"These things aren't recording your speed over large periods of time, they aren't downloading info to any police car that asks for it, they aren't transmitting your position to some control centre."
"when i read about this on some other site, there were lots of people worried about the privacy implications i disagree. there things just record stuff like speed and when you hit the breaks. also, they keep on overwritting the old data, until you actually crash. the way is see it is that these things are just unbiased information, and while they can obviously be bad for you if you actually were speeding and got into an accident, they can also help you out if you got falsly accused"
Ever notice how technology is quickly rendering the Bill of Rights moot?
We have Cisco being browbeat into building insecure network products, so that the cops can get in...
We have your property, in the case of the car black box, storing information that can be used against you in the court of law...
Is there anything the 4th and 5th Amendments protect you FROM anymore?
"I'm sure the privacy advocates will be screaming 'bloody murder' about this one, but with all the idiots out there on the road, if common knowledge of this device can make people think twice about their behaviour on the road, then I'm all for it. My only concern would be as to the accuracy of the data it collects."
If that were the GOAL, they'd be TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT these things...
Saying that these devices are for "safety" is as big a lie as saying that cops set up speed traps (where they try to hide themselves instead of being VISIBLE so as to DETER speeding) is for "safety" not revenue.
The car companies put these in to be used to defend themselves from lawsuits. But, as anyone in IT should know, any place where information is collected, stored, and KEPT, it's able to be used for purposes other than it's intended.
If you store information, you are liable to produce it in court.
This is one reason why I think it's INSANE for companies to put in crappy internet "big brother" monitoring programs like Surfcontrol and Stellar.
"Say that you bought a $15,000 Canon ImageRunner copier/printer/fax/network (auto email and faxing from the desktop/panel) machine next month. During a troubleshooting call, your email address is recorded. A year from now, an update on firmware is available which fixes a severe security flaw in the version of Apache it runs for remote management through a web browser, or perhaps even the mail server it uses for automatic emailing of copied documents. Recently introduced bills would usually block a mass email from Canon alerting it's customers, because the email "appears" to be SPAM. But, since the bill in question was passed, Canon can get this important update to you. "
Would any REASOBABLE person object to such a notification?
I think not.
Seems to me like the DMA is behind this...
on
Cornucopia Of Spam Bills
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
While I want to see the likes of Ralsky wiped from the face of the Earth for their crimes against Humanity, I DON'T want to see them replaced with today's telespammer types.
Which is what the Tauzin bill would create.
As much as we hate spammers, the DMA hates them worse... Why? They are competition. They want to drive them away so they can take their place.
I pay for my bandwidth. "Marketers" should have to PAY ME for what they use of mine if they want to reach me with their copy. If they want to provide free bandwidth in exchange for receiving their crap, fine. Until they start SUBSIDIZING my internet bill (which is considerable, considering I'm running dual-dialups, because I can't yet get DSL or cable out here in the sticks), they have no RIGHT to intrude.
Unlike TV, which throws ads at me in exchange for "free" programming, or even websites that throw banners and even pop-ups at me in exchange for "free" content, a spammer gives NOTHING AT ALL to me in exchange for their intrusion.
I don't think even "prior business relations" should be an exception, unless there is an EXPLICIT OPT IN. But even then someone should be able to OPT OUT at any time they choose, and the spammer be obligated to stop.
Just like legit mailing lists. I opt in. When I want out, I opt out. Mail stops coming from the list.
Honestly, spam has such a HORRID reputation, does the DMA think they will EVER get it accepted?
"Hmmmm, I guess you dont pay taxes. Or ever use the post office. Part off the cost of sending a letter is the cost of receiving it. THe USPS is self sufficent, so money spent there goes towards all aspects, including delivering to your house."
Incorrect argument.
The point the poster made should have been that the cost of SENDING JUNK SNAILMAIL is borne by the SENDER. Not the recepient.
Do you think ANYONE could send out a billion junk snail mailings a day with a.5% (or less) response rate and make money?
