I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not.
Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second. Industry and privacy do collide, and it's important that a privacy czar have the proper priorities in mind.
Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect.:-)
Or like the Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Truth? Is it merely a coincidence that Doubleclick shares so many letters with Doublethink?:-)
Having read the article, I can't find anything that leads me to believe that Ms. O'Connor Kelly is guilty of anything othere than being employed by a company that was guilty of privacy abuses.
Isn't that enough?
It was stated, in fact, that she came on-board with DoubleClick after the investigation, and was responsible for cleaning up the company's act.
If you believe that DoubleClick has completely cleaned up its act, then that's legitimate. But if on the other hand you believe that DoubleClick has done the minimum necessary to get out of trouble, that's a completely different story.
The public's best interest directly contradicts the best interest of DoubleClick. If Ms. O'Connor Kelly were anything more than an apologist for DoubleClick, she wouldn't have kept her job very long.
How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?
The difference is that it's in the best interests of a company to have good security. It's not in the best interests of the Bush administration to have good privacy laws.
Because she's an apologist. She works with someone who doesn't respect your privacy and tries to convince dissenters that everything's peachy keen.
Her job at Doubleclick was to make sure that Doubleclick respected your privacy just enough to keep people quiet. To believe that it was any more than that contradicts the fact that Doubleclick paid her.
Why would this leave you any more speechless than hiring Kevin Mitnick to do security for a large corporation?
Bad analogy. The corporations best interests are aligned with the interests of the shareholders in terms of security. This would be more like hiring a former Andrew Fastow to manage the finances for a large corporation.
Only if the product was sold AS IS. Otherwise there's an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, that purpose in this case being running at 3GHz.
Why is it wrong when the systems integrator does it, but not when Intel does it? As long as the chip was tested at the speed it is marked, is there a difference?
First off, I can't see why overclocking seems to work Intel's panties into such a froth.
Because it allows people who are willing to pay for a higher speed processor to buy a lower speed one. Read this article about price discrimination. I think you'll see why Intel doesn't want you to overclock.
Overclocking a processor is no different then 'hot rodding' a car!
The difference is that 'hot rodding' a car is not cost effective for most consumers to do. Trust me, if a lot of people stopped buying 6 cylinder cars and merely upgraded their 4 cylinder engines by buying generic parts car companies would get their panties into a froth too.
There's a big difference though. Slashdot isn't actually going to these sites, they're merely posting links. They're less like spammers, and more like companies which give out email addresses.
Also slashdotting is lots of people hitting one address. Spamming is one person hitting lots of addresses. Spamming is more like Google's webcrawling than slashdotting.
But then what would he have to bitch about on Slashdot? I'd really rather not read stories about how his wife doesn't have sex with him any more since they've gotten married.
<hemos_>
Alterslash is illegal
<hemos_> And is violating copyright.
[...]
<CmdrTaco> Thats totally a copyright violation.
[...]
<CmdrTaco> Thats really slimey.
[...]
<CmdrTaco> Wow, I didn't know someone was doing that.
<CmdrTaco> *sigh*
<CmdrTaco> I wish people wouldn't steal.
But the internet isn't like the phone system. Most people's web servers aren't at their houses, and aren't owned by the people, they're owned by the ISPs. The internet allows you to connect to anyone in the world for a flat rate. Much of it is anonymous.
If the internet were a truly peer to peer system with the ISPs having name and address information for every customer and international connections were cost prohibitive, then we'd have a much different regulation scheme in place.
Slashdot Mirror
Then high noon is always high noon.
This is the United States of America, not the Socialist Republic Of America.
That's exactly why it's important to have both sides of the issue represented.
I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not.
Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second. Industry and privacy do collide, and it's important that a privacy czar have the proper priorities in mind.
Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)
Or like the Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Truth? Is it merely a coincidence that Doubleclick shares so many letters with Doublethink? :-)
Johnny Cochran named murder czar.
