What I love about articles like this is the attempt at "balance". Notice that there are three or four examples of people who are wrongly denied services (of the how many thousand cases that have transpired?). And to "balance" this, they give what was probably the only case in history where such a check might have been relevant (at the end of the article). And even in that case, denying him a car wouldn't have changed anything. It isn't as if he couldn't take the bus to the airport.
Although this article isn't as bad as some (for example, most articles on global warming or evolution), it is a typical example of how trying to provide "balance" gives people the wrong impression of how likely different events are (i.e., in the article 4 false positives to one real hit, in reality probably many thousands of false positives to one real hit).
Granted, data mining can dig a lot of interesting info out of big databases. But to me, there are two big problems with these type of programs:
1. Guilt by association: When they are doing "linkage analysis" using your phone records etc, how many people will be swept up in the "terrorist" net because they visit the same library as a "terrorist", or got called by accident, or shop at the same Wallmart?
2. Mandate drift: We all know that now it is "the terrorists", soon it will be "the terrorists, the child abusers, the drug dealers, the guys who hit little old ladies,...". But with the sorts of data mining they are doing, they could just as easily pick out groups of probable (insert political affiliation here). How would you like the FBI showing up at your door because some data mining program thinks that you are probably going to protest a visit to your hometown by the president?
Yes, it is still probably illegal, but when or how it is released does have an effect on the
legal/moral implications of downloading.
For example, if the show was NEVER aired in Australia, and is never made available for sale on
DVD, then is it still illegal to copy? It would have no impact on earning potential, or?
The difference is one of quantity and duration. The "policeman watching you in person" will quickly forget if you aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. The camera (potentially) results in a permanent record.
"But why is a permanent record bad, when I'm doing nothing wrong?". You aren't doing anything wrong today, but what about under the laws of tomorrow? What about if you later become a public figure, and they have tapes of you picking your nose? Is it suddenly a privacy intrusion then?
Also, with better and better computer processing, ALL of the cameras can be watched ALL of the time. This is a quantum leap above what "the policeman on the corner" is capable of. What if the police had officers on every corner, and were taking notes 24 hours a day of everything that happened, everyone who passed by, etc. Would that make you pause to think? That is where we are headed...
I never understand the comment "with such a good result,
can we argue against X?".
The point is, you can always justify any intrusive technology
by pointing to the good results. "If we lock everyone up, there
would be no crime! Can you argue against that?"
We always have to look at the tradeoff between the intrusion on
our freedoms and the the results that the technology brings. As for
cameras, I think that in some cases/locations they make sense, but
that (for example) the UK has gone way overboard. But that is just
my opinion.
It looks like according to the agreement, the Russian government also has to pass legislation to close the "loophole" that allows collection societies to act without the consent of the "rights holders".
If I remember correctly, allofmp3.com was getting licenses from these "collection societies", so probably the Russian government will first close down the societies, then close down allofmp3.com.
Sigh. In the article (which you didn't read) they say this will not work, because the knock code "changes each time". Probably some combination of your "personal key" (PIN) and date/time/etc.
What I don't see is why this is any more secure than a smart card. If it is such a big deal not to have a reader "on the surface", then just have a reader embedded in the door (i.e. induction-based). There are already smartcards that also change their code with each use (eg for remote logins to secure networks). The "knock" aspect screams gimmick to me...
The tricky bit here is that they are arguing that the thumbnails have the same resolution and quality as photos that they sell to be displayed on mobile phones, meaning they have an inherent value.
Of course, Google is not using them in the same manner, but one could argue that by displaying the thumbnails, Google is diluting the value (for example, for those people who use Google Image Search from their mobile).
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."
In three cases, spanning from 1960 to 1999, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that sacrificing anonymity "might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."
Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.
Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling government interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election process by requiring campaign contribution disclosures.
This raises an obvious question. In the article, they say that this is causing problems because students' wireless cards automatically connect to the access point with the strongest signal. Maybe someone who knows about WiFi can explain: How do you get your card to connect to the access point of choice? Is this possible? Why isn't the university just telling their students how to do this?
Some clarifications, for those who don't read the article:
1. It was not a virus. A pirated version of a game included malware that SMS'd a phone number without the users permission.
2. The malware was not added by the people who pirated the game. Interestingly, it was an intended feature of the game, included by the company.
3. The original intent of the malware was to secretly "phone home" when a pirated version of the game was being played. Because of complaints, they removed this "feature" from later versions. The pirated version was old, and still includes the "feature".
What I find interesting is that they included such a "feature" to begin with.
I think you've got this wrong. They are suing because Google is selling their name as an Adword, not that their competitor comes up in the search portion of the page. It seems like there could be a good case that the competitor (and Google) is making money by trading on their good name. I'm not saying that I agree, but I don't think it is an open-and-shut case, especially when the name isn't a common english or french word.
