The reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the rights granted in the first.
Neither the First nor Second Amendments grant rights. They exist to try to prevent the government from restricting the people in exercising the rights that already exist.
Both speak in terms of the government not restricting something and do not define that something as a right. For example: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is assumed; the active part of that sentence is that government shall not infringe upon that right. The First is written the same way. "Congress shall make no law" to limit a list of rights that are already assumed to belong to the people.
The intent was that the militia, composed automatically of all able bodied men, of which personal gun ownership was a requirement,
No. The INTENT is stated in the sentence itself: "the right of the PEOPLE". It does not say "the right of anyone who might be in the militia".
The clause talking about the militia is not a defining clause, it is descriptive. It gives ONE REASON why the right should not be infringed, and it still means that it is a right. I.e., it is not granted by the Constitution, it is affirmed, and thus "only applies to likely militia members" is absurd on its face.
The proper way to deal with the 2nd is amend or abolish,
You do realize that the concept behind the Bill of Rights is not that the government is granting that right, and can thus rescind it by simply amending or deleting it from the list, but that it is a basic inalienable right that exists and is listed to ensure that the government is restricted from infringing on it. The authors had just gone through a time under a government that enjoyed infringing on rights of the public and they wanted to make sure the government they were creating would not do so. Also, the Bill of Rights is not an afterthought.
It's a pretty sad day when people argue that items already in the Bill of Rights should be removed so that the government can more freely infringe on the rights of the people.
not try to re-write history and pretend it's essentially void.
That's what every person who points to the clause about "militia" is trying to do, you know.
Oh, be real. Of course someone checks. It's done in public, right where everyone can see.
Many don't even check their own email, they have staff to do that.
So not only will they see how their vote was recorded AS IT IS CAST, and the party leaders who track who votes what way, and the other party members who are also voting, their staff will be able to see. So more people who can check, not less.
And then just think of the costs, every detected error will need to be investigated,
Oh my. If something breaks it has to be fixed. The horrors.
If you cant imagine how difficult it is to secure an electronic system from abuse, it is because you are insufficiently imaginative.
If you think electronic voting on such a small scale with such a limited audience is going to be a successful target for hackers, you're too paranoid. Yes, you can create all kinds of fictional problems, and try to apply large scale secret ballot issues to this, but that's just nonsense.
This kind of system has been in place for decades without problems. All of a sudden because the Aussies are doing it, it's fraught with peril and danger.
A large amount of federal funding was used to pay for the network infrastructure, too. By your own logic, Net Neutrality needs to be reinstated because of that alone.
Wrong. The strings attached to federal funding of included prevention of such nonsense as $1 million landing fees. There were no strings regarding net neutrality in any federal funding for federal infrastructure, and most of the complaints about NN are over private networks and corporations.
If it WERE an argument to reinstate NN, then it is an argument to do so at the FEDERAL level, not using a patchwork of state and local regulation.
In any case, the DESIGN of the network includes the differentiation of traffic that is apparently prohibited by the CA law. Not only is it the wrong place, it does the wrong thing.
They can also refuse Federal airport funds or take a cut in funding.
You should stop making knee-jerk responses in things you so clearly do not understand.
According to Wikipedia, MSY (New Orleans International Airport) has more than 5.5 million "enplanements" per year. New Orleans (the operator of that airport) is not going to lose its federal control tower, TSA services, or any other federal funding in a stupid attempt at banning jet aircraft from the state. Nor will any of the other cities that run airports. That includes general aviation airports that exist primarily due to federal funding for upgrades and improvements. It's not even a case of being able to refuse new funding, they have already accepted money with the strings attached.
You might as well have claimed that they'd be able to charge $1 million per landing because they could get the sun to come up in the west and the moon to be made of green cheese.
The perimeter rule you so glibly toss off as an example of airport restrictions is with the full approval and supervision of congress (who has mandated changes over time) and was not intended to "ban jet aircraft" but to move traffic to nearby airports that can better serve it. You could have also pointed to noise restrictions and traffic pattern rules as examples of local airport regulations, and those would be as relevant to this discussion as LGAs perimeter rules.
They could however charge them a $1,000,000 landing fee at all airports, other than in an emergency:D
That is a lie.
Such a fee would be slapped down in federal court (if not just by the FAA) due to the large amount of federal funding used to pay for those airports.
It is difficult to make an electronic system that is near invulnerable to tampering. That is the main complaint.
The Australian house of representatives has 150 voting members, each having been elected by their districts. These members are officially enrolled in the house and known to everyone else involved. The votes they cast are public, open, and on the record. The results can be displayed in real-time, by person and as a total. When Rep. A enters his vote electronically, it will be displayed next to his name, and not only can he see what the system records, but so can everyone else in his party or coalition.
If someone doubts the total, they can scan the display and count for themselves. One hundred fifty is a large number in some cases; when tallying votes it is not that hard. You can even count to 99 on your fingers, if you know the system. If you get to 100 -- overflow your fingers -- then you've met both the simple majority and any 2/3 majority requirements for legislation to pass. Most votes will be closer to 70-80. If you get to 76 on a simple majority vote, you can stop counting.
