Once the notice comes to IT that they've had a break-in you've got an awful lot of work to do. Much more than just applying a security patch. You've got to figure out what happened and which systems were affected.
I am almost certain that they counted the "applying a security patch" and "closing the hole" he had found. Tell me if you really think they carefully excluded that component?
And that is definitely dishonest, since whatever hole he found was a pre-existing condition. What's the car analogy... Suppose I fool your car door-lock into opening and steal something from your glove-box compartment. Do damages include redesign of the electronic door system to make such break-in impossible in the future?
You absolutely do *not* do that. Some (reasonable) companies *will* be grateful that you informed them of a problem with their security. Others will get the wrong end of the stick- even if you found the hoed through innocent means- assume that you hacked or were trying to hack into their system, and act accordingly.
It seems like a reasonable risk to me. He may have gotten a job like that - and if not, then he'd be no worse off. I mean, what's Mariott going to do in revenge? Not fluff his pillows when he stays there? I wouldn't approach a government agency like that of course, but with private company seems reasonably safe.
The only obvious failing here is that he did something illegal and even provided proof of that. Otherwise they would (hopefully) not be able to prove any damages at all.
Right, and there are artists doing exactly what is suggested there and making a lot of money doing it. The problem is they no longer need a record company to do it.
Bullshit. They may be able to do their own recording, but wide-area distribution still requires a record company (or someone equivalent with resources). None of this is to defend record company practices. Ideally, what is required is a record company that doesn't cheat artists out of their money (for example, collecting judgements on copyright infringements that never go to artists, etc.) The list goes on and on.
But you have to have a publishing/distribution/advertising budget and not a small one at that. And don't point me to 3-5 people who just put up their albums online and had much success selling them. All those people are incidentally already very famous (made famous by the very same distribution companies). It's easy to do your own distribution when you are already famous enough. It is impossible to do that when you are not. Show me one independent band that got beyond their local area fame without a record company using just the "magic power of global internet".
The big lie here, of course, is saying that it is making censors of Google and Facebook. It is merely telling companies to allow people to censor themselves.
I was going to comment the same thing, but then I realized something. They are are talking about removing other people's posts about you. I.e. someone posts a compromising picture about you and you want it removed. That, arguably, fits the definition of censorship.
Nothing but newspeak!
"U.S. concepts of free expression and commerce will battle European support for privacy and state legislation."
I think what the summary is trying to say that company coming from corporation-controlled US will suddenly encounter an actual user-privacy law. There is nothing about free expression (though something about commerce) in selling user's data to everyone who is willing to buy it. Even if corporations are (apparently) people, selling their user's data is not free expression of speech.
I never understood the objection to targeted advertising.
There isn't any. No one is complaining about google ads in gmail. Hulu has "ad tailor" that asks you about ad relevance. Absolutely no outrage about that (even nice to have sometimes)
I think the problem comes when my information is handed out to someone else. Beacon program posted blockbuster rental information on users accounts for others to see. And I guess the information is being made available without users consent?
Facebook's first priority is no longer its users' privacy (if it ever had been).
[sarcasm]Yeah, Facebook started out as a shining beacon of user's privacy and gradually became corrupted by the allure of ad selling.[/sarcasm>]. The only thing that prevented them from selling data on the first day is that they probably didn't have enough of it until the user-base grew. Any why aren't there any laws in US providing some protection to the users and their data? If Europe seems to have some
Facebook (and other operators, such as google) need to understand that they don't have a "right" to sell any and all information they can gather. If they can't meet the rules, someone else will be happy to do so and take their users away from them. That's what competition is about.
I sense some optimism in your post. My understanding is, in US they are pretty much free to do what they want. The only thing that delays them a little are occasional outrage bursts (beacon program that got scrapped, timeline that didn't).
Also, there is little competition in this field. Entry costs are _very_ high and without a large user base, no one is going to switch.
Yes, but the difference is that the Republican party is a divided party.
Everything I have heard in the recent years point to the exact opposite. Even if Republicans are ideologically divided, they have been able to rally everyone to filibuster everything in the Senate for many, many years now. Democrats having 60 votes was worth nothing because they needed at least 61 to overcome the filibuster.
