...the EFF is willing to back me up with unlimited legal support when the FBI comes knocking at my door
Note that unlimited legal support helps but it is not going to protect you in all cases. Hard to prove a negative (i.e. that it is not you), and with child porn cases presumption of innocence has been loooong gone
Not to mention that such accusation (defendant in a court case) is more than sufficient to get you fired from your job and disowned by your friends.
We envision a world where sharing one's Internet connection is the norm,' said EFF Activist Adi Kamdar, in a press release. 'A world of open wireless would encourage privacy, promote innovation, and benefit the public good, giving us network access whenever we need it.
The person sharing their connection has to NOT be concerned with being successfully sued.
Some judges realize that IP != person, others do not.
I lived with roommates, and it was somewhat of a concern that the "owner" of the internet account will be the one responsible for anything that may get tied to that IP address.
While there are worse punishments one can think of, AT&T worryingly notes that the alerts may eventually result in a lawsuit.
I was thinking AT&T foresees the lawsuits that they are certain to face for mistakenly identifying customers as infringers or for not having enough evidence to conclude that infringing took place. How wrong I was....
âoeAfter the fifth alert, the content owner may pursue legal action against the customer, and may seek a court order requiring AT&T to turn over personal information to assist the litigation,â AT&T explains.
I am sure many people at AT&T will lose a lot of sleep worrying about their customers being sued.
The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements are unacceptable. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.
So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?
Maybe this will bring on monopoly break up, once people realize there is no alternative ISP one can turn to (in most areas). Wouldn't that be wonderful...
I hope that this was recorded. If this is true, then things really need to change in INS.
Oh, yeah, I am sure of it.
Just like in this story. ("At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.")
When necessary, seven police dashboard cameras can malfunction in perfect synchrony by accident. So I am sure that the single camera that recorded an inconvenient incident at the border will be perfectly functional.
They oppose all military activities targeted at the terrorists
Ok, that is just an asshole (and misleading!) thing to say.
I am quite certain that they actually oppose drone strikes that indiscriminately kill civilians in addition to any terrorists. Just imagine if US started bombing suspected terrorists on US territory, killing civilians in the process. Would you oppose that? Would that make you a terrorist supporter?
... their country harbors and supports but they have no problem with the Taliban operating in their country.
[citation needed]
Do they, really? I thought that they permitted US drone strikes on their territory to help root out the terrorists.
Globalization has enabled hundreds of millions to people to rise from poverty and many into middle-class, but since those are Chinese and Indonesians and not privileged Americans, they don't count, right?
hm...? I am not saying "down with globalization" - I am happy for any non-American that rose out of poverty (just as I would be for an American that rose out of poverty) .
But none of this explains why Australians can't buy a DVD or a game from US at US prices. Let _everyone_ benefit from globalization.
It's sad and depressing that our freedoms have fallen so low that we have to beg the government kindly to permit us to sell our property.
Our "property" slowly mutates into "temporary leased and highly restricted item". Have you tried to sell a DVD in a different country? (region encoding) How about reselling a software license? A used game? (special one-time use codes)
Actually, the more compelling question is: Why would citizens of Canada continue to stay in Canada (or any other top-tier priced nation)
Not sure what exactly the question states
Because you _cannot_ make a first-tier salary while living in a third-tier country? Leave Canada for China and you will be downgraded to an average Chinese salary. Corporations are able to get labor in the third-tier poor countries and sell you stuff at the first-tier prices, since that's where you live.
But good luck trying to get the reverse and make US salary living in China (or even UK Salary in british pounds while living in US). Globalization was not meant to benefit peons like us. Hell, good luck importing a DVD from the US to Europe or to Australia.
The Constituion contains the mechanism for amending it.
It's not supposed to be done by executive order, a simple majority vote in Congress, or judicial fiat.
This is not a piece of code, it's a law. Unfortunately it needs to be interpreted and it stops working when it is interpreted badly (maybe it is like interpreted code?)
You know, like 100 bajilion dollars for downloading 10 songs still has to be interpreted as "cruel and unusual" to be unconstitutional.
Or like current administration arguing that placing you on a "kill list" is fine because it is "due process", just not judicial, reviewed or in any way transparent. But still "due".
Or judges accepting that your "documents" can't be searched, but when they are sent by email or stored on your phone, suddenly that doesn't count as "papers" because they are electronic. Similarly, you cannot be search unless a police dog barks at you/your car. Once the dog barks, the constitutional limits are lifted for some reason.
