This seems like is has one big loophole. The overlap between non-sensitive and sensitive data.
For many buying habits ARE political and interpreted as such by marketers.
For example.
I bought trees from arborday.org so I wouldn't have to look at my neighbors house. As a result of the 'PURCHASE', I was placed on the mailing list of greenpeace, world wildlife fund, etc.
So, when buying habits can be interpreted as political information what side does this law place that information on?
All information sharing should be Opt IN. No exceptions, that is the only way privacy is protected.
He also notes with some pride that many companies survived the turmoil after the World Trade Center attack because they made so many preparations for the turn of the millennium.
Yeah. Those two extra bytes used to store the year are a good anti-terror measure.
Lets carry this a little farther. Lets say you're posting on slashdot about some topic. As a result of a post you get an email from someone that agrees with you on a topic. You strike up a conversation outside of slashdot via email. You discuss technical stuff like programming languages or computers, etc. The person you strike up a conversation with tells you about some new software development tool they use, how great it is, etc. Or they tell you they really like this band, etc. Since you have a lot in common with this person, you check out the product. You visit a web site they recommend that sells computers or something. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Now you discover this person wasn't a real person at all, just a bot designed to get you to listen to certain music, buy a certain software product, etc. How would you feel?
Have you ever struck up a conversation with someone online before? Have you bought a product as a result of a recommendation from them? I have. I used to be a member of the Kraftwerk mail list and bought music based upon recommendations of other Kraftwerk listeners.
By the way, record companies used to pay people to regularly post to usenet about bands they were promoting. This is just an automated way of pretending to be a person. With a commercial agenda.
My understanding about copyright law is that you can copyright a collection of data (Dictionary, TV Listings, etc.) But you cannot copyright the actual listings. That is, anyone can compile a directory or listing of the exact same data without violating anyones copyright.
I think the theory proposed (Not mine.) Was that whatever protocol was designed would require them maintain a seperate copy.
Even if they don't have to, it can be beneficial to force them to hold onto the spam at their end. That way, you can always track down the source.
If the Spam is being injected into an open relay via some anonymous throw away account you cannot track down the sender.
But a trend is not a random line. It is a vector. One with a distance and a direction. With a point you don't have either. It requires at least two points.
Browsing from work in IE. Alt-Tab when someone walks by, and there sits your pop-under for some nudy web site.
Browing from work in Opera. Alt-Tab when someone walks by, and there sits your work-related excel spreadsheet.
SDI is not practical for browsing at work.
It used to be that content and commercial were seperated by a "Dip to black." Now the commercial is mixed in with the content. Corner logos. Sporting events with sponsors all over the field. Even the score box and graphics are sponsored by someone.
Someone previously suggested a different scheme that would reduce spamming. That is, your email would not be stored locally. Instead it is stored on the Senders server. You get a notice that you received an email, but the actual text of the email is stored on the server until you retrieve it. If you don't want the email, you don't retrieve it. The sender needs to keep a seperate copy of every email they send until the receiver retrieves it. Spammers would have to store all of their spam locally.
I never believed the Internet was the gold mine everyone thought it was. Its just a fun way to communicate with people. If you avoid the 'Too good to be true' free crap, then you can avoid this stuff. Companies need to make money. Once they realize they can't do it on the internet, they'll leave us alone.
That it. They don't care. Not a good business decision when your competition is a mouse click away.
I've never trusted Yahoo enough to give them any of my information. But I can understand that once you have an email address (Like a telephone#) its a hassle to change it. They are banking that not enough people leave them. Question is, are they really making money off of people by providing this free service? If advertising doesn't pay, then they have to do something.
My recommendation. Register your own domain (godaddy.com $8.95/yr - and many others.) That way you can have a 'Permanent' email address, then you just need someone to host it for you.
Netfirms.com will host your domain and provide free email. If they piss you off, you can take your domain somewhere else and keep your email address.
Note that I consider spam to be something I never asked for and something I have no way of opting out of. I do find value in mailing lists from reputable companies as long as I can unsubscribe to them.
You have to be careful about legit opt-ins as well. I signed up to be on a mailing list for people who share my surname, to get info on family histories, etc. A legit mail list?
Well, I was immediately placed on the rootsweb commercial email list as well as ancestry.com. I was NOT given an option of opting out of those additional lists. Every time I get a mailing from ancestry.com I visit their web site and go throught the procedures to remove myself from that list. I also removed myself from the surname mailing list.
Months later, I am STILL getting email from ancestry.com and rootsweb! I have followed their procedures for opting out, but they don't seem to work!
What if someone printed their 'Envelope' from your web site and used their pre-paid postage to send them a blank piece of paper? What if hundreds did it?