They can with spam, because the cost of sending is shifted TO THE VICTIM. They don't bear hardly any of it.
Sure. It benefits the Spammer. I can't think of ONE SINGLE benefit to my e-mail inbox having to fight off 50-75 spams a day (fortunately Popfile makes 99+% of them bounce to the deleted items folder).
This is electronic harassment at the very least, Denial of Service at the worst. You see, I've NEVER ONCE bought anything from a spam solicitation, and I NEVER WILL.
Oh, and who benefits from the sale of fradulent products? I can't think of ANYTHING even halfway legit among the spam I get... It's all "D cup in the bottle, 18 inch penis, FAKE university diploma" type stuff.
SCO is using all sorts of GPL'ed code. They are in violation of the GPL with their actions, and as such, the FSF and other holders of copyright on that code can REVOKE their license to use it.
I'd imagine there are even GPL'ed apps bundled in UnixWare...
SCO is announcing to the world that they are prepared to go nuclear on this. So, everyone else needs to nuke them FIRST.
"The attempt to sue a major investor of Napster is equivalent to attempting to sue every mutual fund, investment bank, or major shareholder who owns Philip Morris for "Supporting a product that causes death and disease"
So, can we now all file lawsuits against every director, every major investor, VC firm, etc, associated with a RIAA label, for their contributon towards their illegal collusion in CD price fixing?
"Sadly, no. We're basically one Supreme Court ruling away from losing substancial liberties -- free speech, free assembly, privacy in our homes and bedrooms, free communication... not to mention second amendment rights, abortion, etc... Be afraid... and for God's sake, don't vote Republican."
OR Democrat. Their record on privacy is certainly no better.
They voted unanimously WITH the Republicans for the DMCA. Clinton signed it into law. Many also voted for the Patriot Act. Senator Hollings is a Democrat.
If you want civil liberties, there is ONLY one party that stands for that first and foremost:
The one thing that Novell could REALLY bring to Linux that'd revolutionize it would be NDS.
Of all the network directory services, I FAR prefer dealing with Novell NDS than I do Active Directory (a poor MS clone of NDS hacked onto NT 4's way of doing things that debuted with Win 2K server). An open source implimentaion of NDS on Linux would make Linux THE file server of choice...
The underlying Netware OS is horribly obsolete, still a DOS relic of the 1980's, but Novell Directory Services is the REAL gem Novell has left.
Sooner or later the DMCA will creep into other facets of life...
Cars, light fixtures, etc.
Why, light bulbs could be CHIPPED to make them fail within a certain time period... Fixtures could REFUSE to light the light if you don't use the light bulb of the manufacturer...
Your car could refuse to run on anything but GM Gas -tm, or refuse to start unless the tires have the manufacturer's chips in them.
"Considering that most spam is, directly or indirectly, an insult to the intelligence of the one that receives it, this kind of things is simply coherent with other messages."
True... Only the LEAST INTELLIGENT among us respond to spam. They are the.001 percent that encourages Ralsky and company to ANNOY MILLIONS WHO FUCKING WANT TO KILL THEM WITH REPATED STRIKES WITH A HAMMER TO VARIOUS LIMBS THEN THE HEAD who wouldn't buy a HEATER from them if stranded on the South Pole to reach them...
"Whats really annoying me now is that I'm getting spam selling anti-spam software. I mean how stupid do spammers think I am. I know how stupid they are"
And what moron would buy anti-spam software from a Spammer?!
That is as smart as buying your "secure" communications gear from the NSA...;)
"Spam is threatening connectivity and shutting down useful services. Open relays used to be a public convenience. Because of spam, if you set one up today, you'll find thousands of places blocking your traffic. Mailing lists used to allow non-subscribers to post. Because of spam, you now have to subscribe first before asking a question. We used to imagine the net as a worldwide utility. Because of spam, many people are now blocking everything from China."
Spam has basically made e-mail useless. What we need is an alternative to the current SMTP/POP3 system itself.
I have used filters, the first being McAfee Spamkiller (which uses static filters that they periodically update).
