Well, if encrypted email was the norm, yes, they would have to do it, the same way companies today send you letters in sealed envelopes and not postcards...
I'm in the exact same situation, but I'd say this ruling is one such serious privacy violation that could start people thinking seriously about encryption...
There reasons for using email and IM are different, and there's no need to sacrifice one or the other. And strong crypto can be applied to IM too in order to solve the sniffing problem, it's as simple as that...
So If I sign up to some form of service and don't read the contract that means later on down the line when I find that my motives have changed I can ignore the contract. Excellent goodbye loans
You don't seem to understand how it works. It's them who can ignore it claiming you didn't read it. You cannot ignore it wether you read it or not.
I'm not sure why you insist to relate this with copyright. This has nothing to do with copyright law. I've been reading/. for some time, and I never saw any post suggesting that altering bank records should be legal. You seem to confuse things.
Say I have a credit card. In the creditor's computer there is a record of my use of the card that shows what I owe them. This does not involve physical property either, it's just a record. If I were to hack into that bank's computer and "erase" some of the records, I would be tried as a criminal.
Now the time records involved are just the same things, records of what the employee is owed. How is "erasing" the employee's time different than "erasing" charges on one's credit card?
... and punished by jail time for those who do it?
How is stealing an employee's time any different than walking from Walmart with an item in you pocket?
While I agree with you about the ISPs reasons for putting a "no home network" clause into their contract, my claim was not about ISPs reasoning. I was rather suggesting that as it stands, that clause does cannot apply to NAT setups. Now about IIS, getting rooted, etc, I'm sure it does not happen more often to NATers than to one-machine-does-it-allers as you seem to imply.
I could never understand how could ISPs enforce a 'no home network' rule. Technically in a NAT setup there is only one computer (the NAT box) connected to the provider. Packets never travel directly from any other computer to the ISP. Now the fact that the NAT box may be "delegated" some traffic from another machine in the home network is none of the ISPs concern, i.e. they should have no control of what I do to my bits once they reach the only machine connected to them, whether I save those bits, send them to/dev/null or change headers and send them to another box.
I never understood how could ISPs enforce a 'no home network' rule. Technically in a NAT setup there is only one computer (the NAT box) connected to the provider. Packets never travel directly from any other computer to the ISP. Now the fact that the NAT box may be "delegated" some traffic from another machine in the home network is none of the ISPs concern, i.e. they should have no control of what I do to my bits once they reach the only machine connected to them, whether I save those bits, send them to/dev/null or change headers and send them to another box.
I keep hearing about how go is much more difficult for a computer to play than is chess. The number of possible moves in go has nothing to do with its difficulty. Computer scientists have been trying to teach computers to play chess for at least half a century and it is only now that computers have become powerful enough and for the theory to advance enough that computers can hold the world chess champion to a tie. Go has not been analyzed and picked apart enough for us to say that it us much more difficult than chess.
Not so. The "theory" has not advanced signifiantly for chess-playing software in the last 30 years or so, it's still the brute-force approach most programs use. It's only faster hardware that made all this possible. For Go, a brute force approach simply does not work. Not only is the branching factor a lot larger, and this *is* important, but more importantly you cannot write a position evaluation function as easy as for chess.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if encrypted email was the norm, yes, they would have to do it, the same way companies today send you letters in sealed envelopes and not postcards...
I'm in the exact same situation, but I'd say this ruling is one such serious privacy violation that could start people thinking seriously about encryption...
Well, we now have one strong reason I'd say.
There reasons for using email and IM are different, and there's no need to sacrifice one or the other. And strong crypto can be applied to IM too in order to solve the sniffing problem, it's as simple as that...
... to start using strong crypto for our email? The technology has been available for free for years now, so what's stoping us? Why this inertia?
I like using GNUstep/Window Maker on my *nix boxes. It looks great and it's a lean, mean window moving machine.
How did they gather their data.
If they sent it directly to your gmail account?
I'm not sure why you insist to relate this with copyright. This has nothing to do with copyright law. I've been reading /. for some time, and I never saw any post suggesting that altering bank records should be legal. You seem to confuse things.
Say I have a credit card. In the creditor's computer there is a record of my use of the card that shows what I owe them. This does not involve physical property either, it's just a record. If I were to hack into that bank's computer and "erase" some of the records, I would be tried as a criminal. Now the time records involved are just the same things, records of what the employee is owed. How is "erasing" the employee's time different than "erasing" charges on one's credit card?
... and punished by jail time for those who do it? How is stealing an employee's time any different than walking from Walmart with an item in you pocket?
Using image compression in a digital camera... I think that idea must be worth... (apply pinky to lip) ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
While I agree with you about the ISPs reasons for putting a "no home network" clause into their contract, my claim was not about ISPs reasoning. I was rather suggesting that as it stands, that clause does cannot apply to NAT setups. Now about IIS, getting rooted, etc, I'm sure it does not happen more often to NATers than to one-machine-does-it-allers as you seem to imply.
I could never understand how could ISPs enforce a 'no home network' rule. Technically in a NAT setup there is only one computer (the NAT box) connected to the provider. Packets never travel directly from any other computer to the ISP. Now the fact that the NAT box may be "delegated" some traffic from another machine in the home network is none of the ISPs concern, i.e. they should have no control of what I do to my bits once they reach the only machine connected to them, whether I save those bits, send them to /dev/null or change headers and send them to another box.
I never understood how could ISPs enforce a 'no home network' rule. Technically in a NAT setup there is only one computer (the NAT box) connected to the provider. Packets never travel directly from any other computer to the ISP. Now the fact that the NAT box may be "delegated" some traffic from another machine in the home network is none of the ISPs concern, i.e. they should have no control of what I do to my bits once they reach the only machine connected to them, whether I save those bits, send them to /dev/null or change headers and send them to another box.