I suspect the security apparatuses of the countries you mentioned are working to catch the low-level under-the-table "sedition" with these monitoring tools so that they can prevent the next round of "artillery against civilians" and "put down by force".
Far more effective to squash nascent rebellion while it's still a whispered conspiracy than try to crush it after it flares into open conflict.
They're not fighting this war... they're fighting the next one. And, judging from the apparent ultimate destination of the keylogging, "they" aren't necessarily just Syria or Iran, but more likely Saudi Arabia or the Emirates. I suspect the rulership in those places are in perpetual low-level dread of any kind of internal dissent flaring into their own rendition of Arab Spring, and having this kind of monitoring capability in what would otherwise be a circumvention tool would go a long way towards easing that fear.
A signature isn't your name. It's an action taken by conscious though, and "I accidentally clicked them" isn't going to be believed any more than "that's not my signature" is. In other words, never.
People do this all the time with maleware, so what is the difference?
Malware "licenses" aren't binding because they're malware. They're already illegal. Their "terms" are both irrelevant and already unconscionable.
Now you're reaching into tax evader pseudo-legal-theory territory.
"We want what's good for us. Period. That means we keep our copyright and yours too."
Very straightforward. You have to commend them for being so forthright and unsubtle about their evil. No "Don't be evil" propaganda. No glossy friendly shiny fruit-themed attractive traps. With them, it's pretty clear that they're the bully, and they want your lunch money.
Neat trick. Who are you going to have hear the case.... maybe the Supreme Court? Or some court superior to it? Oh, wait, that's right, there isn't one. And then there's sovereign immunity, in which you have to ask "Mother, may I?" to any part of the federal government and they have to consent to being sued. I'm sure they'll step right up to that one.
It's a charming fantasy, but really, that's all it is.
Well, if the EULA has to be consented to before the transaction is complete, what then? I'm pretty sure if Windows 8 becomes available as a network upgrade install, for damn sure Microsoft will make the buyer click "I agree" to every term at the same time as authorizing the CC transaction paying for it.
As to whether a EULA agreement after-the-fact is binding, that's a crapshoot according to what jurisdiction you're in, but as a practical matter, if you have to click "I agree" to install, there's at least a chance you'll be held to that consent. Especially since Microsoft claims to have made the refund process for EULA non-consent easy and painless, effectively nullifying the "agreement before transaction" requirement.
As cited in TFA, The US Supreme Court has already decided this kind of EULA clause may hold up.
The specifics of that case seem somewhat applicable: The "you can't sue us, you have to use arbitration instead" type of clause was being prohibited by state law in certain states (California, in the specific case), but the Supremes held that Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 takes precedence and overrides state law. That federal law says that binding arbitration is valid if both parties agree, and the presumption seems to be that both parties agree if the user agrees to the EULA by using the product.
IANAL, but it sure looks that ruling supports MS's position on this. If there's some substantial reason why this case is any different than the AT&T Mobility v. Conception, I'd sure like someone to point it out.
Along the same lines, I've noticed that Netflix is available pre-installed and pre-validated only* on Android platforms that aren't root-available out-of-the-box. My recollection is that it takes some hacking around if your phone isn't one of the ones Netflix already trusts. Too bad for them they can't tell I rooted my Motorola Droid 4 after they foolishly trusted it. MwahahahaHAHAH!
*I haven't made a point of comparing Netflix implementations in the Android universe, so I may be just talking out of my ass** here. Believe me at your own peril.
If you want your old-timey exhortation to have the true flavor, you'd use "Onanistic" instead of "masturbational". The latter word wasn't spoken by polite society, while the former is both Biblical and very popular in the actual anti-masturbation propaganda of the time you're hearkening back to.
Does it matter to me if the weak male class doesn't have kids? Hell no -- and they make good employees, too. Maybe better ones.
I dunno. They both have their encumbrances. Daddy says "Sorry, can't work late, gotta watch Junior." Non-daddy says "Sorry, can't work late, gotta raid."
If Hollywood had succeeeded in outlawing VCRs, they'd all be a lot poorer.
Nonsense. You don't have the proper perspective.
Outlaw VCRs. Mandate VCPs (Videocassette Players). Sell pre-recorded videos. Never let anyone record anything over-the-air or tape-to-tape.* Profit!
*Yes, this means that the only kind of video recording authorized in the hands of the little people would be home video cameras, and those would be prohibited from any technical capability to record anything except what comes through the lens. And then you have to come up with some way to close the analog loophole of recording a TV screen.
Actually a true douche is someone who willfully, arrogantly, and flagrantly infringes on copyrights and then hides behind a human shield of "OMG Think of the BABBIEZ" while ranting and threatening and giving off huge amounts of pscho-rays.
Other than the "Think of the BABBIEZ" angle, a typical bully.
Which, I think, is the point. The "you" in "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! " includes... you. Personal use or not.
