And here is a picture of the material in production
Score:4, Informative???? The first link points to siding which has nothing to do with solar power, or Spheral Solar Power, Inc.. The second link points to a picture of a denim apparel factory in China.
If you want to learn more about the product, go to the company's web site.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an organization of lobbyists with political interests
The EFF are not lobbyists. They are a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. It is illegal for them to lobby congress. Their role in influencing public policy is limited to educating the public, and challenging the law through the courts.
TEI is to literature as DocBook is to documentation.
I haven't been following it recently, but I believe DP is basing their markup on TEI. They don't want to use TEI itself because it is big and complicated. DP would prefer a simpler markup that is easy for volunteers to learn.
Why not modify that in such a way as to have avaliable a scanned image of a single page of the book, along with an empty box to enter text?
That's basically what Distributed Proofers does. Except they OCR the book first, so the proofreaders just need to fix the OCR errors. Every page goes through two passes. Then the entire book goes into post-processing where a single person puts all the pages together, and checks for problems that the proofers didn't know how to solve (marked with an astrisk). Once Distributed Proofers finishes the book, they pass it on to Project Gutenberg where somebody reviews the whole text again.
Distributed Proofers currently has a problem. After the previous Slashdot announcement, they were overwhelmed with volunteers. The volunteers processed books so fast, they were running out of material to work on. Three or four people scan in most of the books. They have been slaving away trying to keep up with the proofers.
Distributed Proofers is also working on a standard to mark up the books to better preserve tables, illustrations, bold text, math, etc. I suspect that effort is being slowed due to the priority of keeping material on the site.
That's an implementation issue. Someone could make it easier to set up PGP, while TCPA may end up being ten times more difficult to work with than PGP. Interestingly, TCPA may end up using PGP to allegedly protect your data.
Or to put it a third way, when I rent an apartment or buy a house, there's locks already on the door.
That sure is nice. Just like Linux comes with password protection to keep someone from messing with your system.
But you don't see people in the real world arguing that locks should be banned because they can allow landlords to lock you out of your residence.
That's exactly the point of TCPA. It is designed to lock you out of your own system. It provides absolutely no other benefit. All the other so called benefits can be implemented without TCPA.
No one complains about their landlord putting locks on the door, because the landlord lets you have the key. Your analogy would make more sense if the landlord kept the key and made you get permission every time you wanted to open the door. The landlord when then stand outside and check everything that passes through the door.
I just don't want it being made a commodity item to be passed around between ten million spammers.
In order for TCPA to work, you must use trusted software. You can use trusted software without TCPA, but it is easier for someone with physical root access to the machine to circumvent the system. The point is, a person must still intentionally circumvent the system to violate your trust (this is true with, or without TCPA). If you suspect someone might intentionally go to the trouble of circumventing the system, you shouldn't trust them with your data. If someone has access to your medical data, they can copy it down by hand.
Sometimes we are passing around emails that contain trade secrets to employees and/or partners. Every once in a while, someone fowards one out (usually to someone trustworthy), and we have to go talk to them to protect it. If I could send an email marked "may not foward," that could be enforced, that problem would go away.
You don't need Palladium to implement this. You can use an email client with this feature, and assume that your colleagues won't intentionally go to the trouble of breaking it.
If someone really wants to distribute that email without your permission, they can just type it into a non-trusted email client and send it off.
To make your analogy more accurate. The homeless man was going into the restraunt, goosing the waitresses, yelling and throwing stuff until the customers left.
Suppose you stand outside the restaurant telling people you got food poisoning while eating there. You have a constitutional right to do so. But with a website, there is no public entrance to stand at. If you join a forum and tell people the website is lying to them, the website operators can sue you for trolling. The law may permit the suit, but is it right?
She was commenting that most web forums are privately owned, so if this ruling stands, trolls can be kicked off virtually any website. Note, she didn't actually take a stance on the case, she simply suggested she was uncomfortable with it.
The California Supreme Court ruled that they do not have jurisdiction to rule on this issue. Where would the Supreme Court draw its power to say, "you do have jurisdiction. Issue a ruling, darnit!"
As far as I'm concerned, if a state says their laws only apply within their state, then the federal government has no business demanding otherwise. On the other hand, if a state had ruled that they do have jurisdiction, then the federal courts would have reason to get involved.