On the other hand, most controversial issues went through congress with 99% Republican support and 20% Democrat support. Perhaps all of this is staged (I heard that theory) that most democrats get to oppose things on books, as long as enough of them vote for the issue to get it passed.
On the other side, last night I heard about a Congressional testimony about Al-Qaeda and how it has become virtually nothing on a global scale and at least on a global scale, the threat of terrorism has declined dramatically. I couldn't help but "blame" Bush, Jr for that or at least getting the ball rolling.
Did they mention anything about scaling TSA back in the same dramatic fashion? And pulling back all the drones that are apparently bombing a number of countries as we speak?
Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening.
It is a lot more saddening that there is very little connection between what the politician agrees with and what they actually do. Few people seem to care or follow up much.
I feel that the Democrat/Republican choice is between a candidate that promises to fix some things I care about but will make them worse and another candidate that promises to make things worse and who will deliver on it. Very hard to make a rational choice here, the difference between lesser evil and greater evil has shrunk to almost nothing.
and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
I think it is disturbing enough if it said "may". Communicating privately MUST constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by U.S. Constitution. There is no "may" in it. Let them look for some actual evidence, rather than person's desire for privacy.
That is an even cop-outtier cop-out than I expected.
I guess they can only comment on things that do not involve "specific law enforcement action". I imagine that promises a response to
a) Disclose all government communication with extra-terrestrials (I saw that petition at 8000 votes a while ago) and
b) Debate about holiday vs Christmas tree
Good to know we can make a difference by our petitions!
And that is a reason to shut-down the company, freeze the accounts, confiscate the equipment of the company? Looooong before the trial, with legitimate users losing their files and fees regardless of the trial outcome?
See, I don't care about this guy personally, but I am still concerned that so much damage can apparently be done with little jurisdiction (yes, they had some servers in US, but freezing assets and extraditing non-US citizens over that seems a little much).
Still, I don't think you can sue the FBI for executing a warrant, unless they have gone beyond the scope of what was permitted in the warrant.
They froze the assets of a company that hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Why are they allowed to do that? There is certainly a possibility that MegaUpload will be found not guilty and then who's going to refund the costs, recover the data and refund the lost user fees??
I think they're definitely overfunded and way too full of themselves, but something is necessary, perhaps just trimmed down.
Where do you derive that conclusion? It's been over 10 years since Sept-11th. In order to justify their necessity, I want TSA to produce one credible threat that they have averted. Naturally I expect that they would be touting any success they had, so I have to assume they've got nothing.
Ergo, it isn't clear to me that "something" is necessary. Unless by "something" you mean regular pre-9-11 airport security.
I think we should be trying to stay under 6,000 United States citizens dying from terrorism every year. It is the acceptable rate, to me, in terms of the risk of my acquaintances dying.
There is an easier way to do this analysis. What you are doing assumes some acceptable death-toll and that is hard(er) to argue.
Suggestion -- consider the money being spent on TSA and evaluate whether they can be applied elsewhere to save more than 6,000 United States citizens. Or, better yet, the number of terrorism related deaths prevented by TSA (which is likely much closer to zero than to 6000). Investing in road/vehicle safety is the favorite example, but I bet that even a campaign to educate more people on proper bathtub and electric device use will save more than a few people a year and cost a lot less.
I have and always will opted out. Until they pass federal rules suggesting we no long have the right to opt out, I will be standing safely outside of the range of any body scanner for the foreseeable future.
Have you had to travel with a laptop though? Last time I opted out, I had to wait next to the moving line for 5-7 minutes while they found a patter-down for me. At the same time my brand-new (out of the bag) laptop was sitting on the other side, somewhat outside of my view. It's a miracle no one stole it.
But yes, I always opt out of the damn machines and find it sad that others just file in like sheep. Not sure what the plan is for the day they decide that only terrorists opt out from being sent into X-ray machines.
They're singled out because they're the most visible. That's the price you pay for being at the head of the pack. If they don't like it - maybe they should do something about the factory conditions.
