While that's certainly true for most "tech breakthroughs" you're probably writing that comment on an "IBM PC or compatible".;)
The IBM PC was no tech breakthrough, it was made basically of standard parts. Which is a large part of why it got so successful (the other part is that IBM created it).
>Opinions are cheap....cynically designed to appeal to shallow, emotional outbursts -then-
> I think this is just a natural progression of trends started in the 1990s. Hell, maybe it started a lot earlier than that, but that's when I remember things getting worse>
Sorry, but I can't find that claim in the linked report. I only find the statistics that about 1/3 of all bloggers consider what they do jounalism. The report also mention that even those who don't, usually fact-check.
If the report claims this and I just didn't find it, please say where exacty this claim can be found.
Of course. But what the OP was talking about is the parts not marked as opinion, but the reporting parts, which should be as objective as possible. What the OP questioned is how much of that reporting is actually biased, and thus not truly reporting (he also questioned how much of it is simply incorrect, which is already a strong hint he wasn't talking about the opinion part).
And yes, it's not really possible to be 100% objective even in reporting, but good reporting goes as close to that as possible. Biased reporting, on the other hand, is worse than marked opinion, because it makes the opinion look like hard facts.
In German public TV they once had a very nice demonstration of this: They purposefully made two oppositely biased "documentations" about the same East-German city (the report was a short time after the German re-unification). Both of them reported only hard facts, yet one of them painted the picture of a declining city which was essentially doomed, while the other one told the story of a booming city with a great future. And both did do it in a quite convincing way.
I know that is the overwelming perspective you see on slashdot, but believe me there are plenty of people who want DRM who are not just big nasty corporations. Some people (myself included) see no problem with a technology that prevents unauthorised viewing, use or copying of something provided it does not interfere with legitimate users in any way.
It is impossible to have effective DRM which doesn't interfere with legitimate users.
Let me repeat: Impossible.
First, to enable everyone to watch content they paid for on any capable device they want to, the DRM would have to be implemented on every system under the sun. Remember why the CSS encryption of DVDs were cracked? No, not in order to enable people to distribute unauthorized copies of DVDs. Just in order to watch legally owned DVDs on Linux systems. If there's a legitimate thing which you may want to do with a DVD you own, it is to watch it, wouldn't you agree?
Another example: Taking a single screen shot from a movie is usually considered fair use. Therefore if the DRM scheme doesn't permit it, it will interfere with legitimate use. But if the DRM permits it, then it will be ineffective, because you could simply screenshot every single frame, and put those images together into a copy of the movie (of course, you'd also have to somehow copy/re-add the sound track).
Yet another example: As soon as the copyright ends, everyone should be able to use the work freely (that's the whole point of the copyright ending). However, the DRM will not end. And how exactly is it supposed to end at the right time, especially given that the end of copyright differs in different legislations, and may be changed at any time (OK, the copyright changes in the US are quite predictable: Just look when Mickey Mouse copyright would end, then the copyright period will be extended)? And if the scheme relies on an external server, it interferes with legitimate use in that you won't be able to watch the content any time you cannot reach the server, for whatever reason. Also, it wouldn't really solve the problem anyway, because what incentive would the company have to keep the server running after the work is out of copyright, if it only handles permissions anyway afterwards? And of course, what happens if the company goes bankrupt? Who is going to operate the server? Of course you could make your DRM so that if the server is unreachable, it is assumed that you have the right to play the content. That would remove the problems, but it also would remove any effectiveness: Just block access to the server at your router, and you have unlimited access.
So let me state the point again in all clearness:
Effective DRM which does not interfere with legitimate users is impossible.
And on the other side, "not normal" usually means "worse than normal", although by the meaning of the word, better than normal would also be not normal.
Indeed "exceptional" and "not normal" formally mean exactly the same, but in actual usage are quite the opposite of each other.
You mean, like you still have a choice if someone puts a gun on your head and demands your money, because after all, you could just choose to get killed?
Also note that if you don't have the money to pay the cost of the recourse, you do not have the choice to spend it.