Market forces generally do a decent job of figuring these things out (the "invisible hand").
I don't think this is true when it comes to software, especially middleware and operating systems. With software, compatibility is a critical issue. People buy the operating system that has all the software. Developers write software for the popular operating systems. We end up with networking externalities. The end result: monopolies form naturally in the software industry.
To change the natural formation of software monopolies, we would need to drastically change copyright and patent law (which themselves, are government granted monopolies).
Fritz Attaway, executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said nothing stops Olsen from including clips -- if he is willing to accept a degradation in quality.
"All you have to do is take a video camera and take a screen shot of it," Attaway said.
The "degradation in quality" would be quite severe. If you just point a video camera at a television, you will get massive flickering. To stop the flickering, you need to attach a device to manipulate the video signal. For that device to work, you need to circumvent Macrovision (a violation of the very law in question).
Some day, the camera won't even work. Hollywood is already working with camera manufactures so cameras won't record anything with Hollywood's watermark on it.
the frameworks I have seen usually involve some central source that monitors and verifies or denies access, keys...Even if they hand out all the client code, it will probably have to access some DRM server that is not public.
There's no need for a remote server. The scheme will work with public key cryptography. Panasonic can distribute their machines with the public key stored in the security chip. Sony will use the corresponding private key to sign their compiled kernel. When the machine boots, it will load the kernel into memory, and check the signature. If the signature doesn't authenticate with the public key, the machine simply refuses to boot.
Once the machine boots, it is running a trusted kernel which can refuse to execute code until it authenticates the signature.
If you make any change to any code, the machine will not execute your code until Sony signs it with their private key.
Under the above system, Sony acts as the grand gatekeeper. You must get Sony's approval to create working code (and quite possibly movies, music, and other content) for this machine. This is exactly the kind of thing the constitution sought to avoid when it separated patents and copyrights.
I'm already cringing at what I *know* is going to happen. They're going to release some stuff - exactly what they're obligated to - under the GPL. But other stuff - say DRM - will certainly NOT be under the GPL.
You aren't cringing enough. They don't need to keep DRM code closed source. They will simply design the system so it won't run unsigned code. If you make one tiny improvement to the code and recompile, it won't work. You will have no choice but to use Sony/Panasonic code.
If you find a security hole, you will have to wait for the vendor to fix it. If you want to create software for the system, you will have to get the vendor's permission. In essense, it defeats the whole point of Open Source (putting you control, letting you improve the system, letting you fix the bugs, etc.).
Of course I'm just speculating. It's possible they'll release the system without DRM, but coming from Sony, I seriously doubt it.
Manshaus was interested in the point of time for DVD CCAs taking over of the responsibility for handing out of CSS-licenses.
What Hoy is insinuating here, is that the DVD CCA has a government granted monopoly on anything CSS related. Judge Kaplan bought it, but it's simply not true. If the DVD CCA wanted a monopoly on decoding DVDs, they should have applied for a patent.
I don't know what the law is in Finland, but in the United States it is unconstitutional for the government to mix patents and copyrights.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries
Alright, I agree with the fact that wifi is insecure and it should be regulated
The internet itself is insecure. If a criminal wants to get on the internet anonymously, they will break into your house, shoot you in the head, and use your computer. That is, unless there are simpler alternatives, like public libraries, public wireless access points, etc.
The harm regulation would do to criminals is miniscule. The harm it would do to the general public is immense.
But Thomas Burnett, a Whitman public works commissioner, said any radiation in trash is too much.
I think the idea is, if you're building a nuclear bomb, the radioactive material will irradiate everything nearby. When you throw an irradiated item out, the government will track you down and investigate.
This is similar to considering a libelous poem to be simultaneously a creative work (ie, copyrightable) but also illegal because of its libelous content.
A better analogy would say that you can write an MP3 encoder, but you can't make one that works because the functionality violates a patent. The constitution puts limits on congress' power to restrict the functionality of a device. Specifically, congress can prohibit anyone but the 'inventor' from using newly discovered functionality for a limited time.
The DMCA prohibits anyone but 'writers' from distributing certain decryption technology. This flies in the face of the constitution. It is like granting certain authors the exclusive right to use a printing press. Or letting movie studios control the sale of TVs.