That was effective for a couple of months, but I soon realized that static filters would NEVER be able to keep up.
Then I got PopFile, which uses Bayesian filtering and works like a proxy server, and for the moment, I have my inbox back...
"he problems I've seen from large companies is that they hire "marketing" companies who say they have "opt-in" lists and then proceeds to spam the living hell. Complaining seems to just get you listwashed so I just end up blocking them. Seems to work"
Doesn't matter how many layers deep the originating company buries it. Somewhere there is STILL a transaction of money from that company that ends up in the spam.
And somewhere from the spam there is a resulting transaction that results in profit for that company.
Which, if it's a LEGAL enterprise, is all on the books. Else the company, managers and officers are comitting felonies.
If it's NOT a legal enterprise, then obviously the spammer himself is aiding and abetting, itself a crime.
How many want to guess how much crime and fraud have been aided and abetted by Ralsky and co?
"here are better things, for sure, but spam is not a small problem. It's fine that you can block out most of it and make it a minor annoyance, but what if everyone would do that? The end result would that there would that you would get more spam, because the spammers would be forced to find a way around your filtering system, which undoubtedly they eventually would do. Also, spam is overall a drain on resources: a drain on bandwidth, a drain on processing power passing them on from server to server, and a drain on disk space storing them, so spam is a problem, and it should be stopped, even if right now it is only a "minor annoyance"."
So, we should all leave our front doors unlocked, and the keys in our car's ignitions just to prevent the crook from having to WORK HARDER to violate our space?
I fail to see the logic in your agument, though I agree filtering is not the answer.
What should be illegal is unsolicited advertising that uses the victim's RESOURCES. That is theft.
I've been using PopFile for the last month and a half... Out of thousands of emails I've received, Popfile has made only a handful of mistakes. It runs over 99.3% accurate. I've used the same e-mail address for 5 years, and it's obviously on virtually all spam lists...
I too have noticed that the number and voracity of spam has increased DRAMATICALLY in the last few months. And lately some seem to find their way around my blockers.
I don't get it... If I am going to such extremes to AVOID spam, why should the spamemr WANT to go to lenghts to get around it? I obviously am someone who DOES NOT and WILL NOT patronize their products... So why waste the effort?
"Not arguing with your other statements, but with this one your trying to make it sound like a bad thing that there is some competition..If they didnt do the work, they would not get the contract..You have to compete in this global economy, its not handed to you on a plate in America any more!"
Ah, but here's the rub...
When the US economy collapses because high paying jobs are exported to countries that have workers willing to work for slave wages, Who will there be to buy the product?
This is one reason why I've elected to stay strictly in network/systems administration. That is the one job that is:
1. Relatively high paying 2. Cannot be exported to another country
There cannot be a "global" economy and competition until all countries participating are playing by the same rules. To operate in the US requires adherence to higher standards than in, say, India. Which is why it costs more.
It's unfair for American workers to have to compete against slave labor in our own economy.
"I almost wonder if they picked Boies just for that reason. Maybe they figure 13 years defending IBM will give him an edge trying to tackle IBM with a weak lawsuit."
Actually, if that is true, it's called "conflict of interest" and Boies should be DQ'ed immediately.
An attorney cannot breach attorney-client priveledge, hence the conflict of interest. If he represented IBM, he CANNOT oppose them.
Slashdot Mirror
"These things aren't recording your speed over large periods of time, they aren't downloading info to any police car that asks for it, they aren't transmitting your position to some control centre."
The missing word is... YET.
"when i read about this on some other site, there were lots of people worried about the privacy implications
i disagree. there things just record stuff like speed and when you hit the breaks. also, they keep on overwritting the old data, until you actually crash.
the way is see it is that these things are just unbiased information, and while they can obviously be bad for you if you actually were speeding and got into an accident, they can also help you out if you got falsly accused"
Ever notice how technology is quickly rendering the Bill of Rights moot?
We have Cisco being browbeat into building insecure network products, so that the cops can get in...