Explain how any "tampering" would go undetected for more than, say, 30 seconds, and why any evidence of failure to operate properly could not cause an immediate reversion to the existing system?
From paragraph 1: "Although sufficiently disturbing on its own, "
In other words, the main problem is the lack of FCC certification, but it ALSO has a problem... secondary issue.
From paragraph 3: "nine set top box distributors were referred to the FCC in October for enabling the unlawful streaming of copyrighted material, seven of which displayed the FCC logo, although there was no record of such compliance."
The first (topic) sentence of that paragraph, as well as the last part of the sentence you quoted only a fraction of, refers specifically to FCC certification. You're latching on to a minor part of the letter and claiming that it is the primary focus.
but it seems obvious to me that the reason why they're going after these particular devices is due to piracy, not primarily because of a lack of FCC authorization.
Other than the fact that the FCC specifically says that they don't have jurisdiction to act on the piracy issue, and that almost all of the letter deals with lack of authorization and certification, you would be right.
It's like you're complaining that they used the salutation "gentlemen" when you don't believe that either Bezos or Wenig are gentlemen. That's not what the letter is about.
But they make it really clear in the letter that it's really the piracy angle that is the actual concern.
I read the letter. It's the fraudulent use of FCC logo and claim of certification that is the issue. Let's recap:
Paragraph 1 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 2 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 3 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 4 talks about removing devices that are intended to facilitate intellectual property theft.
Paragraph 5 deals with "unlawful devices", which is because these are not certified and have false FCC logos.
Paragraph 6 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 7 thanks both companies first for "upholding the Commission's equipment authorization process" and then for fighting IP theft, and then fighting consumer fraud. Two of the three "thanks" are for FCC certification fraud.
It would seem that the failure to certify the devices and use of the FCC logo fraudulently is the majority, if not the vast majority, of what the letter is about. To claim that the "actual concern" is IP theft ignores the "elephant in the letter". As the letter puts it, it is "outside the jurisdiction of the Commission" to take any action based on piracy, but they certainly have jurisdiction and sufficient cause to order the withdrawal of sale of such equipment based on FCC and other federal regulations, whether or not piracy is involved in any way. In fact, if either eBay or Amazon are actually participants in the sale they could be fined for those sales.
I wonder if the FCC wants Amazon to stop selling the Fire TV devices as well - given that they are also capable of running Kodi...
Are Fire TV devices manufactured and sold in the US without the required FCC certification for unintentional radiators, using false marking claiming certification? Is there some federal regulation that talks about "running Kodi" that would make Fire TV devices illegal to sell in the US?
However, I think this is where the open source community should look to get involved. One of the chief complains about electronic voting systems is an inability to audit the system to ensure that it truly is accurate and fair.
Oh, please. This is a limited access system with a small, well-defined set of potential voters, each of whom can be vetted and identified, and who can look at the results to see if the system recorded their vote properly. It's not a "secret vote" system, and every such system I've seen in the US (for states, e.g.) has a large board with lights by each member's name showing how they voted.
This ain't the place to rant for open source because of transparency and some need to make sure it is fair. Nobody is going to be stuffing the ballot box and illegal aliens or otherwise unauthorized voters won't get anywhere close to the system.
And by logical extension don't provide consumers with even the means creating a wonderful race to the bottom.
Everything you can buy can be misused. Prohibit the sales of everything, because selling someone something just provides them a means of "creating a wonderful race to the bottom."
Funny how most beers wines and spirits are sold in glass bottles or cans, the exception tends to be cheap cider.
I don' t know why that is funny.
I do know that the vast majority of consumers are not carrying heavy bottles of beer or wine around to stay hydrated. The market is different.
Back when I was a lad
Last week is not this week.
If they shifted back to glass it would make a huge dent in the amount of plastic bottles being made and thrown away.
If they shifted back to glass only there would also be a serious dent in sales. That's why they haven't done so. You claim it is all positives to do that, but the facts show otherwise. If it was such a win for the companies, they'd have switched back a long time ago. They'd be marketing as the environmentally friendly company. But there's some reason this doesn't happen, and the customers are the most likely culprit.
In Ireland you pay for your waste to be taken away but you can choose to recycle bottles and cans for free.
I don't live in Ireland. I pay for my trash to be dealt with. If I wanted to spend my time in a completely unproductive way, I could "recycle" my bottles and be paid for it, but not enough to make it worth my time. I'll let the trash company I PAY TO DEAL WITH TRASH deal with them.
When you think about it a lot of plastic is for the connivence of super markets.
I've thought about it and I do not see the same thing. By the way, the instruction to "think about it" is patently insulting. You think you're the only one who has ever thought about this?
And I had my fillings replaced once consensus was that amalgam fillings were bad. I thought most people did?
What sane person would NOT want to go through the pain and expense of having perfectly good metal fillings and caps replaced just because arth1 thinks they should be? I'm sure that the insurance companies that paid for the originals would be excited about paying for the replacements.
E.g using glass bottles instead of plastic is penalty free.