"Everybody else is doing it" wasn't a valid defense when you were 7, and it's not a valid defense when you're running a giant corporation.
I fail to see a good reason to boycott the most visible company for shoddy labor practices while ignoring others. My point wasn't "don't boycott Apple, everybody else is doing it". My point is "boycott Apple AND everyone else who exploits Chinese workers".
I suspect that the second, less hypocritical, option is not being called for because we would have to use wooden tablets to achieve it (as nothing electronic is made outside of China any more).
Actually, it's not clear what the law regarding resale of software. There's caselaw that supports both arguments: one that digital content is licensed, and one that digital content is purchased.
But surely you have to choose one and follow it? Or is there a caselaw that supports calling your software product a chimera that is half-licensed, half-purchased depending on what suits you best in each particular case?
These articles regarding Apple's labour practices have been fairly regular for years, now. It's not that many people did not know about it; it's that many people choose not to care about it.
Why is Apple being singled out, anyway? Is the implication that Apple is worse than EVERY OTHER electronics-manufacturing company? I can't remember the last time I bought something electronic NOT made in China (my old Fujitsu laptop was made in Japan... can't think of anything else)
In this case, they're including a one-time-use code to get the DLC for free; isn't that better than asking ALL players to buy the DLC?
I am sorry, what kind of argument is that? If they decided to kick people in the face on the way out of the store, it'd also be significantly better if they only kicked one out of 5 instead of ALL players. Only 20% players kicked in the face!
They have released a free DLC available to all new players? Then it is basically a part of the game. Now the onus is on them to explain why second-hand buyers shouldn't have access to it. And "we want more money" or "we don't like second hand market" is not an answer.
Meh, If you don't like it, don't buy it. Instead play something else; vote with your wallet. It's not like there's a shortage of games.
Had to reply to this one...
How big are the red letters on the retail box explaining the situation to buyers? Or do you think that I should be doing research to verify that the game I buy is not going to turn crippled at resale time? Games can't be returned either. Combined with absence of game demos (relatively rare nowdays), all this is affecting my full capacity to vote with my wallet.
Vote for the future you prefer, those afraid of you or Hollywood. Over the next few years the direction you choose will be crucial.
Oh, don't give me that. I think only changing the system or introducing a viable 3rd party is going to choose any directions here. The choice between Democrats and Republicans will roughly comes down to allowing gays to marry and whether the poor will have any social programs left at all. These are both important issues, but I so wish that my vote affected any other issues.
Oh, you are aiming really, really far. Forfeiting the whole work to the public domain... how about:
a). Make region encoding illegal? If I legally purchased a DVD in Germany, I should be able to play it in US, even when my DVD drive has to be switched to region1.
b). Companies must make a reasonable effort to provide their works in multiple countries (or lose their right to sue customers). Some countries may be years behind on releases of TV shows/movies. And for buying internationally I refer you to a)
c). Restore the doctrine of first sale on all products. Used games are getting harder and harder to sell (unique keys tied to one's account, etc). I am also pretty sure I can't resell e-books. Seeing how they don't always cost much less - I should be able to re-sell what I buy
d). Ooh, it should be not be possible to release a DVD that forces me to watch an FBI warning and 5 annoying commercials of other crap. At the very least, the companies should be mandated to release a crap-free version (and we'll see which one is going to win on the market)
I could keep going. But before we move on to "cede unused works to public domain", it'd be nice if we could just buy products without being screwed with!
Slashdot Mirror
I am almost certain that they counted the "applying a security patch" and "closing the hole" he had found. Tell me if you really think they carefully excluded that component?
And that is definitely dishonest, since whatever hole he found was a pre-existing condition. What's the car analogy... Suppose I fool your car door-lock into opening and steal something from your glove-box compartment. Do damages include redesign of the electronic door system to make such break-in impossible in the future?
It seems like a reasonable risk to me. He may have gotten a job like that - and if not, then he'd be no worse off. I mean, what's Mariott going to do in revenge? Not fluff his pillows when he stays there? I wouldn't approach a government agency like that of course, but with private company seems reasonably safe.
The only obvious failing here is that he did something illegal and even provided proof of that. Otherwise they would (hopefully) not be able to prove any damages at all.