We already see movie studios using their government granted monopoly over content to restrict the feature-set of DVD players. We see Blizzard using their government granted monopoly over WarCraft to restrict competition in the game server market. We saw HP attempt to use their government granted monopoly over HP/UX to censor criticism of their product. In this case, we see the government trying to restrict competition in the ebook reader market.
It's nothing like the Windows GUI, or anything else for that matter.
To me, it looked a lot like the popup folders on MacOS 8 & 9. Those things sure came in handy. I would like to add them to my desktop (but not replace kicker).
The defendant in this case looks like a sleazy cybersquater. According to page 10 of the court ruling, the defendant has registered a number of domain names with trademarks in them. He registered usadirect-online.com (which has AT&T's USA Direct trademark in it), picturebookmaker.com (which has Sony's Picture Book trademark in it), and jserv.com "which according to the defendant's deposition was supposed to call to mind the COMPUSERVE trademark".
Also on page 10, "JSL stated on its Web site that it provides e-commerce, Web site development, and payment services, including online credit card processing. After Visa International filed this suit, JSL removed the reference to credit card processing".
On page 8, defendant says, "[f]or the right price, evisa.com might be available, but I'll have to check with a couple of people, one of whom is in Japan and one of whom is on vacation." He later admitted that this was a false statement because he did not have to check with anybody. He turned down an offer to sell the domain name for $50,000, instead demanding $250,000.
While I suspect the judge's ruling was based more on the fact that the defendant was a sleazy bastard rather than on the merits of the case, I don't think the EFF should have taken the case. My guess is, if the EFF helps him overturn the ruling, he will turn around and sell the site to Visa. He's just using the EFF to get free counsel for his profit venture.
Instead of trying to wreck or cripple personal computers, why aren't they trying to build a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed?
You mean like putting a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in a video card and audio card? Or putting a $2 USB connector and a TPM chip on a DVD player?
They don't do it because, while it would make piracy just as difficult as their draconian plans (it would even allow open source software to use protected content), it doesn't address their real goal--to control the market and cut off competition.
I want to see a website, lets call it SwellMusic, designed to bridge
the gap between independent artists and music fans. The RIAA's great value
is picking out good music from the junk. SwellMusic needs to do the same
thing.
This is how I see it working: an Artist posts one of their better songs
in the new music section, specifying which genres it fits into. Registered
hardcore music fans vote on how well they like the song. Bad songs
disappear. Good songs get posted for everyone to hear. Kuro5hin.org does
this with stories, and it seems to work quite well (get an account and
check out the moderation queue).
If the song is really good, the site should play it on the appropriate
radio station (one station for each genre). Better songs get played more
often. The site would also keep a chart of the most popular songs for the
day/week/month/year.
If a fan takes a liking to an artist's music, they could go to
SwellMusic to buy the song/CD, and download it in a lossless compression
format. Or for an added fee, they could have a CD custom made and
delivered through the mail. The non-profit SwellMusic would take a
commission on the sale to cover their costs. The artist would determine
exactly how much they charge and they would decide how to license their
sample songs (public domain, OAL, allow free distribution for a limited
time, etc). The artist would also decide if they will post Ogg Vorbis
files of all their music, or just some select samples.
SwellMusic could also let the artist donate money to charity. When
someone buys their CD, it would list where the money is going:
Great Band CD
$0.75 SwellMusic
$1.50 American Cancer Society
$4.00 Divided among the artists
- - - - -
$6.25 Total
SwellMusic would track all the donations to the American Cancer Society,
and send them a monthly check.
Each artist should have their own section on the website. They could
post comments, lyrics, decide if their fans can write comments, etc.
The site should also let artists post when and where they will play.
Fans would go to SwellMusic, punch in a date and zipcode, and get a listing
of all SwellMusic artists playing in the area on or around that day.
If the site generates extra money, they could use it to write open
source music software, create high-quality sound samples, build up an
endowment, etc.
The site should be a non-profit organization. The board members should be artists, elected by other artists.
SwellMusic would be a great source for finding independent music, and
it has far more potential than I've listed here. My question is, why
doesn't SwellMusic seem to exist? Isn't this exactly what the RIAA has been fearing? Why don't all the artists who
complain about the RIAA, get together and form SwellMusic?