We have your property, in the case of the car black box, storing information that can be used against you in the court of law...
Is there anything the 4th and 5th Amendments protect you FROM anymore?
"I'm sure the privacy advocates will be screaming 'bloody murder' about this one, but with all the idiots out there on the road, if common knowledge of this device can make people think twice about their behaviour on the road, then I'm all for it. My only concern would be as to the accuracy of the data it collects."
If that were the GOAL, they'd be TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT these things...
Saying that these devices are for "safety" is as big a lie as saying that cops set up speed traps (where they try to hide themselves instead of being VISIBLE so as to DETER speeding) is for "safety" not revenue.
The car companies put these in to be used to defend themselves from lawsuits. But, as anyone in IT should know, any place where information is collected, stored, and KEPT, it's able to be used for purposes other than it's intended.
If you store information, you are liable to produce it in court.
This is one reason why I think it's INSANE for companies to put in crappy internet "big brother" monitoring programs like Surfcontrol and Stellar.
Which cars have it?
How do you disable it?
"Say that you bought a $15,000 Canon ImageRunner copier/printer/fax/network (auto email and faxing from the desktop/panel) machine next month. During a troubleshooting call, your email address is recorded. A year from now, an update on firmware is available which fixes a severe security flaw in the version of Apache it runs for remote management through a web browser, or perhaps even the mail server it uses for automatic emailing of copied documents. Recently introduced bills would usually block a mass email from Canon alerting it's customers, because the email "appears" to be SPAM. But, since the bill in question was passed, Canon can get this important update to you. "
Would any REASOBABLE person object to such a notification?
I think not.
While I want to see the likes of Ralsky wiped from the face of the Earth for their crimes against Humanity, I DON'T want to see them replaced with today's telespammer types.
Which is what the Tauzin bill would create.
As much as we hate spammers, the DMA hates them worse... Why? They are competition. They want to drive them away so they can take their place.
I pay for my bandwidth. "Marketers" should have to PAY ME for what they use of mine if they want to reach me with their copy. If they want to provide free bandwidth in exchange for receiving their crap, fine. Until they start SUBSIDIZING my internet bill (which is considerable, considering I'm running dual-dialups, because I can't yet get DSL or cable out here in the sticks), they have no RIGHT to intrude.
Unlike TV, which throws ads at me in exchange for "free" programming, or even websites that throw banners and even pop-ups at me in exchange for "free" content, a spammer gives NOTHING AT ALL to me in exchange for their intrusion.
I don't think even "prior business relations" should be an exception, unless there is an EXPLICIT OPT IN. But even then someone should be able to OPT OUT at any time they choose, and the spammer be obligated to stop.
Just like legit mailing lists. I opt in. When I want out, I opt out. Mail stops coming from the list.
Honestly, spam has such a HORRID reputation, does the DMA think they will EVER get it accepted?
"Hmmmm, I guess you dont pay taxes. Or ever use the post office. Part off the cost of sending a letter is the cost of receiving it. THe USPS is self sufficent, so money spent there goes towards all aspects, including delivering to your house."
.5% (or less) response rate and make money?
Incorrect argument.
The point the poster made should have been that the cost of SENDING JUNK SNAILMAIL is borne by the SENDER. Not the recepient.
Do you think ANYONE could send out a billion junk snail mailings a day with a
They can with spam, because the cost of sending is shifted TO THE VICTIM. They don't bear hardly any of it.
BENEFITS to Spam?
Sure. It benefits the Spammer. I can't think of ONE SINGLE benefit to my e-mail inbox having to fight off 50-75 spams a day (fortunately Popfile makes 99+% of them bounce to the deleted items folder).
This is electronic harassment at the very least, Denial of Service at the worst. You see, I've NEVER ONCE bought anything from a spam solicitation, and I NEVER WILL.
Oh, and who benefits from the sale of fradulent products? I can't think of ANYTHING even halfway legit among the spam I get... It's all "D cup in the bottle, 18 inch penis, FAKE university diploma" type stuff.