Bullshit. They may be able to do their own recording, but wide-area distribution still requires a record company (or someone equivalent with resources). None of this is to defend record company practices. Ideally, what is required is a record company that doesn't cheat artists out of their money (for example, collecting judgements on copyright infringements that never go to artists, etc.) The list goes on and on.
But you have to have a publishing/distribution/advertising budget and not a small one at that. And don't point me to 3-5 people who just put up their albums online and had much success selling them. All those people are incidentally already very famous (made famous by the very same distribution companies). It's easy to do your own distribution when you are already famous enough. It is impossible to do that when you are not. Show me one independent band that got beyond their local area fame without a record company using just the "magic power of global internet".
I was going to comment the same thing, but then I realized something. They are are talking about removing other people's posts about you. I.e. someone posts a compromising picture about you and you want it removed. That, arguably, fits the definition of censorship.
Nothing but newspeak!
"U.S. concepts of free expression and commerce will battle European support for privacy and state legislation."
I think what the summary is trying to say that company coming from corporation-controlled US will suddenly encounter an actual user-privacy law. There is nothing about free expression (though something about commerce) in selling user's data to everyone who is willing to buy it. Even if corporations are (apparently) people, selling their user's data is not free expression of speech.
There isn't any. No one is complaining about google ads in gmail. Hulu has "ad tailor" that asks you about ad relevance. Absolutely no outrage about that (even nice to have sometimes)
I think the problem comes when my information is handed out to someone else. Beacon program posted blockbuster rental information on users accounts for others to see. And I guess the information is being made available without users consent?
[sarcasm]Yeah, Facebook started out as a shining beacon of user's privacy and gradually became corrupted by the allure of ad selling.[/sarcasm>]. The only thing that prevented them from selling data on the first day is that they probably didn't have enough of it until the user-base grew. Any why aren't there any laws in US providing some protection to the users and their data? If Europe seems to have some
I sense some optimism in your post. My understanding is, in US they are pretty much free to do what they want. The only thing that delays them a little are occasional outrage bursts (beacon program that got scrapped, timeline that didn't).
Also, there is little competition in this field. Entry costs are _very_ high and without a large user base, no one is going to switch.
Everything I have heard in the recent years point to the exact opposite. Even if Republicans are ideologically divided, they have been able to rally everyone to filibuster everything in the Senate for many, many years now. Democrats having 60 votes was worth nothing because they needed at least 61 to overcome the filibuster.
On the other hand, most controversial issues went through congress with 99% Republican support and 20% Democrat support. Perhaps all of this is staged (I heard that theory) that most democrats get to oppose things on books, as long as enough of them vote for the issue to get it passed.
Did they mention anything about scaling TSA back in the same dramatic fashion? And pulling back all the drones that are apparently bombing a number of countries as we speak?
It is a lot more saddening that there is very little connection between what the politician agrees with and what they actually do. Few people seem to care or follow up much.
I feel that the Democrat/Republican choice is between a candidate that promises to fix some things I care about but will make them worse and another candidate that promises to make things worse and who will deliver on it. Very hard to make a rational choice here, the difference between lesser evil and greater evil has shrunk to almost nothing.
I think it is disturbing enough if it said "may". Communicating privately MUST constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by U.S. Constitution. There is no "may" in it. Let them look for some actual evidence, rather than person's desire for privacy.
I guess they can only comment on things that do not involve "specific law enforcement action". I imagine that promises a response to
a) Disclose all government communication with extra-terrestrials (I saw that petition at 8000 votes a while ago) and
b) Debate about holiday vs Christmas tree
Good to know we can make a difference by our petitions!
And that is a reason to shut-down the company, freeze the accounts, confiscate the equipment of the company? Looooong before the trial, with legitimate users losing their files and fees regardless of the trial outcome?
See, I don't care about this guy personally, but I am still concerned that so much damage can apparently be done with little jurisdiction (yes, they had some servers in US, but freezing assets and extraditing non-US citizens over that seems a little much).