Or successfully arguing that copyright limits are "limited" as long as they are finite (so "unlimited" is unconstitutional, but extend by 20 years every 20 years is fine)
Or court accepting that administration can wait a few years until the constitutional review of a detention (Jose Padilla) and then transfer that prisoner from military to civil confinement one day before review and claim that the case is now "moot" since the prisoner is no longer in military confinement.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will probably uphold the lower court's judgment,
Ah, between Citizen United, the binding arbitration clause (I forget the name) and this case, aren't we "the people" screwed?
Soon, we'll just receive pamphlets from corporations that have 51% shares in our local city and follow these instead of any government laws...
Yeah, make them reveal how much it costs them to send each SMS that they charge is 15 cents to send and receive
I especially like the part about charge-to-receive (I pay 20 cents each way). Imagine if post office charged you 45c for every letter you receive with no option to decline. How is this not illegal? It's out of my control.
What we have here... Is a deliberate failure to communicate.
FTFY.
Explaining policies would expose inconsistencies and cost money in additional staff hours. Apple is not the first company that decided to create a couple of layers between customer support and customers.
Debates are a way to get a feel for the speaker without (fully) prepared speeches and under a bit of pressure.
It would seem that they learned to work around that. Based on the recent memorandum of understanding, they are trying to minimize the randomness and unpredictability of an actual debate
Moreover, they are so often not answering the question, spouting a tangential list of "zingers" instead, that it is getting embarrassing. Moderators/interviewers should interrupt and say "Sir, you are not answering the question, please start again". I do it when I grade homework/exams, why can't moderators do that?
Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well.
True.
They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!
They are NOT. They are LARGELY the same, with the exception of a few issues where they clearly are NOT (taxes, gay rights, health care)
While I very much see your point, just because 80% of the issues have been cemented by a repulsive silent agreement between two parties, is still no reason to state that they are the same. There is still a lesser evil and a greater evil here, even though it isn't as much of a difference as I would have hoped.
The contracts you sign up on likely cover this. Not that anyone reads them.
They'll probably put in an arbitration clause soon (just like eBay and PayPal are doing now). So no court recourse
And what choice do you have anyway.
I occasionally read these contracts, but if I find something outrageous, what can I do? When I sign up for something where I have options, I will cross outrageous things off or perhaps go elsewhere. But when it's the only game in town (ISP, both Apple user and Apple developer contracts come to mind here), I basically have to sign it regardless of how much I dislike it.
Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers.
Not when they hold full control over said customers! I can't think of many companies that have so much of a monopoly
I live in a building that's wired for [some provider]. I don't even remember their name (goes through building management), but their shitty internet connection is all I've got.
Previously I lived in RI and internet was... Cox. Where getting Basic Cable + Internet was $5 cheaper than getting just Internet
Where are those customers going to go after being attacked? The ISPs could raise the prices until I decided to live without internet, so I suppose it was surprising that they only charged what they did and not more.
How would that stop them from accusing you or charging you fees? An unusual or hidden traffic pattern may be proof enough.
Even more suspicious than downloading files -- because identifying file ownership is not that easy. But people hiding traffic must be doing something bad.
I should not have to pay... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.
For the consumers that are reluctant to pay $35 to be reviewed and cleared, they will soon have $1000 (per file) fee for downloading content they consider illegal. And by then the new Terms and Conditions mandatory arbitration clause will be in place if it isn't already, so you'll have no recourse - and occasional $35 "compliance" surcharge will be a wise choice. If you never pay the fee, an occasional "mistake" may happen, where you are charged for a couple of illegal files even if you don't download anything (again, see the new arbitration clause).
I know someone is plotting this, because it will make money and I do not remember ever having a choice of internet provider (maybe 2 options at most) regardless of where I lived in the past 10-12 years.
This makes perfect sense. These machines are slower than the new one, so they are moving them to smaller airports where there are less people, and shorter lines for security.
These machines were also banned in Europe
So it makes perfect sense that they'd move it to smaller airports, instead of maybe a warehouse while they are running a health study?
The conspiracy is only the fact that these machines were purchased and are/were deployed to begin with.
Even more opportunity for me to get offers for things I REALLY DON'T NEED.
It's not very anonymous if they can push targeted ads. I thought the only thing that's keeping this initiative legal is the fact that data is aggregated?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is.
Wrong question is being asked
A better question is -- Would it matter if TSA PreCheck System were easy to game?
