possession is nine-tenths of the law. They physically possess your data... regardless of any terms-of-service or other contractual issues, if they want to look at your data they will and there's not a lot you can do about it. As others have said, about the only guarantee you can have of privacy in this case would be encryption.
You can't just access their house whenever you please.
Well, in my State landlords have the right of "reasonable access". Maybe they can't just snoop as they please, but they do have the right (upon 24 hours notice, I believe) to enter their premises.
Yes, but I'm talking "traditions" that a culture has become so steeped in that they're irrational on the subject. Alcohol is one such tradition for the United States: people know at some level that alcohol abuse is as bad if not worse than comparatively soft drugs like pot, but they still insist on taking an (irrationally) harder stance against weed. More to the point, if marijuana were regulated and controlled (in terms of both quality and availability) as is alcohol, it probably wouldn't be much of a problem. But we, as a society, can't see that. At least our government can't, carrying on about how pot is a "gateway" drug that invariably leads to harder stuff... as if alcohol were somehow blameless in that regard. I've seen enough drug/substance abuse in my family to understand that people who have a problem with drugs have a problem with drugs, period, and crude attempts to correct the problem by limiting availability simply don't work. Mainly, I'd say, because those efforts are doomed to failure anyway. People get what they want, one way or another.
Besides, people that smoke too much pot are generally unable to see any reason for a fight.
Nobody really cares if vendors want to lock up their products: that just makes them subject to free market forces. The next guy who comes along with a competing product that doesn't screw over the customer has a good chance of taking that business.
What we're objecting to is the power of the Federal Government being conscripted in a vain attempt to maintain the status-quo ante. Keep in mind that this approach has never worked before and invariably screws everyone else in the country. The needs of the relatively few people that lose their livelihoods in the entertainment industry do not supercede the rights and needs of everyone else.
George Guilder calls the process that the media conglomerates are currently undergoing (and attempting to stave off for as long as possible)) one of Creative Destruction. It began with the creation of the Internet itself, and will ultimately come to a logical conclusion regardless of what legal measures are taken. They know this, but being essentially uncreative mentalities, they are unable to see any other way to maintain their accustomed level of income other than going to Congress.
The republican party is prioritizing business interests over consumers any time the have a chance.
And the democrats are all cozy and in bed with the Hollywood elite.
Okay... so what's the difference in principle here? I'm not disagreeing, it's just that both sides seem to have figured out that it's more profitable to screw the public than perform public service.
The RIAA is not the only issue. There's the MPAA to deal with as well, and they're the bastards that got the DMCA rammed through Congress. Hell, it was even shown that MPAA attorneys drafted that stupid law. Furthermore, now that Congress has demonstrated that it is available to private industry on a consulting basis (supplying heavily-customized Federal law to the highest bidder) every major corporation and "trade association" on the planet is clamoring for the privilege of bribing those sons-of-bitches.
The problem is not a bunch of sociopathic attorneys working under the guise of an industry trade association. The problem is that the Federal Government has reached a new low in public corruption.
It seems to me that the only thing worse than the incessant squabbling between Democrats and Republicans is when they arrive at a consensus on a piece of "important" legislation.
Lewis Black put it well: "Republicans and Democrats, working together... and there's nothing stupider than when these little pricks work together."
I find myself in agreement. That also applies to other organizations such as airlines, banks and big manufacturers of one kind or another. The taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook for bad business decisions made by the private sector. Let those companies fail, and maybe their assets will be picked up by someone that will use them more effectively. I mean, it's not like all those aircraft will simply disappear if an airline goes under.
Logic and reason have nothing to do with this. Alcohol is accepted more for reasons of tradition than anything else. In other cultures, alcohol is considered contraband and drugs that we consider "unacceptable" are commonplace.
Sure, pick on a dead guy that can't defend himself from ridiculous charges. Looking at my property tax bill, I see that about 56% percent goes to "education". Fifty six percent! Education outweighs all other government expenditures in my county, roads, police & fire, medical, everything. I'd say they're getting plenty of money to do their jobs, and have always been getting plenty of money, but would rather build little local empires than teach students properly. None of that can be laid at Reagan's (or even George Bush's) feet.
Not really... he was still trying to do his job. When it became apparent that he was being sold out, he capitulated: the network is no longer his problem. Let the rest of the city's "experts" deal with the functioning network that he left to them: it'll be interesting to see if they can cope.
Yeah. It must've been a tough call, though, because he didn't really have the authority to do that, but on the other hand, if he hadn't, the buffoons running that department would caused the city even more grief.