And how are you going to grow Soybeans without acres of land and sunshine. As would be the case for someone traveling to the far reaches of the solar system?
One of the biggest producers of green house gasses are the methane from farm animals. That is a major 'Machine' that uses chemical processes to suck stuff out of the planet and then SPEW stuff tht is toxic into the environment.
I can speak to that. I actually went on an interview once. I have 12 years development experience AND MCSD certification. Based on the questions they asked, I am convinced that because of the certification, they questioned my experience. Like they were thinking "If he has this experience, then why did he get his certification?" When I didn't get the job, the recruiter told me it was because my lack of experience?!?!?
I think the "Legal Framework" needs to be built into the code as well as the law.
The O/S should be the O/S should be the O/S. No third party application should be able to change the functionality or performance of the O/S.
The Application should be the application should be the application. No OTHER application should be able to change the functioning of the original application.
If the browser is an application that is part of the O/S that can be modified by a differnt application, then you never know what to expect.
If I want to run App A, later install App B. App B shouldn't be able to change App A unless that is what is advertised to do.
App B shouldn't be allowed to mess up App A or the O/S. If it does, that behavior should be detected and stopped.
That way if App B fails to work, it can be removed and the O/S and App A can go on their merry way.
The U.S. Postal service is trying it out in New Hampshire and Florida for their urban areas (Where the mail deliverers walk the route.) They are quicker than walking, but are just as navigable. They can be taken places where bicycles cannot be taken (Inside buildings, etc.)
But the cable company decides WHAT channels I get to see and how much to charge for each one. I pay for the content, not just the communication.
On the internet, I select what web sites I want to visit. Not them. I request the information from whoever I want. I can see a clear distinction there. The phone company doesn't decide what phone calls you make? The ISP doesn't decide what web sites I visit.
I certainly don't want them restricting my choices either.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like is has one big loophole. The overlap between non-sensitive and sensitive data.
For many buying habits ARE political and interpreted as such by marketers.
For example.
I bought trees from arborday.org so I wouldn't have to look at my neighbors house. As a result of the 'PURCHASE', I was placed on the mailing list of greenpeace, world wildlife fund, etc.
So, when buying habits can be interpreted as political information what side does this law place that information on?
All information sharing should be Opt IN. No exceptions, that is the only way privacy is protected.
He also notes with some pride that many companies survived the turmoil after the World Trade Center attack because they made so many preparations for the turn of the millennium. Yeah. Those two extra bytes used to store the year are a good anti-terror measure.
Lets carry this a little farther. Lets say you're posting on slashdot about some topic. As a result of a post you get an email from someone that agrees with you on a topic. You strike up a conversation outside of slashdot via email. You discuss technical stuff like programming languages or computers, etc. The person you strike up a conversation with tells you about some new software development tool they use, how great it is, etc. Or they tell you they really like this band, etc. Since you have a lot in common with this person, you check out the product. You visit a web site they recommend that sells computers or something. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Now you discover this person wasn't a real person at all, just a bot designed to get you to listen to certain music, buy a certain software product, etc. How would you feel?
Have you ever struck up a conversation with someone online before? Have you bought a product as a result of a recommendation from them? I have. I used to be a member of the Kraftwerk mail list and bought music based upon recommendations of other Kraftwerk listeners.
By the way, record companies used to pay people to regularly post to usenet about bands they were promoting. This is just an automated way of pretending to be a person. With a commercial agenda.
Unethical, disgusting, deceitful and wrong.
I put my email address in a jpeg image. Haven't found a spambot yet that can decipher that.
My understanding about copyright law is that you can copyright a collection of data (Dictionary, TV Listings, etc.) But you cannot copyright the actual listings. That is, anyone can compile a directory or listing of the exact same data without violating anyones copyright.
You are so right, but what you said could have been summed up better by...
Kazaa users: "Ga ga Goo goo, I want my mp3s. Mommy! I want my MP3s! Bwaaaa waahaa hwaaa!"
I think the term used to describe our government today is "Corporacracy."
I think the theory proposed (Not mine.) Was that whatever protocol was designed would require them maintain a seperate copy. Even if they don't have to, it can be beneficial to force them to hold onto the spam at their end. That way, you can always track down the source. If the Spam is being injected into an open relay via some anonymous throw away account you cannot track down the sender.
But a trend is not a random line. It is a vector. One with a distance and a direction. With a point you don't have either. It requires at least two points.
Browsing from work in IE. Alt-Tab when someone walks by, and there sits your pop-under for some nudy web site. Browing from work in Opera. Alt-Tab when someone walks by, and there sits your work-related excel spreadsheet. SDI is not practical for browsing at work.
Great analogt, but they do that already.
