The developer can distinguish between "here's a geotagged picture" and "here's a regular picture".
The developer should make the user aware that he's sharing metadata as well as the picture itself, and let him choose how (or whether) to do so. Only at that point he's disclaimed the responsibility.
Sometimes, security/privacy falls to personal responsibility.
I agree, but defining "sometimes" is where the argument lies. If you build a system that shares metadata, it's your responsibility to worry about who can see that metadata, and build a privacy system that will explicitly give responsibility back to the user. Facebook was forced to do that, for example.
Paranoia's just a state, it's neither bad nor good.
The fact that is a medical term should tell you something about that.
After working for 30 years on crashy, unreliable and insecure machines, most geeks are justifiably paranoid... But it's not a state of mind we should really come to see as "healthy". It's a reaction to the sorry state of our technology.
Simply stated, the responsibility is on developers to make sure that their creations cannot be used for nefarious purposes.
This is also happening in England's "football country", the Manchester / Liverpool area (which also happen to include some of the poorest urban areas in the entire country). More and more in recent years, footballers' houses are broken into during match days (which are known months in advance).
This resulted in a direct economic boost to the security industry in the region, so there is a positive side to it:)
This obsession with self-visibility is a byproduct of "celebrity culture", which itself is a byproduct of XX-century broadcasting. Once current paradigms of information consumption give way to something different and more bidirectional, people will stop obsessing about exposing themselves.
There is nothing wrong with uploading a bit of metadata about you here and there, the problem is when it becomes highly visible, which is the case with "augmented reality" systems (where the entire point is *seeing metadata*).
It is an evolutionary process. Browsers and http servers didn't all support HTTPS from the very beginning, but serious ones gradually accepted it as a critical part of the web infrastructure, and now you wouldn't dream to do ecommerce on HTTP. The same is slowly happening for other applications where secrecy and data integrity increasingly get to be seen as essential. Pretty much all serious torrent clients already support encryption, but they haven't switched off "legacy" support in their default configurations yet. It will take for a "big country" (like France or the UK) to start seriously enforcing laws through DPI for plaintext-mode to be disabled by default. Then they will start doing the "mediasentry thing", impersonating peers etc etc, which is where webs of trust will come into play. Until someone will come up with a better business model for producing and distributing entertainment, making loads of bucks and showing the old cartels as irrelevant.
We predicted all this a decade ago, and it's happening exactly as we thought it would: centralized nets -> decentralized nets -> decentralized and encrypted nets -> decentralized, encrypted and trusted nets. Cat&mouse will continue. It will take another decade or so to get rid of this particularly evil sort of candlemakers we now call "the entertainment industry", because they wasted the current one on doomed strategies.
DPI is exactly that: a technique to monitor packets in transit on specific connections / routers which belong to the ISP. It's protocol-agnostic. It's like your postal office opening all your mail, reading it, and then carefully closing it again exactly as it was, before delivering it.
Joining a swarm with a modified client is something completely different. It's akin to the postman coming to your house to watch you while you write the letter, saying he's a friend of the friend you were writing to. It's impersonation, or even stalking. It's something you would expect from the likes of MediaSentry etc, but it wouldn't be done by an ISP, there are major legal risks.
+1. In business (and that includes the technology business), execution is everything. One of my great-grand-uncles worked with Guglielmo Marconi, patented lots of stuff related to radio transmission (in Europe, in an age when patents really meant something and were hard to get) and still died a poor man.
Apologies, that's actually from the Declaration of Independence. But still, the interpretation is valid: an individual should have the right to live, and refusing healthcare is a negation of that right.
Besides, I fail to see how providing healthcare would "force into servitude" anyone else. That's simply paranoia. Do you think you are "forced into servitude" already, since your taxes are used to, say, help refugees from New Orleans, or to invade a foreign country? Your taxes would simply help build a (cheaper) national health system that would improve the whole society (and that you might even want to use at some point in your life). In the long term it would benefit you as well: if your uninsured waiter gets sick, chances are that he'll pass his germs to you.