Seeing how TSA has no record of ever catching or thwarting a terrorist, I would say "no"
...the EFF is willing to back me up with unlimited legal support when the FBI comes knocking at my door
Note that unlimited legal support helps but it is not going to protect you in all cases. Hard to prove a negative (i.e. that it is not you), and with child porn cases presumption of innocence has been loooong gone
Not to mention that such accusation (defendant in a court case) is more than sufficient to get you fired from your job and disowned by your friends.
Doesnt sound like a top-level professional, but the junior-grade trainee - probably taking orders from above.
Or, you know, also sounds like not a hacker at all.
What makes you think he's an actual hacker and not just someone who was a source of inconvenience for other reasons?
We envision a world where sharing one's Internet connection is the norm,' said EFF Activist Adi Kamdar, in a press release. 'A world of open wireless would encourage privacy, promote innovation, and benefit the public good, giving us network access whenever we need it.
The person sharing their connection has to NOT be concerned with being successfully sued.
Some judges realize that IP != person, others do not.
I lived with roommates, and it was somewhat of a concern that the "owner" of the internet account will be the one responsible for anything that may get tied to that IP address.
While there are worse punishments one can think of, AT&T worryingly notes that the alerts may eventually result in a lawsuit.
I was thinking AT&T foresees the lawsuits that they are certain to face for mistakenly identifying customers as infringers or for not having enough evidence to conclude that infringing took place. How wrong I was....
âoeAfter the fifth alert, the content owner may pursue legal action against the customer, and may seek a court order requiring AT&T to turn over personal information to assist the litigation,â AT&T explains.
I am sure many people at AT&T will lose a lot of sleep worrying about their customers being sued.
The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements are unacceptable. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.
So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?
Maybe this will bring on monopoly break up, once people realize there is no alternative ISP one can turn to (in most areas). Wouldn't that be wonderful...
I hope that this was recorded. If this is true, then things really need to change in INS.
Oh, yeah, I am sure of it.
Just like in this story. ("At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.")
When necessary, seven police dashboard cameras can malfunction in perfect synchrony by accident. So I am sure that the single camera that recorded an inconvenient incident at the border will be perfectly functional.
They oppose all military activities targeted at the terrorists
Ok, that is just an asshole (and misleading!) thing to say.
I am quite certain that they actually oppose drone strikes that indiscriminately kill civilians in addition to any terrorists. Just imagine if US started bombing suspected terrorists on US territory, killing civilians in the process. Would you oppose that? Would that make you a terrorist supporter?
... their country harbors and supports but they have no problem with the Taliban operating in their country.
[citation needed]
Do they, really? I thought that they permitted US drone strikes on their territory to help root out the terrorists.
Globalization has enabled hundreds of millions to people to rise from poverty and many into middle-class, but since those are Chinese and Indonesians and not privileged Americans, they don't count, right?
hm...? I am not saying "down with globalization" - I am happy for any non-American that rose out of poverty (just as I would be for an American that rose out of poverty) .
But none of this explains why Australians can't buy a DVD or a game from US at US prices. Let _everyone_ benefit from globalization.
It's sad and depressing that our freedoms have fallen so low that we have to beg the government kindly to permit us to sell our property.
Our "property" slowly mutates into "temporary leased and highly restricted item".
Have you tried to sell a DVD in a different country? (region encoding)
How about reselling a software license?
A used game? (special one-time use codes)
Actually, the more compelling question is: Why would citizens of Canada continue to stay in Canada (or any other top-tier priced nation)
Not sure what exactly the question states
Because you _cannot_ make a first-tier salary while living in a third-tier country? Leave Canada for China and you will be downgraded to an average Chinese salary. Corporations are able to get labor in the third-tier poor countries and sell you stuff at the first-tier prices, since that's where you live.
But good luck trying to get the reverse and make US salary living in China (or even UK Salary in british pounds while living in US). Globalization was not meant to benefit peons like us. Hell, good luck importing a DVD from the US to Europe or to Australia.
The Constituion contains the mechanism for amending it. It's not supposed to be done by executive order, a simple majority vote in Congress, or judicial fiat.
This is not a piece of code, it's a law. Unfortunately it needs to be interpreted and it stops working when it is interpreted badly (maybe it is like interpreted code?)
You know, like 100 bajilion dollars for downloading 10 songs still has to be interpreted as "cruel and unusual" to be unconstitutional.
Or like current administration arguing that placing you on a "kill list" is fine because it is "due process", just not judicial, reviewed or in any way transparent. But still "due".
Or judges accepting that your "documents" can't be searched, but when they are sent by email or stored on your phone, suddenly that doesn't count as "papers" because they are electronic. Similarly, you cannot be search unless a police dog barks at you/your car. Once the dog barks, the constitutional limits are lifted for some reason.
