just like your employer can make you sign a NDA (which limits your right to speak about what you know)
Nitpicky, but your employer can only *ask* you to sign an NDA. They can't *make* you do anything. Of course, if you like the whole 'getting paid' thing, not signing may not be the best option.
I'd like to see the submitter voluntarily take a 4% pay cut since it's not a big deal. Heck, when you start calling a billion dollars not a big deal, you must be richer than Bill Gates.
The corporation doesn't have a natural right to make a profit, nor use the roads that taxpayers pay for...
Hm... I don't recall ever seeing a corporation driving down the road. But hey, at least the person driving that truck gets paid by a corporation, is able to make a profit from the work, and pays the taxes on that profit which is used in part to fund the road on which he drives.
But interesting argument you've got there. I suppose you (and the mods, apparently) consider it insightful to state that a non-human entity doesn't have human rights?
I don't think that would qualify as fraud. Additionally, if there were a law in place which allowed for ISPs to be the man in the middle, it would exempt them from such claims against them much as wiretap laws exempts the FBI from being charged with eavesdropping related offenses.
Someone should maintain a cache of links to the Orbitz site. Just a list in an html with all of the non-member accessible URIs you can find.
Better yet, setup a site such as orbitzlink.com where members can enter deep links and the site then creates an intermediate link, similar to tinyurl.com or the amusingly named makeashorterlink.com. It's only a database lookup and a redirect so the traffic and load would be minimal.
And who would a man in the middle be claiming to be? All connections in various P2P apps are anonymous by design, so what would it matter if you are offering services to another client application on behalf of a third client? As far as Alice is concerned, she is connecting to another client who is providing file sharing services. The fact that that client is logging everything and acting as a proxy server is irrelevant. I don't see where the fraud is.
I guess we're getting into symantics, but you would be exchanging encryption keys with the other party (ie: the man in the middle) voluntarily for the express purpose of being able to encrypt and decrypt each others communications. If your version of things were true, it would be a DMCA violation to view any web page over SSL.
A good point, but keep in mind that a man-in-the-middle attack isn't breaking any encryption. Of course, it's eavesdropping of sorts so they would have to purchase a specially crafted law allowing them to do that first.
I believe that doesn't prevent a man-in-the-middle attack. Take the old example... Alice and Bob, who have never met, wish to exchange encrypted information. Eve, sitting in the middle of the two, is eavesdropping on their connection -- in other words, Eve intercepts Alice's and Bob's communication before it even reaches the other and decides what to send to the other.
So Alice thinks she's establishing a connection with Bob but, in reality, she has established a connection with Eve. So what happens is that Eve and Alice exchange keys just as you describe and Alice is none the wiser. Similarly, Bob and Eve exchange keys and Bob doesn't know it's not Alice.
The communication that happens is like this:
Alice -> encrypt -> Eve -> decrypt -> re-encrypt with Bob's key -> Bob -> decrypt
Bob -> encrypt -> Eve -> decrypt -> re-encrypt with Alice's key -> Alice -> decrypt
Each one thinks that they are talking to each other but there is a middle person who decrypts and re-encrypts everything to the other person.
Assuming that the support center has the boilerplate "This call may be recorded for quality control purposes . . . " language at the beginning, is that them giving consent to have their call recorded? It certainly seems that it is them saying that you are giving consent to a recording, so isn't it tacit consent to allow you to record as well?
All you need to do at the beginnin is ask, "May I record this call?" and then their message says "This call may be recorded...", thereby answering your question and authorizing your recording.
But also, the submitter should start writing letters sent registered mail, thereby establishing a paper trail.
This is the same as any news site which grabs its content from PR Newswire or Reuters. If you're on Google news, click on a link that has something like "all 50 related" and then click the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link to get all the dupes. They're all just aggregating news in a likely automated fashion and serving up ads on their site.
They should go all out. Now when someone in France searches for Dior, they get only one result, Dior's site along with a note to contact their government to complain if they don't like it.
Patent infringement != code theft. You could implement a one-click purchase system on your website from scratch in the Oog! language and infringe Amazon's patent even if you've never heard of one-click shopping.
