That's a dangerous premise under which to operate. Using this logic, your credit card information also belongs to eBay, and can be sold/handed-over to anyone eBay sees fit.
No, that logic merely says that it is Constitutional for eBay to hand over your credit card information to anyone eBay sees fit. Congress still can (and has) created laws making it illegal to do this.
I think eBay's mistake in this case is not making it abundantly clear that your personal information can and will be handed over to anyone who is or appears to be law enforcement.
I think everyone knew that eBay would give away information if it got a subpoena. So we're only talking here about name, address, and sales history. Your sales history is right there for everyone to see, so there's no doubt that it's obvious that the police can find that out.
Hiding such a policy within a legalize-ridden privacy policy which changes almost constantly just isn't the way to secure the trust of your customers.
I don't think many customers mind that their name and address will be given to the police when the police ask for it. Maybe they should have made it a bit more explicit, but it's not really all that big of a deal.
No, because it's outside the scope of implied consent
I believe that by setting up a mail server you are giving implied consent to have someone send you mail, any mail, for any reason.
but implied consent has not been a relevant factor in any case so far because all have involved an explicit notice that the spam was unwelcome.
I'm not aware of what cases you're talking about.
You don't have to agree, but to say that ownership has nothing to do with morality when the dominant moral beliefs are to the contrary is untenable.
Good point. Sending spam is usually immoral. There might be some exceptions though, for instance if you are spamming for a good cause. But "determin[ing] how other peoples' stuff can be used" may or may not be. It depends on what the stuff is, and in what way you determine how it's used. For example, if I determine that you can't use a gun which you own to shoot a cow which you also own in its head, that's perfectly moral under both my moral system and that of much of the rest of the world. The dominant moral beliefs are not that ownership is absolute.
I've never yet had to devnull any of the addresses (there are currently 90), but I've yet to have offers to enlarge portions of my anatomy or bank balance.
Depends what you sign up for. My address which is listed for my domain name admin gets lots of spam, but it's all automatically deleted. Buy.com sends me shit all the time, they're on my blacklist. My experiment with releasing my slashdot address failed, I've had to put that on my blacklist. JFax sends me crap all the time, but since they also send me faxes I have to keep them unblocked. I can't think of any others off the top of my head that have really been a problem.
Actually, considering how business works and that they will only do PROFITABLE stuff
Someone should have informed Enron.
C'mon, the majority of spam is from get-rich-quick wannabes who will be out of business in a few weeks. The problem is there are lots and lots of people looking to get rich quick.
If spam actually were profitable, it might not be such a bad thing.
Once the millionaires manage to get a profitable program running missions to space on a regular basis, that is. Until then I'd like to keep my satellite television and GPS receivers, thank you.
Sheesh, I must be blind. Not to mention my find is broken... But as your quote makes clear, that requires a court order. I don't think a faked fax is going to cut it. And even if it did, there's not all that much you can do with someone's credit card number. If all this does is increase the number of people able to steal from credit card companies, then I think I'm on paypal's side on this one. Bring down the banks!
Nice to see you backing up your opinion with facts and references.
I was following your lead.
I'm working on a product right now that runs Linux.
So am I. Doesn't mean that more than 10 people are going to ever use it.
Just because they don't tell you that it's running Linux, doesn't mean that half the products out there aren't already running Linux.
You're right, it doesn't. It also doesn't mean that these products are running Linux.
Again, why resort to facts, when you can just assert your opinions?
Just following your lead.
Really? [Driver support is] precisely the reason I use Linux.
I suspect that more people fall into my category than yours.
Win2K only supports hardware shipped in the last two years.
Huh? Are you saying Win2K doesn't support hardware which wasn't shipped in the last two years? I have several devices running with Win2K which contradict that. Or are you saying Win2K doesn't support hardware which has only shipped recently? I have other devices running with Win2K which contradict that.
Hardware manufactures have ZERO incentive to develop a driver for XP for hardware they no longer sell.
I'm sure Microsoft is happy to provide such incentive. Besides, don't most Win2K drivers work on XP? I mean, I don't know, since I use Win2K. Microsoft hasn't forced me to upgrade yet. I'm sure by the time they do there will be XP drivers for all my hardware.
Finally, if we're going to talk about incentive, what is the incentive for hardware manufacturers to develop a driver for linux? There is some, depending on the product, but for many products there is none.
Changing the user interface was said to cost $2000 per seat in retraining costs for companies upgrading from one M$ OS to the next. Sounds like a pretty big negative to me!