The fourth amendment does not apply. You can thank the war on drugs for that. According to the Supreme Court, if a doctor takes a sample of your blood for a routine test (which you agree to), and that doctor decides to also run a drug test on that sample (without your knowledge), the doctor can hand the sample over to the police, and the police can use the test results to convict you in court. The court reasoned that the police do not need a warrant if the evidence is voluntarily handed over to them.
So, to get around the fourth amendment, the government simply needs to take your tax dollars and buy databases from every company willing to accept a big, fat government contract. Granted, this won't help them find terrorists, but you don't really believe that's the point do you?
The slippery slope will lead to profiling agencies, much like credit reporting agencies, who sell your profile to employers, landlords, lawyers, law enforcement, and anyone else who wants to make a decision about you.
they just don't care. I'm a geek who understands the tracking that goes on (I've written Web tracking software in the past) and for the most part, I don't care.
This is one reason the Electronic Privacy Information Center argues that P3P is not a privacy enhancing technology. Websites will eventually demand that you reveal everything, or they won't let you access the site. If people don't care, they will comply. The end result will be like cookies (only with your name, age, address, and other personal data attached). Handing your full identity over to every site you visit will simply become the de facto standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Score:4, Informative???? The first link points to siding which has nothing to do with solar power, or Spheral Solar Power, Inc.. The second link points to a picture of a denim apparel factory in China.
If you want to learn more about the product, go to the company's web site.
Which brings up the question, why not? Last time I read the constitution, all bills were required to go through both houses before they become law.
The EFF are not lobbyists. They are a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. It is illegal for them to lobby congress. Their role in influencing public policy is limited to educating the public, and challenging the law through the courts.
I haven't been following it recently, but I believe DP is basing their markup on TEI. They don't want to use TEI itself because it is big and complicated. DP would prefer a simpler markup that is easy for volunteers to learn.
That's basically what Distributed Proofers does. Except they OCR the book first, so the proofreaders just need to fix the OCR errors. Every page goes through two passes. Then the entire book goes into post-processing where a single person puts all the pages together, and checks for problems that the proofers didn't know how to solve (marked with an astrisk). Once Distributed Proofers finishes the book, they pass it on to Project Gutenberg where somebody reviews the whole text again.
Distributed Proofers currently has a problem. After the previous Slashdot announcement, they were overwhelmed with volunteers. The volunteers processed books so fast, they were running out of material to work on. Three or four people scan in most of the books. They have been slaving away trying to keep up with the proofers.
Distributed Proofers is also working on a standard to mark up the books to better preserve tables, illustrations, bold text, math, etc. I suspect that effort is being slowed due to the priority of keeping material on the site.
That's an implementation issue. Someone could make it easier to set up PGP, while TCPA may end up being ten times more difficult to work with than PGP. Interestingly, TCPA may end up using PGP to allegedly protect your data.
Or to put it a third way, when I rent an apartment or buy a house, there's locks already on the door.
That sure is nice. Just like Linux comes with password protection to keep someone from messing with your system.
But you don't see people in the real world arguing that locks should be banned because they can allow landlords to lock you out of your residence.
That's exactly the point of TCPA. It is designed to lock you out of your own system. It provides absolutely no other benefit. All the other so called benefits can be implemented without TCPA.
No one complains about their landlord putting locks on the door, because the landlord lets you have the key. Your analogy would make more sense if the landlord kept the key and made you get permission every time you wanted to open the door. The landlord when then stand outside and check everything that passes through the door.
I just don't want it being made a commodity item to be passed around between ten million spammers.
In order for TCPA to work, you must use trusted software. You can use trusted software without TCPA, but it is easier for someone with physical root access to the machine to circumvent the system. The point is, a person must still intentionally circumvent the system to violate your trust (this is true with, or without TCPA). If you suspect someone might intentionally go to the trouble of circumventing the system, you shouldn't trust them with your data. If someone has access to your medical data, they can copy it down by hand.
You don't need Palladium to implement this. You can use an email client with this feature, and assume that your colleagues won't intentionally go to the trouble of breaking it.
If someone really wants to distribute that email without your permission, they can just type it into a non-trusted email client and send it off.