Sure, the waitress knew that you were at that bar every Friday, and what your favourite drink was. Possibly the cashier at your favourite grocery shop knows what you usually buy at that grocery shop. And there's probably some gas station which knows quite well how much gas you need. That's not a big problem because everyone only gets a little bit of the big picture, and it's unlikely that e.g. the waitress will sell her knowledge to anyone.
To make a car analogy: Few people will see a problem if someone is driving behind them on the highway for a few miles. However if the same car is following them every time they are driving somewhere to whereever they drive, most people would see a problem. And if they know that there's someone in the car who collects all the movement data and sells it to anyone paying enough, very few people would accept that.
What advertising companies do is exactly that, just that there's no observing person or car involved, making it practical to follow many people around, while most of them won't even notice it.
First, what you consider as misbehaving may not be the same as what the government considers as misbehaving. Think dissidents, who certainly are seen as misbehaving by their respective governments.
Second, even if you didn't explicitly say it, your comment shows that you are one of those who think "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Well, I'm not going to mention the obvious counterexample, as I don't want to Godwin this thread.
And no, privacy is not about a rule-free context. There are things you don't want others to know even if they are not illegal, nor immoral.
Also note that privacy and anonymity are not synonymous. For example, if a policeman for some reason would ask me to identify myself, it would certainly end my anonymity relative to him, but not necessarily my privacy. On the other hand, if the police would be listening to my phone calls, I certainly wouldn't have any privacy on my phone, and that would be true even if for some reason the police wouldn't know whose phone they are listening to (for example, someone mistyped the phone number when initiating the wiretapping).
Take away their power by no longer playing the game.
There is only one possible way to stop playing.
That way would interest me. After all, even if you die, your death will be tracked. Actually it's one of the few things which have already traditionally be tracked and stored for extended times, on tombstones.
Even if it is just personalized ads now it might not stay that way. Imagine your health insurance being more expensive because you're regularly buying alcoholics (of course they won't tell you that, they'll just tell you that you are in a higher risk group, if they even tell you as much). Or even worse, you have to pay more because you are living in a neighbourhood where people on average buy more alcoholics. Maybe you'll also get higher credit interest rates at your bank. Without explanation, of course.
The point is that you may not actually notice it. The bank will not tell you "oh, you live in an area with above-average alcohol consumption, so your interest rate is higher." It will rather tell you "we have analysed your situation and this is the interest rate we consider appropriate." Without indicating that "your situation" does not only include your financial situation and credit record, but also the your buying habits and that of of your neighbourhood.
Then don't see a "like" button. RequestPolicy is your friend.
Google is harder, thanks to googleapis. Many sites using them are unusable without. I haven't found a solution to that (other than to not use the site).
And your credit card companies have a full psychological profile of you anyways.
Speak about yourself. My credit card company has a very incomplete picture about me. It knows some of my travels, but that's mostly it. It doesn't know what I bought at the groceries (or where I buy). It doesn't know if I've been to a pharmacy last year, and if so, how often. It doesn't know which books I read, or if I read books at all. It doesn't know which clothes I wear. It doesn't even know about the computer I'm typing this comment on.
It's my understanding that tracking is done by cookies. I delete all cookies 2-3 times a day, and always after logging out of Google (which I rarely log in to) and Facebook. The only downside is that I have to log in to again to certain sites but that is easy because of OS X's built-in password manager.
And even if you manage to block everything, your browser still sends some identifying information by default. With JavaScript, even more partially identifying information can be collected, like screen resolution,your time zone or feature tests which might identify your browser even if you send a forged HTTP User Agent line (and the very fact that your browser line doesn't fit the JavaScript results might further help with identifying you).
However it seems to work OK without them. At least I don't allow it to access googleapis (or any other site, except fsdn.com), and I don't notice any problem (except that embedded videos don't work, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
What exploits would this enable which hibernating doesn't?
While that's certainly true for most "tech breakthroughs" you're probably writing that comment on an "IBM PC or compatible". ;)
The IBM PC was no tech breakthrough, it was made basically of standard parts. Which is a large part of why it got so successful (the other part is that IBM created it).