Other than the dangers to the public from broken glass where a plastic bottle would not have caused injury, maybe. The cost of shipping heavy glass instead of plastic is also a penalty.
Currently offering products in glass bottles instead of plastic would build market share. People want to do something to reduce their contribution to plastic waste.
People want convenience. That's why plastic bottles are so popular. Manufacturers would not use them if people didn't buy them. People can already buy glass instead of plastic if they choose; clearly they don't choose.
Just one example: people want the convenience of portable potable water. Thus, the thousands of brands and types of water in plastic bottles. Converting all those into glass bottles makes them a lot less convenient. They will break instead of bounce when dropped, they're heavier. They're bulkier. They're less convenient.
Now, you may not care about portable potable water being convenient, so you'll just toss off a flippant "so what?" as a response to all of that, but for the people who care it makes a difference.
As for wanting to do something about plastic waste, they already do. They expect the company that picks up their trash to deal with it. That's why they pay the trash company. The trash company can make 10 cents a bottle locally by pulling bottles from the trash stream -- the fact that they don't do it isn't my fault.
It's pretty basic. Currently manufacturers are not responsible for the costs of disposing of their products.
They aren't the ones disposing of their products, so it seems reasonable that they aren't responsible for consumers who dispose of them inappropriately.
They can make them as toxic and environmentally problematic as they want
I think a spate of people dying from using toxic plastic forks would be noticed and something would be done. They notice toxic shellfish outbreaks, and toxic salad greens.
unjust but the rest of us find it equally unjust that private profit making companies can drown us in plastic garbage,
If you are drowning in plastic garbage, talk to your neighbors. They're the ones disposing of things incorrectly.
And you know this is all that amazon listens to how?
I didn't say that was all that Alexa listens to. I said it was all that was recorded. Of course it listens for its wake-up command. Nobody has said otherwise.
If it is recording everything, then it has to be sending it back to Amazon all the time, and network monitoring shows that it is not doing that. It doesn't have enough memory to record it locally, and people have dissected them to see what's inside to know.
Because dumbasses like you think that you know what triggers the spyware, and the rest of us understand that you're eating the shit sandwich they serve you.
Well, I guess if all you have is ad homenem, use what you know.
Look dude, you're claiming knowledge that you just don't have.
You mean like the people that knew that the Alexa involved here didn't ask for confirmation, and those that "know" it is recording everything? That kind of claim?
Where do you get off suggesting that you know the truth and the rest of us running the fuck away from this spyware are actually less knowledgeable?
Because the hyperbole surrounding the hysteria is almost by definition "less knowledgeable", and I know what I've seen the device doing and not doing. When I see those with such "perfect knowledge" making preposterous claims, I know they're using hyperbole or just plain lying to make some point.
Where do you get off telling people that they are stupid for making life choices just because YOU can't see the value to them, and that you have so much more knowledge about how they should live their lives than they do? I really don't care if you don't want to use the devices and you want to run from them like they're distributing plague virus. That's fine with me. Just stop pretending you have special knowledge about my life and what I value and don't value, and pretending that I shouldn't have the right to decide for myself if what Alexa might overhear is earthshattering in it's privacy invasion. You know what? I haven't said anything that it has been listening to that is super-duper ultra-secret, and most of what it recorded when it was listening was police scanner chatter or TV audio. I actually thought it was funny to hear all the "Lexus" cars being pulled over, and all the times that Alexi Lalas was referred to by name.
Now, I long ago decided it wasn't worth having it listen for commands (except for potential uses I've mentioned before where I write the interface code), but you don't seem to think I should be allowed to make that decision for myself. That's where you step way over the line. You decide stuff for you and I'll decide stuff for me, and you keep the fuck out of my way, ok? That was rhetorical, I know what your answer will be, and it will be ignored.
Seems to me if this thing was close enough to record their conversation it was close enough for them hear it ask for confirmation, but that doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere.
It wasn't addressed because it only "seems to you". If the volume was turned down, or they just weren't expecting to hear anything asking them questions, then it seems quite plausible that they didn't hear it asking. I have radios on at the house all the time and unless I am actually paying attention it is quite easy to miss a radio call.
In any case, it did ask, twice. It's documented. And no, it really isn't that implausible if you have any experience with anything like this.
I believe I'm being productive by getting rid of unproductive and useless toys.
Your comment had nothing to do with you getting rid of things you don't want. It was telling others what they don't need and they should get rid of them. That's the non-productive part.
You are free to define what you want and need. Not so much when you try to do it for everyone else. The latter is just arrogance and completely unproductive.
Nah! Get rid of 'em. Nobody needs these devices in the first place.
Was this comment supposed to be productive?
Ninety-nine percent of our economy (at least in the first world) is based on things that nobody really needs but are convenient. TV, radio, pre-manufactured clothing, pre-woven cloth, potato chips, etc. It's all convenience so we can spend our time doing things other than subsistence farming or hunting.
I'm trying very hard to remember the last time I needed/., or that anyone really needed it, and yet you are here posting as if your comment meant something and we needed to read it. Go figure.