Suppose you stand outside the restaurant telling people you got food poisoning while eating there. You have a constitutional right to do so. But with a website, there is no public entrance to stand at. If you join a forum and tell people the website is lying to them, the website operators can sue you for trolling. The law may permit the suit, but is it right?
Miss Selzer is a lawyer for the EFF. She also created the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. As far as I know, she has no relation to the pest-control website. She was simply interviewed for the story.
She was commenting that most web forums are privately owned, so if this ruling stands, trolls can be kicked off virtually any website. Note, she didn't actually take a stance on the case, she simply suggested she was uncomfortable with it.
As far as I'm concerned, if a state says their laws only apply within their state, then the federal government has no business demanding otherwise. On the other hand, if a state had ruled that they do have jurisdiction, then the federal courts would have reason to get involved.
I don't think this is true when it comes to software, especially middleware and operating systems. With software, compatibility is a critical issue. People buy the operating system that has all the software. Developers write software for the popular operating systems. We end up with networking externalities. The end result: monopolies form naturally in the software industry.
To change the natural formation of software monopolies, we would need to drastically change copyright and patent law (which themselves, are government granted monopolies).
The "degradation in quality" would be quite severe. If you just point a video camera at a television, you will get massive flickering. To stop the flickering, you need to attach a device to manipulate the video signal. For that device to work, you need to circumvent Macrovision (a violation of the very law in question).
Some day, the camera won't even work. Hollywood is already working with camera manufactures so cameras won't record anything with Hollywood's watermark on it.
There's no need for a remote server. The scheme will work with public key cryptography. Panasonic can distribute their machines with the public key stored in the security chip. Sony will use the corresponding private key to sign their compiled kernel. When the machine boots, it will load the kernel into memory, and check the signature. If the signature doesn't authenticate with the public key, the machine simply refuses to boot.
Once the machine boots, it is running a trusted kernel which can refuse to execute code until it authenticates the signature.
If you make any change to any code, the machine will not execute your code until Sony signs it with their private key.
Under the above system, Sony acts as the grand gatekeeper. You must get Sony's approval to create working code (and quite possibly movies, music, and other content) for this machine. This is exactly the kind of thing the constitution sought to avoid when it separated patents and copyrights.
You aren't cringing enough. They don't need to keep DRM code closed source. They will simply design the system so it won't run unsigned code. If you make one tiny improvement to the code and recompile, it won't work. You will have no choice but to use Sony/Panasonic code.
If you find a security hole, you will have to wait for the vendor to fix it. If you want to create software for the system, you will have to get the vendor's permission. In essense, it defeats the whole point of Open Source (putting you control, letting you improve the system, letting you fix the bugs, etc.).
Of course I'm just speculating. It's possible they'll release the system without DRM, but coming from Sony, I seriously doubt it.
What Hoy is insinuating here, is that the DVD CCA has a government granted monopoly on anything CSS related. Judge Kaplan bought it, but it's simply not true. If the DVD CCA wanted a monopoly on decoding DVDs, they should have applied for a patent.
I don't know what the law is in Finland, but in the United States it is unconstitutional for the government to mix patents and copyrights.
The internet itself is insecure. If a criminal wants to get on the internet anonymously, they will break into your house, shoot you in the head, and use your computer. That is, unless there are simpler alternatives, like public libraries, public wireless access points, etc.
The harm regulation would do to criminals is miniscule. The harm it would do to the general public is immense.
I think the idea is, if you're building a nuclear bomb, the radioactive material will irradiate everything nearby. When you throw an irradiated item out, the government will track you down and investigate.
A better analogy would say that you can write an MP3 encoder, but you can't make one that works because the functionality violates a patent. The constitution puts limits on congress' power to restrict the functionality of a device. Specifically, congress can prohibit anyone but the 'inventor' from using newly discovered functionality for a limited time.
The DMCA prohibits anyone but 'writers' from distributing certain decryption technology. This flies in the face of the constitution. It is like granting certain authors the exclusive right to use a printing press. Or letting movie studios control the sale of TVs.
We already see movie studios using their government granted monopoly over content to restrict the feature-set of DVD players. We see Blizzard using their government granted monopoly over WarCraft to restrict competition in the game server market. We saw HP attempt to use their government granted monopoly over HP/UX to censor criticism of their product. In this case, we see the government trying to restrict competition in the ebook reader market.