"We'll be happy to give you the ionic liquid for free. The license for the patent? You go grab your check book and I'll start writing '0's."
Oh, great, I'll get it for $000.000.000.000.000? :-)
>Opinions are cheap....cynically designed to appeal to shallow, emotional outbursts
-then-
> I think this is just a natural progression of trends started in the 1990s. Hell, maybe it started a lot earlier than that, but that's when I remember things getting worse>
Cynical, check
Opinion, check
Emotional, somewhat
Yet another cheap opinion?
Is was a comment after all.
Only a study can tell apart common knowledge from common prejudice.
Sorry, but I can't find that claim in the linked report. I only find the statistics that about 1/3 of all bloggers consider what they do jounalism. The report also mention that even those who don't, usually fact-check.
If the report claims this and I just didn't find it, please say where exacty this claim can be found.
Of course. But what the OP was talking about is the parts not marked as opinion, but the reporting parts, which should be as objective as possible. What the OP questioned is how much of that reporting is actually biased, and thus not truly reporting (he also questioned how much of it is simply incorrect, which is already a strong hint he wasn't talking about the opinion part).
And yes, it's not really possible to be 100% objective even in reporting, but good reporting goes as close to that as possible. Biased reporting, on the other hand, is worse than marked opinion, because it makes the opinion look like hard facts.
In German public TV they once had a very nice demonstration of this: They purposefully made two oppositely biased "documentations" about the same East-German city (the report was a short time after the German re-unification). Both of them reported only hard facts, yet one of them painted the picture of a declining city which was essentially doomed, while the other one told the story of a booming city with a great future. And both did do it in a quite convincing way.
OK, so you can say "this is the person of whom I cannot prove I got a threatening message from." Good luck convincing the judge.
It is impossible to have effective DRM which doesn't interfere with legitimate users.
Let me repeat: Impossible.
First, to enable everyone to watch content they paid for on any capable device they want to, the DRM would have to be implemented on every system under the sun. Remember why the CSS encryption of DVDs were cracked? No, not in order to enable people to distribute unauthorized copies of DVDs. Just in order to watch legally owned DVDs on Linux systems. If there's a legitimate thing which you may want to do with a DVD you own, it is to watch it, wouldn't you agree?
Another example: Taking a single screen shot from a movie is usually considered fair use. Therefore if the DRM scheme doesn't permit it, it will interfere with legitimate use. But if the DRM permits it, then it will be ineffective, because you could simply screenshot every single frame, and put those images together into a copy of the movie (of course, you'd also have to somehow copy/re-add the sound track).
Yet another example: As soon as the copyright ends, everyone should be able to use the work freely (that's the whole point of the copyright ending). However, the DRM will not end. And how exactly is it supposed to end at the right time, especially given that the end of copyright differs in different legislations, and may be changed at any time (OK, the copyright changes in the US are quite predictable: Just look when Mickey Mouse copyright would end, then the copyright period will be extended)? And if the scheme relies on an external server, it interferes with legitimate use in that you won't be able to watch the content any time you cannot reach the server, for whatever reason. Also, it wouldn't really solve the problem anyway, because what incentive would the company have to keep the server running after the work is out of copyright, if it only handles permissions anyway afterwards? And of course, what happens if the company goes bankrupt? Who is going to operate the server? Of course you could make your DRM so that if the server is unreachable, it is assumed that you have the right to play the content. That would remove the problems, but it also would remove any effectiveness: Just block access to the server at your router, and you have unlimited access.
So let me state the point again in all clearness:
Effective DRM which does not interfere with legitimate users is impossible.
Obviously Slashdotters are no species.
In a proper inquisitorial system, the judges are independent, and the state cannot give them orders of any kind.
And on the other side, "not normal" usually means "worse than normal", although by the meaning of the word, better than normal would also be not normal.
Indeed "exceptional" and "not normal" formally mean exactly the same, but in actual usage are quite the opposite of each other.
You mean, like there are no fast or slow cars because no single car goes at the speed of light?
You mean, like you still have a choice if someone puts a gun on your head and demands your money, because after all, you could just choose to get killed?