They froze the assets of a company that hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Why are they allowed to do that? There is certainly a possibility that MegaUpload will be found not guilty and then who's going to refund the costs, recover the data and refund the lost user fees??
Where do you derive that conclusion? It's been over 10 years since Sept-11th. In order to justify their necessity, I want TSA to produce one credible threat that they have averted. Naturally I expect that they would be touting any success they had, so I have to assume they've got nothing.
Ergo, it isn't clear to me that "something" is necessary. Unless by "something" you mean regular pre-9-11 airport security.
There is an easier way to do this analysis. What you are doing assumes some acceptable death-toll and that is hard(er) to argue.
Suggestion -- consider the money being spent on TSA and evaluate whether they can be applied elsewhere to save more than 6,000 United States citizens. Or, better yet, the number of terrorism related deaths prevented by TSA (which is likely much closer to zero than to 6000). Investing in road/vehicle safety is the favorite example, but I bet that even a campaign to educate more people on proper bathtub and electric device use will save more than a few people a year and cost a lot less.
Have you had to travel with a laptop though? Last time I opted out, I had to wait next to the moving line for 5-7 minutes while they found a patter-down for me. At the same time my brand-new (out of the bag) laptop was sitting on the other side, somewhat outside of my view. It's a miracle no one stole it.
But yes, I always opt out of the damn machines and find it sad that others just file in like sheep. Not sure what the plan is for the day they decide that only terrorists opt out from being sent into X-ray machines.
"Everybody else is doing it" wasn't a valid defense when you were 7, and it's not a valid defense when you're running a giant corporation.
I fail to see a good reason to boycott the most visible company for shoddy labor practices while ignoring others. My point wasn't "don't boycott Apple, everybody else is doing it". My point is "boycott Apple AND everyone else who exploits Chinese workers".
I suspect that the second, less hypocritical, option is not being called for because we would have to use wooden tablets to achieve it (as nothing electronic is made outside of China any more).
But surely you have to choose one and follow it? Or is there a caselaw that supports calling your software product a chimera that is half-licensed, half-purchased depending on what suits you best in each particular case?
Why is Apple being singled out, anyway? Is the implication that Apple is worse than EVERY OTHER electronics-manufacturing company? I can't remember the last time I bought something electronic NOT made in China (my old Fujitsu laptop was made in Japan... can't think of anything else)
I am sorry, what kind of argument is that? If they decided to kick people in the face on the way out of the store, it'd also be significantly better if they only kicked one out of 5 instead of ALL players. Only 20% players kicked in the face!
They have released a free DLC available to all new players? Then it is basically a part of the game. Now the onus is on them to explain why second-hand buyers shouldn't have access to it. And "we want more money" or "we don't like second hand market" is not an answer.
Had to reply to this one...
How big are the red letters on the retail box explaining the situation to buyers? Or do you think that I should be doing research to verify that the game I buy is not going to turn crippled at resale time? Games can't be returned either. Combined with absence of game demos (relatively rare nowdays), all this is affecting my full capacity to vote with my wallet.
Oh, don't give me that. I think only changing the system or introducing a viable 3rd party is going to choose any directions here. The choice between Democrats and Republicans will roughly comes down to allowing gays to marry and whether the poor will have any social programs left at all. These are both important issues, but I so wish that my vote affected any other issues.
a). Make region encoding illegal? If I legally purchased a DVD in Germany, I should be able to play it in US, even when my DVD drive has to be switched to region1.
b). Companies must make a reasonable effort to provide their works in multiple countries (or lose their right to sue customers). Some countries may be years behind on releases of TV shows/movies. And for buying internationally I refer you to a)
c). Restore the doctrine of first sale on all products. Used games are getting harder and harder to sell (unique keys tied to one's account, etc). I am also pretty sure I can't resell e-books. Seeing how they don't always cost much less - I should be able to re-sell what I buy
d). Ooh, it should be not be possible to release a DVD that forces me to watch an FBI warning and 5 annoying commercials of other crap. At the very least, the companies should be mandated to release a crap-free version (and we'll see which one is going to win on the market)
I could keep going. But before we move on to "cede unused works to public domain", it'd be nice if we could just buy products without being screwed with!