There is too much of ~then some noise in the background is interpreted as a command~ excuses to make it a plausible explanation for me.
Do you own one, and have you ever listened to the recordings after it has done something it thought you told it to do? If not, then you have no idea what is plausible, because this scenario is exactly what several of us in the previous discussion predicted as the cause. It also shows that Alexa asked for information explicitly, and for a confirmation like a few people here said it should have done.
They also claimed we know it did not ask, but now we all know different, don't we?
The fact that they know what happened to this level of detail means that it's always recording
No, it doesn't. It means that it records command sessions so that the user can go back and hear what it was that triggered some event.
and they can go back to their records far enough, even days later.
So can the owner. I've heard what triggers Alexa to wake up because I can listen to the interaction using the app.
Turn this shit off.
If you are telling people to turn the device off entirely, well, if you don't want one don't buy one, and if you have one and suddenly realized that it is listening to what you say and you want to shut it off, then unplug it. Problem solved.
If you are telling Amazon to stop keeping recordings of what interactions Alexa has with the owners, then get screwed. I want to know what caused mine to wake up when I have it on, and how it interpreted the commands. If you're never going to own one then why do you think you can tell others how it should work?
I'm sorry that English is not your first language. If something SHOULD be done and HAS been done, then it is not meaningful to harp on the idea that it SHOULD be done, because it already was. Thus, the implication is that you believe it has not. That's assuming you are trying to say something relevant to the discussion. Perhaps that is my error?
Here's an analogy -- "you should not type your comments in all upper-case". Hey, you didn't do that! Why do I need to lecture you about that if you didn't do it? The IMPLICATION is, when I tell you not to do something, that you were doing it. Why would I tell you what you should NOT do unless you were doing it? So, why is it hard to understand that when YOU say that something SHOULD be done that you are implying that it was not?
It would also stop more butt-dialing if it asked for confirmation 2 times,
Yes, it would. But you said that it would be difficult for the phone to ask for confirmation, and that's what I replied to. It is not hard for the phone to ask once, twice, or ten times. It is a program. The phone will do what it is programmed to do, and there are already programs on the phone that ask for confirmation before continuing. It's a design element in the Android UI. It is not difficult at all for the phone to ask.
Now you're trying to debate how many times it should ask. If it is so amazingly difficult to do, why would you suggest it do it more than once?
We don't know that Alexa did not do that.
Oh, come on, you're just trying to save face now.
I'm stating a fact as it was known at the time this discussion began. We do not know that Alexa did not ask for verification. I don't know that we still don't know whether it did or not.
If Alexa asked for, and received confirmation, it would have been a non-story.
You have already admitted that asking for verification on dialing a cell phone would not stop all butt-dialing. But somehow, asking for verification on sending a message using Alexa would stop all such events and make it a "non-story".
We already know that Alexa heard something it thought was its wakeup word. We also know that Alexa heard something that sounded like "send a message to...". It is not out of the realm of possibility that Alexa could also have heard something it interpreted as approval when it asked for verification (just like a false press on the "ok" verification for butt dialing.)
It would have meant its owners are complete retards.
It would have meant that the owners would have said something that was misinterpreted as approval, just like they already said things that sounded like a command to wake up and a command to send a message. Why do you think that this makes them "complete retards"?
Here's a trivial example of how this could have happened. HIM: "We need to get some new flooring." HER: "Your cousin Alex is a dealer, maybe he can help?" HIM: "No, let's call Frank at FloorWorld, we've dealt with him before..." HER: "Yes, that's a good idea."
So yeah, we DO know it didn't do that.
Sorry, but no, we don't know any such thing.
Wait, didn't you just waste everyone's time telling me you hadn't actually said it did not ask, and now you are telling me that it did not ask? WTF? Which is it?
Now, where did I say it didn't? Hmm, let me check. Nowhere.
When you say that something should be done, the implication is that it has not been.
If you want to be pedantic, show me where I said you claimed it had not been done. I said "we don't know that it didn't".
And about the phone asking for a confirmation, first off it's a nuisance to ask "are you sure" for every call,
Yes, it is, but it is a nuisance that COULD be done and would help limit butt-dialing as a problem. You said it would be difficult for the phone to ask for confirmation, and no, it is trivial for the phone to do that.
second it won't help because your butt could press "yes" just as well.
That's why I said it would deal with a lot of the butt-dialing. It wouldn't prevent it 100%, but it would stop a lot of it. Most people would agree that limiting the number of times a mistake happens is helping, but maybe you don't.
It's much easier for a voice-activated device to ask for confirmation and receive it without any confusion.
We don't know that Alexa did not do that. It is also not that hard for the phone to ask for confirmation before dialing a number, so it really isn't "much easier" for Alexa compared to a standard cell phone. It may be easier for the user to enter the acknowledgement, but it's still not hard at all either way. It's one more press on a phone; it's just a couple of additional words for Alexa.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the rights granted in the first.
Neither the First nor Second Amendments grant rights. They exist to try to prevent the government from restricting the people in exercising the rights that already exist.