"Whenever I talk to people about Kazaa, they treat it like marijuana -- as much as they love it, they have a sense that what they're doing is a little bit wrong."
I also think the pending War on Copyright Violations is a bit like the War on Marijuana: Driven by entrenched intrests; lubricated by political donations; with lots of innocent casualties; and ultimately futile because at the end of the day it criminalizes something which is not immoral.
In the article, they mention that the new EU copyright directive could make it illegal to deactivate RFID tags after you leave the store.
If they just included these tags on _packaging_, I would have no problem with it. But to include them in the product and then criminalize removal or deactivation is just wrong.
Re:Timeline to be released in 2003
on
Prey
·
· Score: 1
When I read Timeline, I couldn't help bu think that a number of scenes were added in anticipation of what they would look like in a possible movie. In the review of Prey, the reviewer also mentions that some scenes or descriptions seem to have "movie" stamped on them.
Is it just me, or is Michael Crichton starting to write screenplays instead of books?
While Jones is traveling, he can check in on his abode via the Internet. As part of the security system, cameras are trained on every room of the house and every entrance. He can go on the Web and with a few clicks, zoom in on parts of the house or unlock doors from half a world away.
The four, $40,000 prototypes - Hermes, Professor, Thing and Fester - can hold up to 12 cameras, a grenade launcher and a 12-gauge shotgun. The robots operate on a sensor system and by wireless desktop control. They are fitted with a Global Positioning System, and can see themselves and each other on a map, ensuring more efficient searches. They run on 2, 6-pound rechargeable batteries that run one hour each.
"He says the indie pays for the right to consult with stations' program directors about which songs are chosen to be played. But Liggins insists that the indies do not dictate which records get on the air."
I guess that's completely different from companies "donating" campaign contributions for the right to "consult" with politicians about which laws to pass (while of course not dictating what laws get on the books). Hopefully the government will legislate against this dastardly music payola, as suggested by their friendly RIAA lobbyist.
Slashdot Mirror
What I love about articles like this is the attempt at "balance". Notice that there are three or four examples of people who are wrongly denied services (of the how many thousand cases that have transpired?). And to "balance" this, they give what was probably the only case in history where such a check might have been relevant (at the end of the article). And even in that case, denying him a car wouldn't have changed anything. It isn't as if he couldn't take the bus to the airport.
Although this article isn't as bad as some (for example, most articles on global warming or evolution), it is a typical example of how trying to provide "balance" gives people the wrong impression of how likely different events are (i.e., in the article 4 false positives to one real hit, in reality probably many thousands of false positives to one real hit).
Granted, data mining can dig a lot of interesting info out of big databases. But to me, there are two big problems with these type of programs:
1. Guilt by association: When they are doing "linkage analysis" using your phone records etc, how many people will be swept up in the "terrorist" net because they visit the same library as a "terrorist", or got called by accident, or shop at the same Wallmart?
2. Mandate drift: We all know that now it is "the terrorists", soon it will be "the terrorists, the child abusers, the drug dealers, the guys who hit little old ladies, ...". But with the sorts of data mining they are doing, they could just as easily pick out groups of probable (insert political affiliation here). How would you like the FBI showing up at your door because some data mining program thinks that you are probably going to protest a visit to your hometown by the president?
Yes, it is still probably illegal, but when or how it is released does have an effect on the legal/moral implications of downloading.
For example, if the show was NEVER aired in Australia, and is never made available for sale on DVD, then is it still illegal to copy? It would have no impact on earning potential, or?
The difference is one of quantity and duration. The "policeman watching you in person" will quickly forget if you aren't doing anything out of the ordinary. The camera (potentially) results in a permanent record.
"But why is a permanent record bad, when I'm doing nothing wrong?". You aren't doing anything wrong today, but what about under the laws of tomorrow? What about if you later become a public figure, and they have tapes of you picking your nose? Is it suddenly a privacy intrusion then?
Also, with better and better computer processing, ALL of the cameras can be watched ALL of the time. This is a quantum leap above what "the policeman on the corner" is capable of. What if the police had officers on every corner, and were taking notes 24 hours a day of everything that happened, everyone who passed by, etc. Would that make you pause to think? That is where we are headed...
I never understand the comment "with such a good result, can we argue against X?".
The point is, you can always justify any intrusive technology by pointing to the good results. "If we lock everyone up, there would be no crime! Can you argue against that?"
We always have to look at the tradeoff between the intrusion on our freedoms and the the results that the technology brings. As for cameras, I think that in some cases/locations they make sense, but that (for example) the UK has gone way overboard. But that is just my opinion.
It looks like according to the agreement, the Russian government also has to pass legislation to close the "loophole" that allows collection societies to act without the consent of the "rights holders".