Only if you actually make the change! The fact that companies decided to do it must mean that the change was worth $2000 per seat!
And of course, companies are just flocking to replace Win2K with WinXP, aren't they?
Unfortunately, linksys boxes do get hotter than 131F.
Is that what they're talking about? I figured they meant 131F room temperature...
Anyway, I run my Linksys 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in my unairconditioned apartment (I have AC in the bedroom, but the Linksys is in the kitchen). It was 95 degrees yesterday. No problems whatsoever.
Perhaps Linksys isn't the best choice, but I'm sure an access point can be found which can handle the summer heat.
and is fast becoming the OS to beat for embedded work.
If by fast becoming you mean 10 years from now a few people might use it.
Yes, it's a niche player on the desktop, but that has more to do with the difficulty of retraining users than with quality fo the OS.
I personally don't use it because of the quality of the OS, specifically the driver support. Of secondary concern is the availability of software, including some very important web services (such as my bank's virtual credit card number service).
However, since Microsoft changes the user interface with every major release, people might get tired of constantly trying to keep up with M$ and switch to something more consistent for their desktop -- I just don't see this happening in the near future.
Yeah, me neither. Changing the user interface with every major release is considered by most to be innovation, a positive, not a negative.
the courts (and I) disagree. And you still haven't explained how the Constitution is being violated. That amendment merely says that warrants shall only be issued upon probable cause. No warrant was issued, so no probable cause is necessary.
Nothing in the HTTP spec, or in any other relevant Internet standards, provides for any caching of old content and supplying it when a straightforward HTTP request for a file is sent.
I don't think that's what the spec says. It says that you have to explicitly warn the end-user when semantic transparancy is relaxed by cache. It only says that the request must be explicit when relaxed by client or origin server.
You get the current file, or a defined error code.
Or you get an old file and a warning.
Remind me again where in UK law there is any such provision?
Why do I give a shit about the UK?
If the Wayback Machine records content off my web site, and allows others to view it against my wishes when I have taken it down, then I think it is breaking UK copyright law, and this is completely black and white.
So contact them and ask them to remove it, and they'll comply. Or you could sue them and try to extradite. Good luck.
This is actually quite relevant to me, because I do run a web site on which I've put various technical articles in the past. There is a distinct possibility that a book will be published based significantly on the content of those articles. How do you think the publisher would feel if people could go and look up the articles that I used to make available publicly on my web site, although I no longer choose to do so?
Depends on the publisher. Maybe you should self-publish, using an open content license. I suggest you release your work into the public domain. That'll solve your problems.
I rent, so it's not possible for someone to TP my house. As for killing me, that would be fairly difficult, and anyone willing to go through that much trouble can find my address a lot easier than faking a letter from the FBI to eBay. Like, for instance, they could look it up in the phone book.
Which amendment is that? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?" These are eBay's papers, and it's in eBay's house. The government can do whatever they want so long as they get permission. It's perfectly reasonable to search someone's papers with their permission. This is a question of eBay's rights, not those of the person whose information is being requested.
Of course, this opens them up for identity theft, just as much as it would normal businesspeople.
How so? It only a name and address. You can get millions of them from this thing called the phone book. Is everyone who is listed opened up for identity theft?
Seems like they are leaving the door wide open for a "law enforcement officer" to get a user's info with a faked fax.
Oh God no! With my name, address, and sales history, someone might be able to write me a letter!
C'mon, this information should be public anyway. You're holding a public auction. People are entering into supposedly binding legal contracts to purchase items from you. Shouldn't people be able to know who you are?
I think you're right. Linux isn't a "passing through" technology. It's a niche player. Depending where things go it might even become the OS to beat, for the server side.
I don't see Linux making it for the end-user. At least not without someone with a whole lot of money redesigning it from the ground up. Kind of like what Apple did with FreeBSD. The problem is that the GPL is going to make this kind of difficult. Sharing source is a pain in the ass for a company trying to make money.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a dangerous premise under which to operate. Using this logic, your credit card information also belongs to eBay, and can be sold/handed-over to anyone eBay sees fit.
No, that logic merely says that it is Constitutional for eBay to hand over your credit card information to anyone eBay sees fit. Congress still can (and has) created laws making it illegal to do this.
I think eBay's mistake in this case is not making it abundantly clear that your personal information can and will be handed over to anyone who is or appears to be law enforcement.