Both speak in terms of the government not restricting something and do not define that something as a right. For example: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is assumed; the active part of that sentence is that government shall not infringe upon that right. The First is written the same way. "Congress shall make no law" to limit a list of rights that are already assumed to belong to the people.
The intent was that the militia, composed automatically of all able bodied men, of which personal gun ownership was a requirement,
No. The INTENT is stated in the sentence itself: "the right of the PEOPLE". It does not say "the right of anyone who might be in the militia". The clause talking about the militia is not a defining clause, it is descriptive. It gives ONE REASON why the right should not be infringed, and it still means that it is a right. I.e., it is not granted by the Constitution, it is affirmed, and thus "only applies to likely militia members" is absurd on its face.
The proper way to deal with the 2nd is amend or abolish,
You do realize that the concept behind the Bill of Rights is not that the government is granting that right, and can thus rescind it by simply amending or deleting it from the list, but that it is a basic inalienable right that exists and is listed to ensure that the government is restricted from infringing on it. The authors had just gone through a time under a government that enjoyed infringing on rights of the public and they wanted to make sure the government they were creating would not do so. Also, the Bill of Rights is not an afterthought.
It's a pretty sad day when people argue that items already in the Bill of Rights should be removed so that the government can more freely infringe on the rights of the people.
not try to re-write history and pretend it's essentially void.
That's what every person who points to the clause about "militia" is trying to do, you know.
Because no-one checks.
Oh, be real. Of course someone checks. It's done in public, right where everyone can see.
Many don't even check their own email, they have staff to do that.
So not only will they see how their vote was recorded AS IT IS CAST, and the party leaders who track who votes what way, and the other party members who are also voting, their staff will be able to see. So more people who can check, not less.
And then just think of the costs, every detected error will need to be investigated,
Oh my. If something breaks it has to be fixed. The horrors.
If you cant imagine how difficult it is to secure an electronic system from abuse, it is because you are insufficiently imaginative.
If you think electronic voting on such a small scale with such a limited audience is going to be a successful target for hackers, you're too paranoid. Yes, you can create all kinds of fictional problems, and try to apply large scale secret ballot issues to this, but that's just nonsense.
This kind of system has been in place for decades without problems. All of a sudden because the Aussies are doing it, it's fraught with peril and danger.
A large amount of federal funding was used to pay for the network infrastructure, too. By your own logic, Net Neutrality needs to be reinstated because of that alone.
Wrong. The strings attached to federal funding of included prevention of such nonsense as $1 million landing fees. There were no strings regarding net neutrality in any federal funding for federal infrastructure, and most of the complaints about NN are over private networks and corporations.
If it WERE an argument to reinstate NN, then it is an argument to do so at the FEDERAL level, not using a patchwork of state and local regulation.
In any case, the DESIGN of the network includes the differentiation of traffic that is apparently prohibited by the CA law. Not only is it the wrong place, it does the wrong thing.
They can also refuse Federal airport funds or take a cut in funding.
You should stop making knee-jerk responses in things you so clearly do not understand.
According to Wikipedia, MSY (New Orleans International Airport) has more than 5.5 million "enplanements" per year. New Orleans (the operator of that airport) is not going to lose its federal control tower, TSA services, or any other federal funding in a stupid attempt at banning jet aircraft from the state. Nor will any of the other cities that run airports. That includes general aviation airports that exist primarily due to federal funding for upgrades and improvements. It's not even a case of being able to refuse new funding, they have already accepted money with the strings attached.
You might as well have claimed that they'd be able to charge $1 million per landing because they could get the sun to come up in the west and the moon to be made of green cheese.
The perimeter rule you so glibly toss off as an example of airport restrictions is with the full approval and supervision of congress (who has mandated changes over time) and was not intended to "ban jet aircraft" but to move traffic to nearby airports that can better serve it. You could have also pointed to noise restrictions and traffic pattern rules as examples of local airport regulations, and those would be as relevant to this discussion as LGAs perimeter rules.
They could however charge them a $1,000,000 landing fee at all airports, other than in an emergency :D
That is a lie. Such a fee would be slapped down in federal court (if not just by the FAA) due to the large amount of federal funding used to pay for those airports.
It is difficult to make an electronic system that is near invulnerable to tampering. That is the main complaint.
The Australian house of representatives has 150 voting members, each having been elected by their districts. These members are officially enrolled in the house and known to everyone else involved. The votes they cast are public, open, and on the record. The results can be displayed in real-time, by person and as a total. When Rep. A enters his vote electronically, it will be displayed next to his name, and not only can he see what the system records, but so can everyone else in his party or coalition.
If someone doubts the total, they can scan the display and count for themselves. One hundred fifty is a large number in some cases; when tallying votes it is not that hard. You can even count to 99 on your fingers, if you know the system. If you get to 100 -- overflow your fingers -- then you've met both the simple majority and any 2/3 majority requirements for legislation to pass. Most votes will be closer to 70-80. If you get to 76 on a simple majority vote, you can stop counting.