Sorry. You may not get caught if you use those copyrighted images for off-line personal uses, but the rights owner can certainly reduce the value and desirability of the images available without payment to discourage that kind of infringement.
I suspect there are attorneys who believe that justice, as practiced by qualified and experienced practitioners, consists of throwing every crazy thought whispered by the voices in their heads at the wall, calling it "the law", and hoping it sticks.
Following the little bits of law circus that pop up in the news makes me amazed and confused at the bewildering profusion of brainless, half-assed, "you gotta be kidding me" legal theories thrown up by clueless, desperate, or completely amoral participants in the Courtroom Lotto.
How about, "It hurts users who have loaded extensions signed with Yahoo's private key, who now have to unload those extensions and find updated versions signed with Yahoo's new private key."
Fer instance.
BTW, "hurt" is the drama-queen way to express the impact. "Inconvenience" is more accurate. Both for Yahoo, and users who have trusted Yahoo's old signatures, as long as the revocation is effective and quick enough to prevent Yahoo-signed malware from getting a foothold.
If that happens, the impact to users escalates beyond "inconvenience" to "big inconvenience" or "real hurt", depending on what gets compromised. "Big inconvenience" == your machine becomes part of a botnet. "Real hurt" becomes a keylogger that transmit your banking or other personal information to an online crim who strips your bank accounts and begins to use your identity fraudulently.
"Dogfight" by Swanwick and Gibson. You think the VA's problems are bad now, wait until they have to deal with the ruined shells of combat-enhanced-and-then-demilitarized neurologically damaged veterans. As bad as PTSD and TBI are now, just think of how much worse it will be when most combat veterans have their nervous systems and mental health irretrievably ruined with battle drugs and combat-oriented conditioning and (maybe) implants.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the security apparatuses of the countries you mentioned are working to catch the low-level under-the-table "sedition" with these monitoring tools so that they can prevent the next round of "artillery against civilians" and "put down by force".
Far more effective to squash nascent rebellion while it's still a whispered conspiracy than try to crush it after it flares into open conflict.
They're not fighting this war... they're fighting the next one. And, judging from the apparent ultimate destination of the keylogging, "they" aren't necessarily just Syria or Iran, but more likely Saudi Arabia or the Emirates. I suspect the rulership in those places are in perpetual low-level dread of any kind of internal dissent flaring into their own rendition of Arab Spring, and having this kind of monitoring capability in what would otherwise be a circumvention tool would go a long way towards easing that fear.
Science. It works, bitches.
A little Febreze always helps with the smell.
If decomp becomes a problem in the server room, you're probably skimping on cooling. Turn that thermostat down!
Only after a rather stout explosion, though.
A signature isn't your name. It's an action taken by conscious though, and "I accidentally clicked them" isn't going to be believed any more than "that's not my signature" is. In other words, never.
People do this all the time with maleware, so what is the difference?
Malware "licenses" aren't binding because they're malware. They're already illegal. Their "terms" are both irrelevant and already unconscionable.
Now you're reaching into tax evader pseudo-legal-theory territory.
It's not hypocrisy. It's clear and consistent.
"We want what's good for us. Period. That means we keep our copyright and yours too."
Very straightforward. You have to commend them for being so forthright and unsubtle about their evil. No "Don't be evil" propaganda. No glossy friendly shiny fruit-themed attractive traps. With them, it's pretty clear that they're the bully, and they want your lunch money.
Neat trick. Who are you going to have hear the case.... maybe the Supreme Court? Or some court superior to it? Oh, wait, that's right, there isn't one. And then there's sovereign immunity, in which you have to ask "Mother, may I?" to any part of the federal government and they have to consent to being sued. I'm sure they'll step right up to that one.
It's a charming fantasy, but really, that's all it is.
Well, if the EULA has to be consented to before the transaction is complete, what then? I'm pretty sure if Windows 8 becomes available as a network upgrade install, for damn sure Microsoft will make the buyer click "I agree" to every term at the same time as authorizing the CC transaction paying for it.
As to whether a EULA agreement after-the-fact is binding, that's a crapshoot according to what jurisdiction you're in, but as a practical matter, if you have to click "I agree" to install, there's at least a chance you'll be held to that consent. Especially since Microsoft claims to have made the refund process for EULA non-consent easy and painless, effectively nullifying the "agreement before transaction" requirement.
The specifics of that case seem somewhat applicable: The "you can't sue us, you have to use arbitration instead" type of clause was being prohibited by state law in certain states (California, in the specific case), but the Supremes held that Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 takes precedence and overrides state law. That federal law says that binding arbitration is valid if both parties agree, and the presumption seems to be that both parties agree if the user agrees to the EULA by using the product.
IANAL, but it sure looks that ruling supports MS's position on this. If there's some substantial reason why this case is any different than the AT&T Mobility v. Conception, I'd sure like someone to point it out.