That this puts scumshit like Ralsky out of business... I'm getting sick and tired of receiving upwards of 100 spams a day.
2 months ago less than 50% of my incoming e-mail was spam. Now it's running 65%.
SCO is using all sorts of GPL'ed code. They are in violation of the GPL with their actions, and as such, the FSF and other holders of copyright on that code can REVOKE their license to use it.
I'd imagine there are even GPL'ed apps bundled in UnixWare...
SCO is announcing to the world that they are prepared to go nuclear on this. So, everyone else needs to nuke them FIRST.
How strong will they be with no product to sell?
"The attempt to sue a major investor of Napster is equivalent to attempting to sue every mutual fund, investment bank, or major shareholder who owns Philip Morris for "Supporting a product that causes death and disease"
So, can we now all file lawsuits against every director, every major investor, VC firm, etc, associated with a RIAA label, for their contributon towards their illegal collusion in CD price fixing?
Proven now more than ONCE.
"Sadly, no. We're basically one Supreme Court ruling away from losing substancial liberties -- free speech, free assembly, privacy in our homes and bedrooms, free communication... not to mention second amendment rights, abortion, etc... Be afraid... and for God's sake, don't vote Republican."
OR Democrat. Their record on privacy is certainly no better.
They voted unanimously WITH the Republicans for the DMCA. Clinton signed it into law. Many also voted for the Patriot Act. Senator Hollings is a Democrat.
If you want civil liberties, there is ONLY one party that stands for that first and foremost:
The Libertarian party.
The one thing that Novell could REALLY bring to Linux that'd revolutionize it would be NDS.
Of all the network directory services, I FAR prefer dealing with Novell NDS than I do Active Directory (a poor MS clone of NDS hacked onto NT 4's way of doing things that debuted with Win 2K server). An open source implimentaion of NDS on Linux would make Linux THE file server of choice...
The underlying Netware OS is horribly obsolete, still a DOS relic of the 1980's, but Novell Directory Services is the REAL gem Novell has left.
Sooner or later the DMCA will creep into other facets of life...
Cars, light fixtures, etc.
Why, light bulbs could be CHIPPED to make them fail within a certain time period... Fixtures could REFUSE to light the light if you don't use the light bulb of the manufacturer...
Your car could refuse to run on anything but GM Gas -tm, or refuse to start unless the tires have the manufacturer's chips in them.
The potential for abuse is LIMITLESS.
B.O.F.H.
;)
Both accurate, AND a threat
I reprogrammed my phone at work to show "BOFH" in the id window when I have to call lusers back.
"Considering that most spam is, directly or indirectly, an insult to the intelligence of the one that receives it, this kind of things is simply coherent with other messages."
.001 percent that encourages Ralsky and company to ANNOY MILLIONS WHO FUCKING WANT TO KILL THEM WITH REPATED STRIKES WITH A HAMMER TO VARIOUS LIMBS THEN THE HEAD who wouldn't buy a HEATER from them if stranded on the South Pole to reach them...
True... Only the LEAST INTELLIGENT among us respond to spam. They are the
"Whats really annoying me now is that I'm getting spam selling anti-spam software. I mean how stupid do spammers think I am. I know how stupid they are"
;)
And what moron would buy anti-spam software from a Spammer?!
That is as smart as buying your "secure" communications gear from the NSA...
"Spam is threatening connectivity and shutting down useful services. Open relays used to be a public convenience. Because of spam, if you set one up today, you'll find thousands of places blocking your traffic. Mailing lists used to allow non-subscribers to post. Because of spam, you now have to subscribe first before asking a question. We used to imagine the net as a worldwide utility. Because of spam, many people are now blocking everything from China."
Spam has basically made e-mail useless. What we need is an alternative to the current SMTP/POP3 system itself.
I have used filters, the first being McAfee Spamkiller (which uses static filters that they periodically update).
That was effective for a couple of months, but I soon realized that static filters would NEVER be able to keep up.