Explain how any "tampering" would go undetected for more than, say, 30 seconds, and why any evidence of failure to operate properly could not cause an immediate reversion to the existing system?
From paragraph 1: "Although sufficiently disturbing on its own, "
In other words, the main problem is the lack of FCC certification, but it ALSO has a problem ... secondary issue.
From paragraph 3: "nine set top box distributors were referred to the FCC in October for enabling the unlawful streaming of copyrighted material, seven of which displayed the FCC logo, although there was no record of such compliance."
The first (topic) sentence of that paragraph, as well as the last part of the sentence you quoted only a fraction of, refers specifically to FCC certification. You're latching on to a minor part of the letter and claiming that it is the primary focus.
but it seems obvious to me that the reason why they're going after these particular devices is due to piracy, not primarily because of a lack of FCC authorization.
Other than the fact that the FCC specifically says that they don't have jurisdiction to act on the piracy issue, and that almost all of the letter deals with lack of authorization and certification, you would be right.
It's like you're complaining that they used the salutation "gentlemen" when you don't believe that either Bezos or Wenig are gentlemen. That's not what the letter is about.
No, it's not lack of FCC authorization. It's PRETENDING to FCC authorization that's the problem.
It's both. Devices like that require certification under Part 15 before they can be sold in the US. Forging the FCC label is fraud.
But they make it really clear in the letter that it's really the piracy angle that is the actual concern.
I read the letter. It's the fraudulent use of FCC logo and claim of certification that is the issue. Let's recap:
Paragraph 1 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 2 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 3 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 4 talks about removing devices that are intended to facilitate intellectual property theft.
Paragraph 5 deals with "unlawful devices", which is because these are not certified and have false FCC logos.
Paragraph 6 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.
Paragraph 7 thanks both companies first for "upholding the Commission's equipment authorization process" and then for fighting IP theft, and then fighting consumer fraud. Two of the three "thanks" are for FCC certification fraud.
It would seem that the failure to certify the devices and use of the FCC logo fraudulently is the majority, if not the vast majority, of what the letter is about. To claim that the "actual concern" is IP theft ignores the "elephant in the letter". As the letter puts it, it is "outside the jurisdiction of the Commission" to take any action based on piracy, but they certainly have jurisdiction and sufficient cause to order the withdrawal of sale of such equipment based on FCC and other federal regulations, whether or not piracy is involved in any way. In fact, if either eBay or Amazon are actually participants in the sale they could be fined for those sales.
I wonder if the FCC wants Amazon to stop selling the Fire TV devices as well - given that they are also capable of running Kodi...
Are Fire TV devices manufactured and sold in the US without the required FCC certification for unintentional radiators, using false marking claiming certification? Is there some federal regulation that talks about "running Kodi" that would make Fire TV devices illegal to sell in the US?
However, I think this is where the open source community should look to get involved. One of the chief complains about electronic voting systems is an inability to audit the system to ensure that it truly is accurate and fair.
Oh, please. This is a limited access system with a small, well-defined set of potential voters, each of whom can be vetted and identified, and who can look at the results to see if the system recorded their vote properly. It's not a "secret vote" system, and every such system I've seen in the US (for states, e.g.) has a large board with lights by each member's name showing how they voted.
This ain't the place to rant for open source because of transparency and some need to make sure it is fair. Nobody is going to be stuffing the ballot box and illegal aliens or otherwise unauthorized voters won't get anywhere close to the system.
And by logical extension don't provide consumers with even the means creating a wonderful race to the bottom.
Everything you can buy can be misused. Prohibit the sales of everything, because selling someone something just provides them a means of "creating a wonderful race to the bottom."
Funny how most beers wines and spirits are sold in glass bottles or cans, the exception tends to be cheap cider.
I don' t know why that is funny.
I do know that the vast majority of consumers are not carrying heavy bottles of beer or wine around to stay hydrated. The market is different.
Back when I was a lad
Last week is not this week.
If they shifted back to glass it would make a huge dent in the amount of plastic bottles being made and thrown away.
If they shifted back to glass only there would also be a serious dent in sales. That's why they haven't done so. You claim it is all positives to do that, but the facts show otherwise. If it was such a win for the companies, they'd have switched back a long time ago. They'd be marketing as the environmentally friendly company. But there's some reason this doesn't happen, and the customers are the most likely culprit.
In Ireland you pay for your waste to be taken away but you can choose to recycle bottles and cans for free.
I don't live in Ireland. I pay for my trash to be dealt with. If I wanted to spend my time in a completely unproductive way, I could "recycle" my bottles and be paid for it, but not enough to make it worth my time. I'll let the trash company I PAY TO DEAL WITH TRASH deal with them.
When you think about it a lot of plastic is for the connivence of super markets.
I've thought about it and I do not see the same thing. By the way, the instruction to "think about it" is patently insulting. You think you're the only one who has ever thought about this?
And I had my fillings replaced once consensus was that amalgam fillings were bad. I thought most people did?
What sane person would NOT want to go through the pain and expense of having perfectly good metal fillings and caps replaced just because arth1 thinks they should be? I'm sure that the insurance companies that paid for the originals would be excited about paying for the replacements.