So, you're claiming that Karl Marx wasn't authoritative on the ends and means of World Socialism? He only invented the damn thing.
Yeah, I suppose there were a lot of people who didn't believe Mein Kampf either.
And they'll be properly moderated through the basement floor right into Hell, where they belong.
Problem..fucking...solved.
Along the same lines, I've noticed that Netflix is available pre-installed and pre-validated only* on Android platforms that aren't root-available out-of-the-box. My recollection is that it takes some hacking around if your phone isn't one of the ones Netflix already trusts. Too bad for them they can't tell I rooted my Motorola Droid 4 after they foolishly trusted it. MwahahahaHAHAH!
*I haven't made a point of comparing Netflix implementations in the Android universe, so I may be just talking out of my ass** here. Believe me at your own peril.
**This is Slashdot, so you already know that.
What? That's the releasename?
I think I got an email about that, but I thought it was herbal enlargement spam and deleted it.
As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL IP Law!
--US Senator Palpatine
I think the trade-off is between marketing value and meaningful implementation cost.
IOW, they exert only as much effort as absolutely minimally necessary to not be blatantly lying when citing this in marketing as a feature.
If you want your old-timey exhortation to have the true flavor, you'd use "Onanistic" instead of "masturbational". The latter word wasn't spoken by polite society, while the former is both Biblical and very popular in the actual anti-masturbation propaganda of the time you're hearkening back to.
Very good parody other than that, though. I hope.
Does it matter to me if the weak male class doesn't have kids? Hell no -- and they make good employees, too. Maybe better ones.
I dunno. They both have their encumbrances. Daddy says "Sorry, can't work late, gotta watch Junior." Non-daddy says "Sorry, can't work late, gotta raid."
If Hollywood had succeeeded in outlawing VCRs, they'd all be a lot poorer.
Nonsense. You don't have the proper perspective.
Outlaw VCRs. Mandate VCPs (Videocassette Players). Sell pre-recorded videos. Never let anyone record anything over-the-air or tape-to-tape.* Profit!
*Yes, this means that the only kind of video recording authorized in the hands of the little people would be home video cameras, and those would be prohibited from any technical capability to record anything except what comes through the lens. And then you have to come up with some way to close the analog loophole of recording a TV screen.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is to kick a charging, barking dog in the teeth. But sometimes, it's not, like if the dog is rabid.
Schwagger's tone and rhetoric is so amazingly over the top that if she were more than just a metaphoric dog, I would be quite concerned about rabies.
You can't fault Jay Lee for reflexively flinching. I just hope he hasn't hurt his standing if he does have to pursue some kind of legal teeth-kicking.
Actually a true douche is someone who willfully, arrogantly, and flagrantly infringes on copyrights and then hides behind a human shield of "OMG Think of the BABBIEZ" while ranting and threatening and giving off huge amounts of pscho-rays.
Other than the "Think of the BABBIEZ" angle, a typical bully.
Which, I think, is the point. The "you" in "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! " includes... you. Personal use or not.
Sorry. You may not get caught if you use those copyrighted images for off-line personal uses, but the rights owner can certainly reduce the value and desirability of the images available without payment to discourage that kind of infringement.
I suspect there are attorneys who believe that justice, as practiced by qualified and experienced practitioners, consists of throwing every crazy thought whispered by the voices in their heads at the wall, calling it "the law", and hoping it sticks.
Following the little bits of law circus that pop up in the news makes me amazed and confused at the bewildering profusion of brainless, half-assed, "you gotta be kidding me" legal theories thrown up by clueless, desperate, or completely amoral participants in the Courtroom Lotto.
The author of ntrtscan.exe needs to be sentenced to 10 years of COBOL programming.
Hey, that's not fair. He already served that sentence, in the act of actually writing ntrtscan.exe!
How about, "It hurts users who have loaded extensions signed with Yahoo's private key, who now have to unload those extensions and find updated versions signed with Yahoo's new private key."
Fer instance.
BTW, "hurt" is the drama-queen way to express the impact. "Inconvenience" is more accurate. Both for Yahoo, and users who have trusted Yahoo's old signatures, as long as the revocation is effective and quick enough to prevent Yahoo-signed malware from getting a foothold.
If that happens, the impact to users escalates beyond "inconvenience" to "big inconvenience" or "real hurt", depending on what gets compromised. "Big inconvenience" == your machine becomes part of a botnet. "Real hurt" becomes a keylogger that transmit your banking or other personal information to an online crim who strips your bank accounts and begins to use your identity fraudulently.
How about "read"?
"Dogfight" by Swanwick and Gibson. You think the VA's problems are bad now, wait until they have to deal with the ruined shells of combat-enhanced-and-then-demilitarized neurologically damaged veterans. As bad as PTSD and TBI are now, just think of how much worse it will be when most combat veterans have their nervous systems and mental health irretrievably ruined with battle drugs and combat-oriented conditioning and (maybe) implants.