Having read the article, I can't find anything that leads me to believe that Ms. O'Connor Kelly is guilty of anything othere than being employed by a company that was guilty of privacy abuses.
Isn't that enough?
It was stated, in fact, that she came on-board with DoubleClick after the investigation, and was responsible for cleaning up the company's act.
If you believe that DoubleClick has completely cleaned up its act, then that's legitimate. But if on the other hand you believe that DoubleClick has done the minimum necessary to get out of trouble, that's a completely different story.
The public's best interest directly contradicts the best interest of DoubleClick. If Ms. O'Connor Kelly were anything more than an apologist for DoubleClick, she wouldn't have kept her job very long.
How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?
The difference is that it's in the best interests of a company to have good security. It's not in the best interests of the Bush administration to have good privacy laws.
All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?
Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader
Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act.
No, her job was to help DoubleClick look like they were cleaning up their act.
In other words, she's the perfect choice for an administration that wants to look like they're respecting people's privacy.
Because she's an apologist. She works with someone who doesn't respect your privacy and tries to convince dissenters that everything's peachy keen.
Her job at Doubleclick was to make sure that Doubleclick respected your privacy just enough to keep people quiet. To believe that it was any more than that contradicts the fact that Doubleclick paid her.
Why would this leave you any more speechless than hiring Kevin Mitnick to do security for a large corporation?
Bad analogy. The corporations best interests are aligned with the interests of the shareholders in terms of security. This would be more like hiring a former Andrew Fastow to manage the finances for a large corporation.
That depends. Does AOL make you pay shipping and handling for those CDs?
I have a P.O. Box, so, yeah, they do, at least in the same sense that spammers make AOL pay (bigger pipes, biggers mailboxes).
MUCH like your stupid, liberal stance on SUV's
Actually my sig is sarcastic.
Most spammers have PO Boxes, so they're PAYING to receive AOL CDs.
AOL has filed lawsuits against five spamming companies, seeking damages in the millions for unwanted email.
The spammers should countersue, seeking damages in the millions for unwanted AOL CDs.
Only if the product was sold AS IS. Otherwise there's an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, that purpose in this case being running at 3GHz.
Why is it wrong when the systems integrator does it, but not when Intel does it? As long as the chip was tested at the speed it is marked, is there a difference?
First off, I can't see why overclocking seems to work Intel's panties into such a froth.
Because it allows people who are willing to pay for a higher speed processor to buy a lower speed one. Read this article about price discrimination. I think you'll see why Intel doesn't want you to overclock.
Overclocking a processor is no different then 'hot rodding' a car!
The difference is that 'hot rodding' a car is not cost effective for most consumers to do. Trust me, if a lot of people stopped buying 6 cylinder cars and merely upgraded their 4 cylinder engines by buying generic parts car companies would get their panties into a froth too.
Do we have any type of licensed or unlicenced spectrum to go along with that protocol? Otherwise it seems kind of useless.
There's a big difference though. Slashdot isn't actually going to these sites, they're merely posting links. They're less like spammers, and more like companies which give out email addresses.
Also slashdotting is lots of people hitting one address. Spamming is one person hitting lots of addresses. Spamming is more like Google's webcrawling than slashdotting.
There's no access restriction for email? Sure there is. Just accept mail from certain addresses.
But then what would he have to bitch about on Slashdot? I'd really rather not read stories about how his wife doesn't have sex with him any more since they've gotten married.
Polanski pled guilty.
It really bugs me when the RIAA calls copyright violation, "Stealing."
As much as when CmdrTaco does it?
What's the statute of limitations for copyright violations?
Three years. Or is it 5? I think it's three.
Why... Are you saying that a judge and jury are going to agree to this?
But the internet isn't like the phone system. Most people's web servers aren't at their houses, and aren't owned by the people, they're owned by the ISPs. The internet allows you to connect to anyone in the world for a flat rate. Much of it is anonymous.
If the internet were a truly peer to peer system with the ISPs having name and address information for every customer and international connections were cost prohibitive, then we'd have a much different regulation scheme in place.