Also note that if you don't have the money to pay the cost of the recourse, you do not have the choice to spend it.
Sure, the waitress knew that you were at that bar every Friday, and what your favourite drink was. Possibly the cashier at your favourite grocery shop knows what you usually buy at that grocery shop. And there's probably some gas station which knows quite well how much gas you need. That's not a big problem because everyone only gets a little bit of the big picture, and it's unlikely that e.g. the waitress will sell her knowledge to anyone.
To make a car analogy: Few people will see a problem if someone is driving behind them on the highway for a few miles. However if the same car is following them every time they are driving somewhere to whereever they drive, most people would see a problem. And if they know that there's someone in the car who collects all the movement data and sells it to anyone paying enough, very few people would accept that.
What advertising companies do is exactly that, just that there's no observing person or car involved, making it practical to follow many people around, while most of them won't even notice it.
First, what you consider as misbehaving may not be the same as what the government considers as misbehaving. Think dissidents, who certainly are seen as misbehaving by their respective governments.
Second, even if you didn't explicitly say it, your comment shows that you are one of those who think "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Well, I'm not going to mention the obvious counterexample, as I don't want to Godwin this thread.
And no, privacy is not about a rule-free context. There are things you don't want others to know even if they are not illegal, nor immoral.
Also note that privacy and anonymity are not synonymous. For example, if a policeman for some reason would ask me to identify myself, it would certainly end my anonymity relative to him, but not necessarily my privacy. On the other hand, if the police would be listening to my phone calls, I certainly wouldn't have any privacy on my phone, and that would be true even if for some reason the police wouldn't know whose phone they are listening to (for example, someone mistyped the phone number when initiating the wiretapping).
It's feeding the data to those who actually govern the world these days.
Take away their power by no longer playing the game.
There is only one possible way to stop playing.
That way would interest me. After all, even if you die, your death will be tracked. Actually it's one of the few things which have already traditionally be tracked and stored for extended times, on tombstones.
Even if it is just personalized ads now it might not stay that way. Imagine your health insurance being more expensive because you're regularly buying alcoholics (of course they won't tell you that, they'll just tell you that you are in a higher risk group, if they even tell you as much). Or even worse, you have to pay more because you are living in a neighbourhood where people on average buy more alcoholics. Maybe you'll also get higher credit interest rates at your bank. Without explanation, of course.
The point is that you may not actually notice it. The bank will not tell you "oh, you live in an area with above-average alcohol consumption, so your interest rate is higher." It will rather tell you "we have analysed your situation and this is the interest rate we consider appropriate." Without indicating that "your situation" does not only include your financial situation and credit record, but also the your buying habits and that of of your neighbourhood.
Then don't see a "like" button. RequestPolicy is your friend.
Google is harder, thanks to googleapis. Many sites using them are unusable without. I haven't found a solution to that (other than to not use the site).
Maybe it exercised itself?
Speak about yourself. My credit card company has a very incomplete picture about me. It knows some of my travels, but that's mostly it. It doesn't know what I bought at the groceries (or where I buy). It doesn't know if I've been to a pharmacy last year, and if so, how often. It doesn't know which books I read, or if I read books at all. It doesn't know which clothes I wear. It doesn't even know about the computer I'm typing this comment on.
It's my understanding that tracking is done by cookies. I delete all cookies 2-3 times a day, and always after logging out of Google (which I rarely log in to) and Facebook. The only downside is that I have to log in to again to certain sites but that is easy because of OS X's built-in password manager.
Cookies are just the simplest way to track you. Another common way is to use DSOs (Flash storage). And there are also several other possibilities to store identifying data.
And even if you manage to block everything, your browser still sends some identifying information by default. With JavaScript, even more partially identifying information can be collected, like screen resolution, your time zone or feature tests which might identify your browser even if you send a forged HTTP User Agent line (and the very fact that your browser line doesn't fit the JavaScript results might further help with identifying you).
However it seems to work OK without them. At least I don't allow it to access googleapis (or any other site, except fsdn.com), and I don't notice any problem (except that embedded videos don't work, of course).
man evercookie