But hey, enjoy your falling standards of wealth and your increase in diseases and epidemics.
There you have it, that's your problem. Until the majority of US people won't understand that healthcare IS, indeed, a right that everyone should be able to enjoy, the place will keep rotting away.
Read your constitution better: "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Refusing healthcare means refusing the right to Life, and as such it should be deemed unconstitutional.
Define "basic functionality". Miranda works perfectly without any plugin, comes out of the box with support for all the major protocols (Jabber/GoogleTalk, MSN, AIM, ICQ, IRC, Yahoo, even Gadu-Gadu...); if you don't need the bling, you don't need any plugin.
Kopete does integrate well with the KDE addressbook, and with the KDE look&feel in general. Doesn't work very well with webcams. The version I use (3.5.9, I think) is not too crashy.
It might not be as good as Pidgin, but I personally cannot stand GTK applications and their huge buttons...
So? I don't get the impression that the UK government has any problems with such huge collateral damage.
After more than 5 years of this sh*t, the government (i.e. the New Labour party) is going to feel the pain at the polls next year. Even the Tories (historically, the party of "law & order") decried some of the most egregiously stupid tools implemented by the current lot (i.e. ID cards).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and if I need to access your server, you'll give me the root password.
The developer can distinguish between "here's a geotagged picture" and "here's a regular picture".
The developer should make the user aware that he's sharing metadata as well as the picture itself, and let him choose how (or whether) to do so. Only at that point he's disclaimed the responsibility.
If you don't want it to be visible, don't upload it.
And what if I want it to be visible for trusted parties only?
If the only harm caused by others to yourself that you can see arises from software security flaws, then you really, really need to get out more.
Tell you what, I come out and teach you how to read properly, which you clearly need. Deal?
Sometimes, security/privacy falls to personal responsibility.
I agree, but defining "sometimes" is where the argument lies. If you build a system that shares metadata, it's your responsibility to worry about who can see that metadata, and build a privacy system that will explicitly give responsibility back to the user. Facebook was forced to do that, for example.
I had TWO attemped burglaries in my life...
The fast majority of crime in holland is committed by imigrants
[...]You have a sample size of exactly two and from that you feel confident to extrapolate to all crime in the country?
You don't understand, his majority is FAST.
That pshrinks are prejudiced against the justifiably concerned?
They tend to be quite prejudiced on lots of other things, which often overlap with what is considered "healthy".
Simply stated, the responsibility is on developers to make sure that their creations cannot be used for nefarious purposes.
Certainly not. It's both unreasonable and impossible for them to do so.
RLY? Let's build an atomic bomb in my backyard and see how society reacts...
Paranoia's just a state, it's neither bad nor good.
The fact that is a medical term should tell you something about that.
After working for 30 years on crashy, unreliable and insecure machines, most geeks are justifiably paranoid... But it's not a state of mind we should really come to see as "healthy". It's a reaction to the sorry state of our technology.
Simply stated, the responsibility is on developers to make sure that their creations cannot be used for nefarious purposes.
So the WWW came before the computer, and well before 1989 (when TBL proposed to build it) ?
And you are so rich, you have nothing to steal?
You must be the head of some world-ruling conspiracy. WTF are you doing on Slashdot?
Yeah, but handing it out 20 years later would be a bit difficult.
This is also happening in England's "football country", the Manchester / Liverpool area (which also happen to include some of the poorest urban areas in the entire country). More and more in recent years, footballers' houses are broken into during match days (which are known months in advance).
This resulted in a direct economic boost to the security industry in the region, so there is a positive side to it :)
Thieves are not *pirates*, you know.
(more seriously, thieves are quite happy to pay like everyone else when the profit/cost ratio is high enough.)
This obsession with self-visibility is a byproduct of "celebrity culture", which itself is a byproduct of XX-century broadcasting. Once current paradigms of information consumption give way to something different and more bidirectional, people will stop obsessing about exposing themselves.
Not everyone suffers from paranoia.