To me, it looked a lot like the popup folders on MacOS 8 & 9. Those things sure came in handy. I would like to add them to my desktop (but not replace kicker).
Also on page 10, "JSL stated on its Web site that it provides e-commerce, Web site development, and payment services, including online credit card processing. After Visa International filed this suit, JSL removed the reference to credit card processing".
On page 8, defendant says, "[f]or the right price, evisa.com might be available, but I'll have to check with a couple of people, one of whom is in Japan and one of whom is on vacation." He later admitted that this was a false statement because he did not have to check with anybody. He turned down an offer to sell the domain name for $50,000, instead demanding $250,000.
While I suspect the judge's ruling was based more on the fact that the defendant was a sleazy bastard rather than on the merits of the case, I don't think the EFF should have taken the case. My guess is, if the EFF helps him overturn the ruling, he will turn around and sell the site to Visa. He's just using the EFF to get free counsel for his profit venture.
You mean like putting a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in a video card and audio card? Or putting a $2 USB connector and a TPM chip on a DVD player?
They don't do it because, while it would make piracy just as difficult as their draconian plans (it would even allow open source software to use protected content), it doesn't address their real goal--to control the market and cut off competition.
I want to see a website, lets call it SwellMusic, designed to bridge the gap between independent artists and music fans. The RIAA's great value is picking out good music from the junk. SwellMusic needs to do the same thing.
This is how I see it working: an Artist posts one of their better songs in the new music section, specifying which genres it fits into. Registered hardcore music fans vote on how well they like the song. Bad songs disappear. Good songs get posted for everyone to hear. Kuro5hin.org does this with stories, and it seems to work quite well (get an account and check out the moderation queue).
If the song is really good, the site should play it on the appropriate radio station (one station for each genre). Better songs get played more often. The site would also keep a chart of the most popular songs for the day/week/month/year.
If a fan takes a liking to an artist's music, they could go to SwellMusic to buy the song/CD, and download it in a lossless compression format. Or for an added fee, they could have a CD custom made and delivered through the mail. The non-profit SwellMusic would take a commission on the sale to cover their costs. The artist would determine exactly how much they charge and they would decide how to license their sample songs (public domain, OAL, allow free distribution for a limited time, etc). The artist would also decide if they will post Ogg Vorbis files of all their music, or just some select samples.
SwellMusic could also let the artist donate money to charity. When someone buys their CD, it would list where the money is going:
Great Band CD
- - - - -
SwellMusic would track all the donations to the American Cancer Society, and send them a monthly check.
Each artist should have their own section on the website. They could post comments, lyrics, decide if their fans can write comments, etc.
The site should also let artists post when and where they will play. Fans would go to SwellMusic, punch in a date and zipcode, and get a listing of all SwellMusic artists playing in the area on or around that day.
If the site generates extra money, they could use it to write open source music software, create high-quality sound samples, build up an endowment, etc.
The site should be a non-profit organization. The board members should be artists, elected by other artists.
SwellMusic would be a great source for finding independent music, and it has far more potential than I've listed here. My question is, why doesn't SwellMusic seem to exist? Isn't this exactly what the RIAA has been fearing? Why don't all the artists who complain about the RIAA, get together and form SwellMusic?
For a site to be trustworthy, it really needs to be a non-profit venture run by the artists themselves.
So, to get around the fourth amendment, the government simply needs to take your tax dollars and buy databases from every company willing to accept a big, fat government contract. Granted, this won't help them find terrorists, but you don't really believe that's the point do you?
The slippery slope will lead to profiling agencies, much like credit reporting agencies, who sell your profile to employers, landlords, lawyers, law enforcement, and anyone else who wants to make a decision about you.
they just don't care. I'm a geek who understands the tracking that goes on (I've written Web tracking software in the past) and for the most part, I don't care.
This is one reason the Electronic Privacy Information Center argues that P3P is not a privacy enhancing technology. Websites will eventually demand that you reveal everything, or they won't let you access the site. If people don't care, they will comply. The end result will be like cookies (only with your name, age, address, and other personal data attached). Handing your full identity over to every site you visit will simply become the de facto standard.