I think everyone knew that eBay would give away information if it got a subpoena. So we're only talking here about name, address, and sales history. Your sales history is right there for everyone to see, so there's no doubt that it's obvious that the police can find that out.
Hiding such a policy within a legalize-ridden privacy policy which changes almost constantly just isn't the way to secure the trust of your customers.
I don't think many customers mind that their name and address will be given to the police when the police ask for it. Maybe they should have made it a bit more explicit, but it's not really all that big of a deal.
So don't stack them. Problem solved.
No, because it's outside the scope of implied consent
I believe that by setting up a mail server you are giving implied consent to have someone send you mail, any mail, for any reason.
but implied consent has not been a relevant factor in any case so far because all have involved an explicit notice that the spam was unwelcome.
I'm not aware of what cases you're talking about.
You don't have to agree, but to say that ownership has nothing to do with morality when the dominant moral beliefs are to the contrary is untenable.
Good point. Sending spam is usually immoral. There might be some exceptions though, for instance if you are spamming for a good cause. But "determin[ing] how other peoples' stuff can be used" may or may not be. It depends on what the stuff is, and in what way you determine how it's used. For example, if I determine that you can't use a gun which you own to shoot a cow which you also own in its head, that's perfectly moral under both my moral system and that of much of the rest of the world. The dominant moral beliefs are not that ownership is absolute.
You can already sue people who sell this information for profit if their privacy policy says they won't.
I've never yet had to devnull any of the addresses (there are currently 90), but I've yet to have offers to enlarge portions of my anatomy or bank balance.
Depends what you sign up for. My address which is listed for my domain name admin gets lots of spam, but it's all automatically deleted. Buy.com sends me shit all the time, they're on my blacklist. My experiment with releasing my slashdot address failed, I've had to put that on my blacklist. JFax sends me crap all the time, but since they also send me faxes I have to keep them unblocked. I can't think of any others off the top of my head that have really been a problem.
Actually, considering how business works and that they will only do PROFITABLE stuff
Someone should have informed Enron.
C'mon, the majority of spam is from get-rich-quick wannabes who will be out of business in a few weeks. The problem is there are lots and lots of people looking to get rich quick.
If spam actually were profitable, it might not be such a bad thing.
Once the millionaires manage to get a profitable program running missions to space on a regular basis, that is. Until then I'd like to keep my satellite television and GPS receivers, thank you.
Sheesh, I must be blind. Not to mention my find is broken... But as your quote makes clear, that requires a court order. I don't think a faked fax is going to cut it. And even if it did, there's not all that much you can do with someone's credit card number. If all this does is increase the number of people able to steal from credit card companies, then I think I'm on paypal's side on this one. Bring down the banks!
Are you saying it's on page 2? I couldn't find it on either pages.
Nice to see you backing up your opinion with facts and references.
I was following your lead.
I'm working on a product right now that runs Linux.
So am I. Doesn't mean that more than 10 people are going to ever use it.
Just because they don't tell you that it's running Linux, doesn't mean that half the products out there aren't already running Linux.
You're right, it doesn't. It also doesn't mean that these products are running Linux.
Again, why resort to facts, when you can just assert your opinions?
Just following your lead.
Really? [Driver support is] precisely the reason I use Linux.
I suspect that more people fall into my category than yours.
Win2K only supports hardware shipped in the last two years.
Huh? Are you saying Win2K doesn't support hardware which wasn't shipped in the last two years? I have several devices running with Win2K which contradict that. Or are you saying Win2K doesn't support hardware which has only shipped recently? I have other devices running with Win2K which contradict that.
Hardware manufactures have ZERO incentive to develop a driver for XP for hardware they no longer sell.
I'm sure Microsoft is happy to provide such incentive. Besides, don't most Win2K drivers work on XP? I mean, I don't know, since I use Win2K. Microsoft hasn't forced me to upgrade yet. I'm sure by the time they do there will be XP drivers for all my hardware.
Finally, if we're going to talk about incentive, what is the incentive for hardware manufacturers to develop a driver for linux? There is some, depending on the product, but for many products there is none.
Changing the user interface was said to cost $2000 per seat in retraining costs for companies upgrading from one M$ OS to the next. Sounds like a pretty big negative to me!
Only if you actually make the change! The fact that companies decided to do it must mean that the change was worth $2000 per seat!
And of course, companies are just flocking to replace Win2K with WinXP, aren't they?
Of course they aren't. When did I say they were?
Unfortunately, linksys boxes do get hotter than 131F.