There is nothing wrong with uploading a bit of metadata about you here and there, the problem is when it becomes highly visible, which is the case with "augmented reality" systems (where the entire point is *seeing metadata*).
A search engine for burglars!
Quick, let's file a patent...
It is an evolutionary process. Browsers and http servers didn't all support HTTPS from the very beginning, but serious ones gradually accepted it as a critical part of the web infrastructure, and now you wouldn't dream to do ecommerce on HTTP.
The same is slowly happening for other applications where secrecy and data integrity increasingly get to be seen as essential. Pretty much all serious torrent clients already support encryption, but they haven't switched off "legacy" support in their default configurations yet. It will take for a "big country" (like France or the UK) to start seriously enforcing laws through DPI for plaintext-mode to be disabled by default. Then they will start doing the "mediasentry thing", impersonating peers etc etc, which is where webs of trust will come into play. Until someone will come up with a better business model for producing and distributing entertainment, making loads of bucks and showing the old cartels as irrelevant.
We predicted all this a decade ago, and it's happening exactly as we thought it would: centralized nets -> decentralized nets -> decentralized and encrypted nets -> decentralized, encrypted and trusted nets. Cat&mouse will continue. It will take another decade or so to get rid of this particularly evil sort of candlemakers we now call "the entertainment industry", because they wasted the current one on doomed strategies.
DPI is exactly that: a technique to monitor packets in transit on specific connections / routers which belong to the ISP. It's protocol-agnostic. It's like your postal office opening all your mail, reading it, and then carefully closing it again exactly as it was, before delivering it.
Joining a swarm with a modified client is something completely different. It's akin to the postman coming to your house to watch you while you write the letter, saying he's a friend of the friend you were writing to. It's impersonation, or even stalking. It's something you would expect from the likes of MediaSentry etc, but it wouldn't be done by an ISP, there are major legal risks.
+1. In business (and that includes the technology business), execution is everything. One of my great-grand-uncles worked with Guglielmo Marconi, patented lots of stuff related to radio transmission (in Europe, in an age when patents really meant something and were hard to get) and still died a poor man.
Apologies, that's actually from the Declaration of Independence. But still, the interpretation is valid: an individual should have the right to live, and refusing healthcare is a negation of that right.
Besides, I fail to see how providing healthcare would "force into servitude" anyone else. That's simply paranoia. Do you think you are "forced into servitude" already, since your taxes are used to, say, help refugees from New Orleans, or to invade a foreign country? Your taxes would simply help build a (cheaper) national health system that would improve the whole society (and that you might even want to use at some point in your life). In the long term it would benefit you as well: if your uninsured waiter gets sick, chances are that he'll pass his germs to you.
But hey, enjoy your falling standards of wealth and your increase in diseases and epidemics.
healthcare is not a right.
There you have it, that's your problem. Until the majority of US people won't understand that healthcare IS, indeed, a right that everyone should be able to enjoy, the place will keep rotting away.
Read your constitution better: "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Refusing healthcare means refusing the right to Life, and as such it should be deemed unconstitutional.
Define "basic functionality". Miranda works perfectly without any plugin, comes out of the box with support for all the major protocols (Jabber/GoogleTalk, MSN, AIM, ICQ, IRC, Yahoo, even Gadu-Gadu...); if you don't need the bling, you don't need any plugin.
Kopete does integrate well with the KDE addressbook, and with the KDE look&feel in general. Doesn't work very well with webcams. The version I use (3.5.9, I think) is not too crashy.
It might not be as good as Pidgin, but I personally cannot stand GTK applications and their huge buttons...
The OP mentioned MacOSx-only Adium.
Why people never mention Miranda? It's probably the best free & open-source client for Windows, so much better than Pidgin.
So? I don't get the impression that the UK government has any problems with such huge collateral damage.
After more than 5 years of this sh*t, the government (i.e. the New Labour party) is going to feel the pain at the polls next year. Even the Tories (historically, the party of "law & order") decried some of the most egregiously stupid tools implemented by the current lot (i.e. ID cards).