E.g using glass bottles instead of plastic is penalty free.
Other than the dangers to the public from broken glass where a plastic bottle would not have caused injury, maybe. The cost of shipping heavy glass instead of plastic is also a penalty.
Currently offering products in glass bottles instead of plastic would build market share. People want to do something to reduce their contribution to plastic waste.
People want convenience. That's why plastic bottles are so popular. Manufacturers would not use them if people didn't buy them. People can already buy glass instead of plastic if they choose; clearly they don't choose.
Just one example: people want the convenience of portable potable water. Thus, the thousands of brands and types of water in plastic bottles. Converting all those into glass bottles makes them a lot less convenient. They will break instead of bounce when dropped, they're heavier. They're bulkier. They're less convenient.
Now, you may not care about portable potable water being convenient, so you'll just toss off a flippant "so what?" as a response to all of that, but for the people who care it makes a difference.
As for wanting to do something about plastic waste, they already do. They expect the company that picks up their trash to deal with it. That's why they pay the trash company. The trash company can make 10 cents a bottle locally by pulling bottles from the trash stream -- the fact that they don't do it isn't my fault.
It's pretty basic. Currently manufacturers are not responsible for the costs of disposing of their products.
They aren't the ones disposing of their products, so it seems reasonable that they aren't responsible for consumers who dispose of them inappropriately.
They can make them as toxic and environmentally problematic as they want
I think a spate of people dying from using toxic plastic forks would be noticed and something would be done. They notice toxic shellfish outbreaks, and toxic salad greens.
unjust but the rest of us find it equally unjust that private profit making companies can drown us in plastic garbage,
If you are drowning in plastic garbage, talk to your neighbors. They're the ones disposing of things incorrectly.
And you know this is all that amazon listens to how?
I didn't say that was all that Alexa listens to. I said it was all that was recorded. Of course it listens for its wake-up command. Nobody has said otherwise.
If it is recording everything, then it has to be sending it back to Amazon all the time, and network monitoring shows that it is not doing that. It doesn't have enough memory to record it locally, and people have dissected them to see what's inside to know.
Because dumbasses like you think that you know what triggers the spyware, and the rest of us understand that you're eating the shit sandwich they serve you.
Well, I guess if all you have is ad homenem, use what you know.
Look dude, you're claiming knowledge that you just don't have.
You mean like the people that knew that the Alexa involved here didn't ask for confirmation, and those that "know" it is recording everything? That kind of claim?
Where do you get off suggesting that you know the truth and the rest of us running the fuck away from this spyware are actually less knowledgeable?
Because the hyperbole surrounding the hysteria is almost by definition "less knowledgeable", and I know what I've seen the device doing and not doing. When I see those with such "perfect knowledge" making preposterous claims, I know they're using hyperbole or just plain lying to make some point.
Where do you get off telling people that they are stupid for making life choices just because YOU can't see the value to them, and that you have so much more knowledge about how they should live their lives than they do? I really don't care if you don't want to use the devices and you want to run from them like they're distributing plague virus. That's fine with me. Just stop pretending you have special knowledge about my life and what I value and don't value, and pretending that I shouldn't have the right to decide for myself if what Alexa might overhear is earthshattering in it's privacy invasion. You know what? I haven't said anything that it has been listening to that is super-duper ultra-secret, and most of what it recorded when it was listening was police scanner chatter or TV audio. I actually thought it was funny to hear all the "Lexus" cars being pulled over, and all the times that Alexi Lalas was referred to by name.
Now, I long ago decided it wasn't worth having it listen for commands (except for potential uses I've mentioned before where I write the interface code), but you don't seem to think I should be allowed to make that decision for myself. That's where you step way over the line. You decide stuff for you and I'll decide stuff for me, and you keep the fuck out of my way, ok? That was rhetorical, I know what your answer will be, and it will be ignored.
Seems to me if this thing was close enough to record their conversation it was close enough for them hear it ask for confirmation, but that doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere.
It wasn't addressed because it only "seems to you". If the volume was turned down, or they just weren't expecting to hear anything asking them questions, then it seems quite plausible that they didn't hear it asking. I have radios on at the house all the time and unless I am actually paying attention it is quite easy to miss a radio call.
In any case, it did ask, twice. It's documented. And no, it really isn't that implausible if you have any experience with anything like this.
I believe I'm being productive by getting rid of unproductive and useless toys.
Your comment had nothing to do with you getting rid of things you don't want. It was telling others what they don't need and they should get rid of them. That's the non-productive part.
You are free to define what you want and need. Not so much when you try to do it for everyone else. The latter is just arrogance and completely unproductive.
Nah! Get rid of 'em. Nobody needs these devices in the first place.
Was this comment supposed to be productive?
Ninety-nine percent of our economy (at least in the first world) is based on things that nobody really needs but are convenient. TV, radio, pre-manufactured clothing, pre-woven cloth, potato chips, etc. It's all convenience so we can spend our time doing things other than subsistence farming or hunting.
