drive. So know not only do they have to make they case that you were facilitating copyright infringment but also they have to convince people that the Works are hidden on your drive even though they can't recover them. Even if they can certify that the rest of the disk is encrypted, they still have to make the case that their Works are in that section.
Maybe your encryption method should create fake partition tables showing only 250 GBs formated on your 500GB disk.
How thorough are they going to be looking at your drive? If the partition table comes up as 250GBs, and the system disk looks normal, they wouldn't be looking very much further. Even if they clone the drive, they rest of the encrypted disk will just look like noise.
Denver to Boston is a 3hr 40 minute flight and that isn't the whole way across the country.
I can't believe they are going to let people talk to each other on planes. Just think how bad it is going to be when you hear both sides of the conversation.
That will be twice as much chatter!!!!