Sounds more like he should have gotten a reward or a medal or something. It's funny, but this is a case of a citizen protecting a government from itself, not the other way around.
Couldn't agree more. Hugging is something I reserve for a certain set of people... people I don't know or don't like just piss me off when they try to hug me.
Where as non-caucasian males would, customarily, just walk away with no guilt and no feelings of any responsibility?
Why would you say that? The GP is pointing out that when placed under similar levels of stress and feelings of guilt and inadequacy people in other cultures (surprise!) behave differently.
Sounds pretty racist, any way you want to try to advance that argument.
Why do people insist on labeling any perception or documentation of differences between races or cultures as "racist"? People are different, that's why we can make such distinctions as race in the first place! Furthermore, to posit that all races are equal/identical in all ways is ridiculous. For example, I'm a white guy and my girlfriend is African. I have to wear sunblock... she doesn't. Is that a racist comment?
This kind of automatic negative reaction to any mention of racial differences immediately eliminates legitimate discourse, because now the dialog shifts from communication to accusation and defense. That, actually, is often the point of crying "racism!", because it puts the other guy on the defensive, even if he happens to be right. Maybe especially if he happens to be right.
If the facts bear out what the GP is stating (i.e., that there are such differences) then his comment is not racist, but informative. And if he's wrong, then he's probably just misinformed. Personally, I saw nothing inflammatory or racist in his commentary. At least, I'll reserve judgment before making any accusations.
Japanese males, for example, tend to commit suicide in silence, alone. Well, traditionally they do: I read somewhere that that has been changing. Regardless, am I saying that suicidal Japanese men are a. inferior or b. superior to their Western counterparts? The answer is c. neither... I was making an observation.
Slashdot Mirror
Bribes were inadequate, I'd guess.. Foolish mistake for a company the size of Comcast.
possession is nine-tenths of the law. They physically possess your data ... regardless of any terms-of-service or other contractual issues, if they want to look at your data they will and there's not a lot you can do about it. As others have said, about the only guarantee you can have of privacy in this case would be encryption.
You can't just access their house whenever you please.
Well, in my State landlords have the right of "reasonable access". Maybe they can't just snoop as they please, but they do have the right (upon 24 hours notice, I believe) to enter their premises.
Yes, but I'm talking "traditions" that a culture has become so steeped in that they're irrational on the subject. Alcohol is one such tradition for the United States: people know at some level that alcohol abuse is as bad if not worse than comparatively soft drugs like pot, but they still insist on taking an (irrationally) harder stance against weed. More to the point, if marijuana were regulated and controlled (in terms of both quality and availability) as is alcohol, it probably wouldn't be much of a problem. But we, as a society, can't see that. At least our government can't, carrying on about how pot is a "gateway" drug that invariably leads to harder stuff ... as if alcohol were somehow blameless in that regard. I've seen enough drug/substance abuse in my family to understand that people who have a problem with drugs have a problem with drugs, period, and crude attempts to correct the problem by limiting availability simply don't work. Mainly, I'd say, because those efforts are doomed to failure anyway. People get what they want, one way or another.
Besides, people that smoke too much pot are generally unable to see any reason for a fight.
As I understand it, you have to have a policy that is compliant with the law, and be able to show that you've consistently followed that policy.
Nobody really cares if vendors want to lock up their products: that just makes them subject to free market forces. The next guy who comes along with a competing product that doesn't screw over the customer has a good chance of taking that business.
What we're objecting to is the power of the Federal Government being conscripted in a vain attempt to maintain the status-quo ante. Keep in mind that this approach has never worked before and invariably screws everyone else in the country. The needs of the relatively few people that lose their livelihoods in the entertainment industry do not supercede the rights and needs of everyone else.
George Guilder calls the process that the media conglomerates are currently undergoing (and attempting to stave off for as long as possible)) one of Creative Destruction. It began with the creation of the Internet itself, and will ultimately come to a logical conclusion regardless of what legal measures are taken. They know this, but being essentially uncreative mentalities, they are unable to see any other way to maintain their accustomed level of income other than going to Congress.
The republican party is prioritizing business interests over consumers any time the have a chance. And the democrats are all cozy and in bed with the Hollywood elite.
... so what's the difference in principle here? I'm not disagreeing, it's just that both sides seem to have figured out that it's more profitable to screw the public than perform public service.
Okay
The RIAA is not the only issue. There's the MPAA to deal with as well, and they're the bastards that got the DMCA rammed through Congress. Hell, it was even shown that MPAA attorneys drafted that stupid law. Furthermore, now that Congress has demonstrated that it is available to private industry on a consulting basis (supplying heavily-customized Federal law to the highest bidder) every major corporation and "trade association" on the planet is clamoring for the privilege of bribing those sons-of-bitches.