Is that what they're talking about? I figured they meant 131F room temperature...
Anyway, I run my Linksys 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in my unairconditioned apartment (I have AC in the bedroom, but the Linksys is in the kitchen). It was 95 degrees yesterday. No problems whatsoever.
Perhaps Linksys isn't the best choice, but I'm sure an access point can be found which can handle the summer heat.
Anybody have any solutions aside from a alum-alloy-peltier-inter-cooled-turbo-charged-9 monstrosity?
Buy a linksys. They have an operating temperature of -10C to 55C (14F to 131F).
Linux is already the OS to beat for the Server
Nonsense
and is fast becoming the OS to beat for embedded work.
If by fast becoming you mean 10 years from now a few people might use it.
Yes, it's a niche player on the desktop, but that has more to do with the difficulty of retraining users than with quality fo the OS.
I personally don't use it because of the quality of the OS, specifically the driver support. Of secondary concern is the availability of software, including some very important web services (such as my bank's virtual credit card number service).
However, since Microsoft changes the user interface with every major release, people might get tired of constantly trying to keep up with M$ and switch to something more consistent for their desktop -- I just don't see this happening in the near future.
Yeah, me neither. Changing the user interface with every major release is considered by most to be innovation, a positive, not a negative.
the courts (and I) disagree. And you still haven't explained how the Constitution is being violated. That amendment merely says that warrants shall only be issued upon probable cause. No warrant was issued, so no probable cause is necessary.
Just hold off until school starts and ship it directly there.
They are also willing to provide any financial information you have setup in paypal.
With a subpoena.
The warrants part only applies if the search is unreasonable.
Nothing in the HTTP spec, or in any other relevant Internet standards, provides for any caching of old content and supplying it when a straightforward HTTP request for a file is sent.
I don't think that's what the spec says. It says that you have to explicitly warn the end-user when semantic transparancy is relaxed by cache. It only says that the request must be explicit when relaxed by client or origin server.
You get the current file, or a defined error code.
Or you get an old file and a warning.
Remind me again where in UK law there is any such provision?
Why do I give a shit about the UK?
If the Wayback Machine records content off my web site, and allows others to view it against my wishes when I have taken it down, then I think it is breaking UK copyright law, and this is completely black and white.
So contact them and ask them to remove it, and they'll comply. Or you could sue them and try to extradite. Good luck.
This is actually quite relevant to me, because I do run a web site on which I've put various technical articles in the past. There is a distinct possibility that a book will be published based significantly on the content of those articles. How do you think the publisher would feel if people could go and look up the articles that I used to make available publicly on my web site, although I no longer choose to do so?
Depends on the publisher. Maybe you should self-publish, using an open content license. I suggest you release your work into the public domain. That'll solve your problems.
I rent, so it's not possible for someone to TP my house. As for killing me, that would be fairly difficult, and anyone willing to go through that much trouble can find my address a lot easier than faking a letter from the FBI to eBay. Like, for instance, they could look it up in the phone book.
Yes, I did. And I just did a search for the word "credit" in the article and it came up empty. Care to show it to me?
BTW, eBay doesn't have my SSN. And I'm fairly sure they don't have a valid credit card number of mine either.
Which amendment is that? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?" These are eBay's papers, and it's in eBay's house. The government can do whatever they want so long as they get permission. It's perfectly reasonable to search someone's papers with their permission. This is a question of eBay's rights, not those of the person whose information is being requested.
Of course, this opens them up for identity theft, just as much as it would normal businesspeople.
How so? It only a name and address. You can get millions of them from this thing called the phone book. Is everyone who is listed opened up for identity theft?
Seems like they are leaving the door wide open for a "law enforcement officer" to get a user's info with a faked fax.
Oh God no! With my name, address, and sales history, someone might be able to write me a letter!
C'mon, this information should be public anyway. You're holding a public auction. People are entering into supposedly binding legal contracts to purchase items from you. Shouldn't people be able to know who you are?
I don't see how this is a bad thing. Yes, eBay is a bad place to sell illegal drugs. So what?
I think you're right. Linux isn't a "passing through" technology. It's a niche player. Depending where things go it might even become the OS to beat, for the server side.
I don't see Linux making it for the end-user. At least not without someone with a whole lot of money redesigning it from the ground up. Kind of like what Apple did with FreeBSD. The problem is that the GPL is going to make this kind of difficult. Sharing source is a pain in the ass for a company trying to make money.