I'm trying very hard to remember the last time I needed /., or that anyone really needed it, and yet you are here posting as if your comment meant something and we needed to read it. Go figure.
There is too much of ~then some noise in the background is interpreted as a command~ excuses to make it a plausible explanation for me.
Do you own one, and have you ever listened to the recordings after it has done something it thought you told it to do? If not, then you have no idea what is plausible, because this scenario is exactly what several of us in the previous discussion predicted as the cause. It also shows that Alexa asked for information explicitly, and for a confirmation like a few people here said it should have done.
They also claimed we know it did not ask, but now we all know different, don't we?
The fact that they know what happened to this level of detail means that it's always recording
No, it doesn't. It means that it records command sessions so that the user can go back and hear what it was that triggered some event.
and they can go back to their records far enough, even days later.
So can the owner. I've heard what triggers Alexa to wake up because I can listen to the interaction using the app.
Turn this shit off.
If you are telling people to turn the device off entirely, well, if you don't want one don't buy one, and if you have one and suddenly realized that it is listening to what you say and you want to shut it off, then unplug it. Problem solved.
If you are telling Amazon to stop keeping recordings of what interactions Alexa has with the owners, then get screwed. I want to know what caused mine to wake up when I have it on, and how it interpreted the commands. If you're never going to own one then why do you think you can tell others how it should work?
Not really, the implication is that it should.
I'm sorry that English is not your first language. If something SHOULD be done and HAS been done, then it is not meaningful to harp on the idea that it SHOULD be done, because it already was. Thus, the implication is that you believe it has not. That's assuming you are trying to say something relevant to the discussion. Perhaps that is my error?
Here's an analogy -- "you should not type your comments in all upper-case". Hey, you didn't do that! Why do I need to lecture you about that if you didn't do it? The IMPLICATION is, when I tell you not to do something, that you were doing it. Why would I tell you what you should NOT do unless you were doing it? So, why is it hard to understand that when YOU say that something SHOULD be done that you are implying that it was not?
It would also stop more butt-dialing if it asked for confirmation 2 times,
Yes, it would. But you said that it would be difficult for the phone to ask for confirmation, and that's what I replied to. It is not hard for the phone to ask once, twice, or ten times. It is a program. The phone will do what it is programmed to do, and there are already programs on the phone that ask for confirmation before continuing. It's a design element in the Android UI. It is not difficult at all for the phone to ask.
Now you're trying to debate how many times it should ask. If it is so amazingly difficult to do, why would you suggest it do it more than once?
We don't know that Alexa did not do that.
Oh, come on, you're just trying to save face now.
I'm stating a fact as it was known at the time this discussion began. We do not know that Alexa did not ask for verification. I don't know that we still don't know whether it did or not.
If Alexa asked for, and received confirmation, it would have been a non-story.
You have already admitted that asking for verification on dialing a cell phone would not stop all butt-dialing. But somehow, asking for verification on sending a message using Alexa would stop all such events and make it a "non-story".
We already know that Alexa heard something it thought was its wakeup word. We also know that Alexa heard something that sounded like "send a message to ...". It is not out of the realm of possibility that Alexa could also have heard something it interpreted as approval when it asked for verification (just like a false press on the "ok" verification for butt dialing.)
It would have meant its owners are complete retards.
It would have meant that the owners would have said something that was misinterpreted as approval, just like they already said things that sounded like a command to wake up and a command to send a message. Why do you think that this makes them "complete retards"?
Here's a trivial example of how this could have happened. HIM: "We need to get some new flooring." HER: "Your cousin Alex is a dealer, maybe he can help?" HIM: "No, let's call Frank at FloorWorld, we've dealt with him before ..." HER: "Yes, that's a good idea."
So yeah, we DO know it didn't do that.
Sorry, but no, we don't know any such thing.
Wait, didn't you just waste everyone's time telling me you hadn't actually said it did not ask, and now you are telling me that it did not ask? WTF? Which is it?
Now, where did I say it didn't? Hmm, let me check. Nowhere.
When you say that something should be done, the implication is that it has not been.
If you want to be pedantic, show me where I said you claimed it had not been done. I said "we don't know that it didn't".
And about the phone asking for a confirmation, first off it's a nuisance to ask "are you sure" for every call,
Yes, it is, but it is a nuisance that COULD be done and would help limit butt-dialing as a problem. You said it would be difficult for the phone to ask for confirmation, and no, it is trivial for the phone to do that.
second it won't help because your butt could press "yes" just as well.
That's why I said it would deal with a lot of the butt-dialing. It wouldn't prevent it 100%, but it would stop a lot of it. Most people would agree that limiting the number of times a mistake happens is helping, but maybe you don't.
It's much easier for a voice-activated device to ask for confirmation and receive it without any confusion.
We don't know that Alexa did not do that. It is also not that hard for the phone to ask for confirmation before dialing a number, so it really isn't "much easier" for Alexa compared to a standard cell phone. It may be easier for the user to enter the acknowledgement, but it's still not hard at all either way. It's one more press on a phone; it's just a couple of additional words for Alexa.