The problem is not a bunch of sociopathic attorneys working under the guise of an industry trade association. The problem is that the Federal Government has reached a new low in public corruption.
It seems to me that the only thing worse than the incessant squabbling between Democrats and Republicans is when they arrive at a consensus on a piece of "important" legislation.
... and there's nothing stupider than when these little pricks work together."
Lewis Black put it well: "Republicans and Democrats, working together
I find myself in agreement. That also applies to other organizations such as airlines, banks and big manufacturers of one kind or another. The taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook for bad business decisions made by the private sector. Let those companies fail, and maybe their assets will be picked up by someone that will use them more effectively. I mean, it's not like all those aircraft will simply disappear if an airline goes under.
Best use Lake Erie ... it's accustomed to being heavily polluted.
Sounds like double jeopardy to me. But then again, lawyer I'm not, and I'm sure the Feds will be able justify anything they want, as they always do.
That's already been tried. Fortunately, some watchdog groups publicized the fact, but you're right. Sooner or later, it's going to slip through.
Logic and reason have nothing to do with this. Alcohol is accepted more for reasons of tradition than anything else. In other cultures, alcohol is considered contraband and drugs that we consider "unacceptable" are commonplace.
Are There Any Smart E-mail Retention Policies?
Retain (store) email just long enough to forward it on to the destination server.
Disclaimer: My brother-in-law is a Comcast executive. He's a decent guy.
He may be a decent guy. That doesn't mean that he cares a rat's ass about his customers. If he did, he probably wouldn't work for Comcast.
No problem ... besides I just learned a new word, phallocentric.
She'd agree with you anyway.
Sure, pick on a dead guy that can't defend himself from ridiculous charges. Looking at my property tax bill, I see that about 56% percent goes to "education". Fifty six percent! Education outweighs all other government expenditures in my county, roads, police & fire, medical, everything. I'd say they're getting plenty of money to do their jobs, and have always been getting plenty of money, but would rather build little local empires than teach students properly. None of that can be laid at Reagan's (or even George Bush's) feet.
You're assuming that the people left in that office can manage the basics ... Childs himself didn't seem to think so. That's why he locked them out.
Not really ... he was still trying to do his job. When it became apparent that he was being sold out, he capitulated: the network is no longer his problem. Let the rest of the city's "experts" deal with the functioning network that he left to them: it'll be interesting to see if they can cope.
Yeah. It must've been a tough call, though, because he didn't really have the authority to do that, but on the other hand, if he hadn't, the buffoons running that department would caused the city even more grief.
Sounds more like he should have gotten a reward or a medal or something. It's funny, but this is a case of a citizen protecting a government from itself, not the other way around.
People shouldn't be completely shocked by this act.
Nobody is shocked, but everybody is rightfully suspicious.
Couldn't agree more. Hugging is something I reserve for a certain set of people ... people I don't know or don't like just piss me off when they try to hug me.
Where as non-caucasian males would, customarily, just walk away with no guilt and no feelings of any responsibility?
... she doesn't. Is that a racist comment?
... I was making an observation.
Why would you say that? The GP is pointing out that when placed under similar levels of stress and feelings of guilt and inadequacy people in other cultures (surprise!) behave differently.
Sounds pretty racist, any way you want to try to advance that argument.
Why do people insist on labeling any perception or documentation of differences between races or cultures as "racist"? People are different, that's why we can make such distinctions as race in the first place! Furthermore, to posit that all races are equal/identical in all ways is ridiculous. For example, I'm a white guy and my girlfriend is African. I have to wear sunblock
This kind of automatic negative reaction to any mention of racial differences immediately eliminates legitimate discourse, because now the dialog shifts from communication to accusation and defense. That, actually, is often the point of crying "racism!", because it puts the other guy on the defensive, even if he happens to be right. Maybe especially if he happens to be right.
If the facts bear out what the GP is stating (i.e., that there are such differences) then his comment is not racist, but informative. And if he's wrong, then he's probably just misinformed. Personally, I saw nothing inflammatory or racist in his commentary. At least, I'll reserve judgment before making any accusations.
Japanese males, for example, tend to commit suicide in silence, alone. Well, traditionally they do: I read somewhere that that has been changing. Regardless, am I saying that suicidal Japanese men are a. inferior or b. superior to their Western counterparts? The answer is c. neither
Don't blame the hackers, blame the police call box traveling schmuck who needed to be on the other side of London so he could save the world, again.
... who did you say?
That was