Or successfully arguing that copyright limits are "limited" as long as they are finite (so "unlimited" is unconstitutional, but extend by 20 years every 20 years is fine)
Or court accepting that administration can wait a few years until the constitutional review of a detention (Jose Padilla) and then transfer that prisoner from military to civil confinement one day before review and claim that the case is now "moot" since the prisoner is no longer in military confinement.
I could go on.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will probably uphold the lower court's judgment,
Ah, between Citizen United, the binding arbitration clause (I forget the name) and this case, aren't we "the people" screwed?
Soon, we'll just receive pamphlets from corporations that have 51% shares in our local city and follow these instead of any government laws...
Yeah, make them reveal how much it costs them to send each SMS that they charge is 15 cents to send and receive
I especially like the part about charge-to-receive (I pay 20 cents each way). Imagine if post office charged you 45c for every letter you receive with no option to decline.
How is this not illegal? It's out of my control.
What we have here...Is failure to communicate.
What we have here ... Is a deliberate failure to communicate.
FTFY.
Explaining policies would expose inconsistencies and cost money in additional staff hours.
Apple is not the first company that decided to create a couple of layers between customer support and customers.
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama
Well, the Jerk Store called, and they're running out of you! -- Mitt Romney
Debates are a way to get a feel for the speaker without (fully) prepared speeches and under a bit of pressure.
It would seem that they learned to work around that. Based on the recent memorandum of understanding, they are trying to minimize the randomness and unpredictability of an actual debate
Moreover, they are so often not answering the question, spouting a tangential list of "zingers" instead, that it is getting embarrassing. Moderators/interviewers should interrupt and say "Sir, you are not answering the question, please start again". I do it when I grade homework/exams, why can't moderators do that?
Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well.
True.
They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!
They are NOT. They are LARGELY the same, with the exception of a few issues where they clearly are NOT (taxes, gay rights, health care)
While I very much see your point, just because 80% of the issues have been cemented by a repulsive silent agreement between two parties, is still no reason to state that they are the same. There is still a lesser evil and a greater evil here, even though it isn't as much of a difference as I would have hoped.
The contracts you sign up on likely cover this. Not that anyone reads them.
They'll probably put in an arbitration clause soon (just like eBay and PayPal are doing now). So no court recourse
And what choice do you have anyway.
I occasionally read these contracts, but if I find something outrageous, what can I do? When I sign up for something where I have options, I will cross outrageous things off or perhaps go elsewhere. But when it's the only game in town (ISP, both Apple user and Apple developer contracts come to mind here), I basically have to sign it regardless of how much I dislike it.
Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers.
Not when they hold full control over said customers! I can't think of many companies that have so much of a monopoly
I live in a building that's wired for [some provider]. I don't even remember their name (goes through building management), but their shitty internet connection is all I've got.
Previously I lived in RI and internet was... Cox. Where getting Basic Cable + Internet was $5 cheaper than getting just Internet
Where are those customers going to go after being attacked? The ISPs could raise the prices until I decided to live without internet, so I suppose it was surprising that they only charged what they did and not more.
vpn
How would that stop them from accusing you or charging you fees? An unusual or hidden traffic pattern may be proof enough.
Even more suspicious than downloading files -- because identifying file ownership is not that easy. But people hiding traffic must be doing something bad.
[/sarcasm], just in case.
I should not have to pay ... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.
For the consumers that are reluctant to pay $35 to be reviewed and cleared, they will soon have $1000 (per file) fee for downloading content they consider illegal. And by then the new Terms and Conditions mandatory arbitration clause will be in place if it isn't already, so you'll have no recourse - and occasional $35 "compliance" surcharge will be a wise choice. If you never pay the fee, an occasional "mistake" may happen, where you are charged for a couple of illegal files even if you don't download anything (again, see the new arbitration clause).
I know someone is plotting this, because it will make money and I do not remember ever having a choice of internet provider (maybe 2 options at most) regardless of where I lived in the past 10-12 years.
This makes perfect sense. These machines are slower than the new one, so they are moving them to smaller airports where there are less people, and shorter lines for security.
These machines were also banned in Europe
So it makes perfect sense that they'd move it to smaller airports, instead of maybe a warehouse while they are running a health study?
The conspiracy is only the fact that these machines were purchased and are/were deployed to begin with.
Even more opportunity for me to get offers for things I REALLY DON'T NEED.
It's not very anonymous if they can push targeted ads.
I thought the only thing that's keeping this initiative legal is the fact that data is aggregated?
Bald people no longer need a tinfoil hat?