If I remember correctly, allofmp3.com was getting licenses from these "collection societies", so probably the Russian government will first close down the societies, then close down allofmp3.com.
Sigh. In the article (which you didn't read) they say this will not work, because the knock code "changes each time". Probably some combination of your "personal key" (PIN) and date/time/etc.
What I don't see is why this is any more secure than a smart card. If it is such a big deal not to have a reader "on the surface", then just have a reader embedded in the door (i.e. induction-based). There are already smartcards that also change their code with each use (eg for remote logins to secure networks). The "knock" aspect screams gimmick to me...
The tricky bit here is that they are arguing that the thumbnails have the same resolution and quality as photos that they sell to be displayed on mobile phones, meaning they have an inherent value.
Of course, Google is not using them in the same manner, but one could argue that by displaying the thumbnails, Google is diluting the value (for example, for those people who use Google Image Search from their mobile).
> ...will get you in trouble whether political or personal.
It makes a big difference, whether it is political or personal.
From the Electronic Privacy Information Center Archive (see http://www.epic.org/free_speech/default.html#anony mity for more info)
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."
In three cases, spanning from 1960 to 1999, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that sacrificing anonymity "might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."
Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.
Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling government interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election process by requiring campaign contribution disclosures.
This raises an obvious question. In the article, they say that this is causing problems because students' wireless cards automatically connect to the access point with the strongest signal. Maybe someone who knows about WiFi can explain: How do you get your card to connect to the access point of choice? Is this possible? Why isn't the university just telling their students how to do this?
1. It was not a virus. A pirated version of a game included malware that SMS'd a phone number without the users permission.
2. The malware was not added by the people who pirated the game. Interestingly, it was an intended feature of the game, included by the company.
3. The original intent of the malware was to secretly "phone home" when a pirated version of the game was being played. Because of complaints, they removed this "feature" from later versions. The pirated version was old, and still includes the "feature".
What I find interesting is that they included such a "feature" to begin with.
Well, in the patent they cite:
"Personal Area Networks: Near-field intrabody communication"; IBM Systems Journal, vol. 35, No. 3&4, 1996 --MIT Media Lab, 11 pages.
so I assume that the patent adds something to what was done at IBM.
I think you've got this wrong. They are suing because Google is selling their name as an Adword, not that their competitor comes up in the search portion of the page. It seems like there could be a good case that the competitor (and Google) is making money by trading on their good name. I'm not saying that I agree, but I don't think it is an open-and-shut case, especially when the name isn't a common english or french word.
I found this quote particularly interesting:
"Whenever I talk to people about Kazaa, they treat it like marijuana -- as much as they love it, they have a sense that what they're doing is a little bit wrong."
I also think the pending War on Copyright Violations is a bit like the War on Marijuana: Driven by entrenched intrests; lubricated by political donations; with lots of innocent casualties; and ultimately futile because at the end of the day it criminalizes something which is not immoral.
Agent's seem to be in the news.
There's also an article in the Economist about using "agents" to model economic and social systems.
So the question is: to what extent are these "agent" systems something new, and to what extent is it just re-packaging and/or hype?
In the article, they mention that the new EU copyright directive could make it illegal to deactivate RFID tags after you leave the store.
If they just included these tags on _packaging_, I would have no problem with it. But to include them in the product and then criminalize removal or deactivation is just wrong.
When I read Timeline, I couldn't help bu think that a number of scenes were added in anticipation of what they would look like in a possible movie. In the review of Prey, the reviewer also mentions that some scenes or descriptions seem to have "movie" stamped on them.
Is it just me, or is Michael Crichton starting to write screenplays instead of books?
According to the article:
"When connected to a computer, the MPD-AP20U acts as a DVD-ROM drive for viewing DVD movies."
Sounds like it plays video DVD's to me...
While Jones is traveling, he can check in on his abode via the Internet. As part of the security system, cameras are trained on every room of the house and every entrance. He can go on the Web and with a few clicks, zoom in on parts of the house or unlock doors from half a world away.
Now is it just me, or is this asking for trouble?
The four, $40,000 prototypes - Hermes, Professor, Thing and Fester - can hold up to 12 cameras, a grenade launcher and a 12-gauge shotgun. The robots operate on a sensor system and by wireless desktop control. They are fitted with a Global Positioning System, and can see themselves and each other on a map, ensuring more efficient searches. They run on 2, 6-pound rechargeable batteries that run one hour each.
So they can already carry weapons.
My favourite quote from a radio spokesman:
"He says the indie pays for the right to consult with stations' program directors about which songs are chosen to be played. But Liggins insists that the indies do not dictate which records get on the air."
I guess that's completely different from companies "donating" campaign contributions for the right to "consult" with politicians about which laws to pass (while of course not dictating what laws get on the books). Hopefully the government will legislate against this dastardly music payola, as suggested by their friendly RIAA lobbyist.