Then I got PopFile, which uses Bayesian filtering and works like a proxy server, and for the moment, I have my inbox back...
For how long, I don't know.
"he problems I've seen from large companies is that they hire "marketing" companies who say they have "opt-in" lists and then proceeds to spam the living hell. Complaining seems to just get you listwashed so I just end up blocking them. Seems to work"
Doesn't matter how many layers deep the originating company buries it. Somewhere there is STILL a transaction of money from that company that ends up in the spam.
And somewhere from the spam there is a resulting transaction that results in profit for that company.
Which, if it's a LEGAL enterprise, is all on the books. Else the company, managers and officers are comitting felonies.
If it's NOT a legal enterprise, then obviously the spammer himself is aiding and abetting, itself a crime.
How many want to guess how much crime and fraud have been aided and abetted by Ralsky and co?
"here are better things, for sure, but spam is not a small problem. It's fine that you can block out most of it and make it a minor annoyance, but what if everyone would do that? The end result would that there would that you would get more spam, because the spammers would be forced to find a way around your filtering system, which undoubtedly they eventually would do. Also, spam is overall a drain on resources: a drain on bandwidth, a drain on processing power passing them on from server to server, and a drain on disk space storing them, so spam is a problem, and it should be stopped, even if right now it is only a "minor annoyance"."
So, we should all leave our front doors unlocked, and the keys in our car's ignitions just to prevent the crook from having to WORK HARDER to violate our space?
I fail to see the logic in your agument, though I agree filtering is not the answer.
What should be illegal is unsolicited advertising that uses the victim's RESOURCES. That is theft.
I've been using PopFile for the last month and a half... Out of thousands of emails I've received, Popfile has made only a handful of mistakes. It runs over 99.3% accurate. I've used the same e-mail address for 5 years, and it's obviously on virtually all spam lists...
I too have noticed that the number and voracity of spam has increased DRAMATICALLY in the last few months. And lately some seem to find their way around my blockers.
I don't get it... If I am going to such extremes to AVOID spam, why should the spamemr WANT to go to lenghts to get around it? I obviously am someone who DOES NOT and WILL NOT patronize their products... So why waste the effort?
PopFile, btw, is free software:
http://popfile.sourceforge.net/
For spam to American e-mail addresses to be effective, a product has to be delivered TO an American physical address.
Any judgement against the spam should be enforced against the money being transacted to the spamvertiser.
Cut off the money supply to the spammer's customer, cut off spam.
"Not arguing with your other statements, but with this one your trying to make it sound like a bad thing that there is some competition..If they didnt do the work, they would not get the contract..You have to compete in this global economy, its not handed to you on a plate in America any more!"
Ah, but here's the rub...
When the US economy collapses because high paying jobs are exported to countries that have workers willing to work for slave wages, Who will there be to buy the product?
This is one reason why I've elected to stay strictly in network/systems administration. That is the one job that is:
1. Relatively high paying
2. Cannot be exported to another country
There cannot be a "global" economy and competition until all countries participating are playing by the same rules. To operate in the US requires adherence to higher standards than in, say, India. Which is why it costs more.
It's unfair for American workers to have to compete against slave labor in our own economy.
"I almost wonder if they picked Boies just for that reason. Maybe they figure 13 years defending IBM will give him an edge trying to tackle IBM with a weak lawsuit."
Actually, if that is true, it's called "conflict of interest" and Boies should be DQ'ed immediately.
An attorney cannot breach attorney-client priveledge, hence the conflict of interest. If he represented IBM, he CANNOT oppose them.
"We liked David Boies when he represented Netscape against Microsoft."
He lost. The only time I've wished he'd won.
"We liked David Boies when he represented algore against the Supreme Court."
Lost again. Thank GOD...
"Now I guess we don't like him anymore."
No, the thing you should MOST like about our side's chances in this case is that they hired the highest profile, higest paid LOSER of a lawyer.
No WAY this suit succeeds. IBM=BORG when it comes to IP.