It used to be that content and commercial were seperated by a "Dip to black." Now the commercial is mixed in with the content. Corner logos. Sporting events with sponsors all over the field. Even the score box and graphics are sponsored by someone.
If they could paint your TV pink they would.
Someone previously suggested a different scheme that would reduce spamming. That is, your email would not be stored locally. Instead it is stored on the Senders server. You get a notice that you received an email, but the actual text of the email is stored on the server until you retrieve it. If you don't want the email, you don't retrieve it. The sender needs to keep a seperate copy of every email they send until the receiver retrieves it. Spammers would have to store all of their spam locally.
Is it really getting worse?
I never believed the Internet was the gold mine everyone thought it was. Its just a fun way to communicate with people. If you avoid the 'Too good to be true' free crap, then you can avoid this stuff. Companies need to make money. Once they realize they can't do it on the internet, they'll leave us alone.
"I know you said no, but we don't really care,"
That it. They don't care. Not a good business decision when your competition is a mouse click away.
I've never trusted Yahoo enough to give them any of my information. But I can understand that once you have an email address (Like a telephone#) its a hassle to change it. They are banking that not enough people leave them. Question is, are they really making money off of people by providing this free service? If advertising doesn't pay, then they have to do something.
My recommendation. Register your own domain (godaddy.com $8.95/yr - and many others.) That way you can have a 'Permanent' email address, then you just need someone to host it for you.
Netfirms.com will host your domain and provide free email. If they piss you off, you can take your domain somewhere else and keep your email address.
Note that I consider spam to be something I never asked for and something I have no way of opting out of. I do find value in mailing lists from reputable companies as long as I can unsubscribe to them.
You have to be careful about legit opt-ins as well. I signed up to be on a mailing list for people who share my surname, to get info on family histories, etc. A legit mail list?
Well, I was immediately placed on the rootsweb commercial email list as well as ancestry.com. I was NOT given an option of opting out of those additional lists. Every time I get a mailing from ancestry.com I visit their web site and go throught the procedures to remove myself from that list. I also removed myself from the surname mailing list.
Months later, I am STILL getting email from ancestry.com and rootsweb! I have followed their procedures for opting out, but they don't seem to work!
STAY AWAY FROM ANCESTRY.COM!
What if someone printed their 'Envelope' from your web site and used their pre-paid postage to send them a blank piece of paper? What if hundreds did it?
And how are you going to grow Soybeans without acres of land and sunshine. As would be the case for someone traveling to the far reaches of the solar system?
Why is burying it back in the ground from whence it came a problem?
So I guess you are volunteering your back yard for this then. The trucks are on the way.
Thanks!
No, but they farted.
One of the biggest producers of green house gasses are the methane from farm animals. That is a major 'Machine' that uses chemical processes to suck stuff out of the planet and then SPEW stuff tht is toxic into the environment.
I can speak to that. I actually went on an interview once. I have 12 years development experience AND MCSD certification. Based on the questions they asked, I am convinced that because of the certification, they questioned my experience. Like they were thinking "If he has this experience, then why did he get his certification?" When I didn't get the job, the recruiter told me it was because my lack of experience?!?!?
I think the "Legal Framework" needs to be built into the code as well as the law.
The O/S should be the O/S should be the O/S. No third party application should be able to change the functionality or performance of the O/S.
The Application should be the application should be the application. No OTHER application should be able to change the functioning of the original application.
If the browser is an application that is part of the O/S that can be modified by a differnt application, then you never know what to expect.
If I want to run App A, later install App B. App B shouldn't be able to change App A unless that is what is advertised to do.
App B shouldn't be allowed to mess up App A or the O/S. If it does, that behavior should be detected and stopped.
That way if App B fails to work, it can be removed and the O/S and App A can go on their merry way.
Great. We'll all look like Ballmer doing the monkey dance to get our laptops working.
The U.S. Postal service is trying it out in New Hampshire and Florida for their urban areas (Where the mail deliverers walk the route.) They are quicker than walking, but are just as navigable. They can be taken places where bicycles cannot be taken (Inside buildings, etc.)
But the cable company decides WHAT channels I get to see and how much to charge for each one. I pay for the content, not just the communication.
On the internet, I select what web sites I want to visit. Not them. I request the information from whoever I want. I can see a clear distinction there. The phone company doesn't decide what phone calls you make? The ISP doesn't decide what web sites I visit.
I certainly don't want them restricting my choices either.
If you're reading at 1 or 2, and all of the 'The web site has been slashdotted' comments are modded down. People don't see them.
Or to put it more generically.
When a bunch of people say something stupid and get modded down for it. No one know that someone already said something stupid, so they say it too.