Well, perhaps I can try and explain. The guy apparently returned the product because it didn't meet his system requirements. In his words: "Do what I did when i couldn't get an atari game to work with my DVD drive because of secureROM. I called my CC company and disputed the charges. Worked fine for me. Then I noCD cracked the game." So he gets his money back because the game just won't work. Fair enough. But then he keeps the product anyway, and proceeds to download the utility that he could have used in the first place to make it work.
A (poor) analogy. Let's say you drive a Hummer. So you go into a pay parking lot, purchase a ticket with your credit card, and then find out there aren't any spots big enough for your vehicle. You call your credit card company and dispute the charge. But then you stay in the lot and park in a handicap spot, thereby finding a workaround. That's what it seems like to me.
If he couldn't use the product because it was incompatible and the store couldn't take it back, then he should have given it to someone else for whom it would be compatible. But to say that it doesn't work, get your money back, and then use it anyway... seems wrong to me. Why didn't he just use the no-cd crack in the first place (which I have zero objection with) and enjoy the game he paid for? What if the box failed to mention that his mouse needed a right button as well as a left one? Should he dispute the charge and then go out and buy a two-button mouse so he can play the game?
Not to mention the proliferation of portable timepieces has made the town crier obsolete.
In next week's show, we'll examine the up-and-coming technology called the "horseless carriage". In summary, our technical correspondent says "No horse. Doesn't use reigns. Lame."
Well, I still think it's in bad taste to have a chargeback issued, then go ahead and download a no-cd crack and still play the game. Not returning the product is one thing. But to obtain a refund, crack the game, and play it anyway?
You're right -- it's not piracy. Perhaps "potentially fraudulent" might be a better description. Or, at the very least, somewhat ethically dubious to get a refund for a product and yet still enjoy the benefits of having it. The person who gets hurt in that case isn't the manufacturer of the game but the merchant.
The ethical thing would have been that, after obtaining your credit card refund, you then return the game to the store from which it was purchased so that the merchant would have some recourse for obtaining *their* money back too.
Slashdot Mirror
just like your employer can make you sign a NDA (which limits your right to speak about what you know)
Nitpicky, but your employer can only *ask* you to sign an NDA. They can't *make* you do anything. Of course, if you like the whole 'getting paid' thing, not signing may not be the best option.
True enough, but the article submitter stated that piracy accounts for a 4% loss, not that 4% of all DVDs were pirated.
I'd like to see the submitter voluntarily take a 4% pay cut since it's not a big deal. Heck, when you start calling a billion dollars not a big deal, you must be richer than Bill Gates.
The corporation doesn't have a natural right to make a profit, nor use the roads that taxpayers pay for...
Hm... I don't recall ever seeing a corporation driving down the road. But hey, at least the person driving that truck gets paid by a corporation, is able to make a profit from the work, and pays the taxes on that profit which is used in part to fund the road on which he drives.
But interesting argument you've got there. I suppose you (and the mods, apparently) consider it insightful to state that a non-human entity doesn't have human rights?
Any resemblences or references to real people, living or dead; or real events, businesses, or organisations are purely co-incidental.
You misspelled "purely intentional".
So any instant message app is now a server?
Remember that voip can be routed through a proxy, thereby making it a client program -- the proxy is then the server.
I don't think that would qualify as fraud. Additionally, if there were a law in place which allowed for ISPs to be the man in the middle, it would exempt them from such claims against them much as wiretap laws exempts the FBI from being charged with eavesdropping related offenses.
Someone should maintain a cache of links to the Orbitz site. Just a list in an html with all of the non-member accessible URIs you can find.
Better yet, setup a site such as orbitzlink.com where members can enter deep links and the site then creates an intermediate link, similar to tinyurl.com or the amusingly named makeashorterlink.com. It's only a database lookup and a redirect so the traffic and load would be minimal.
And who would a man in the middle be claiming to be? All connections in various P2P apps are anonymous by design, so what would it matter if you are offering services to another client application on behalf of a third client? As far as Alice is concerned, she is connecting to another client who is providing file sharing services. The fact that that client is logging everything and acting as a proxy server is irrelevant. I don't see where the fraud is.
I guess we're getting into symantics, but you would be exchanging encryption keys with the other party (ie: the man in the middle) voluntarily for the express purpose of being able to encrypt and decrypt each others communications. If your version of things were true, it would be a DMCA violation to view any web page over SSL.
A good point, but keep in mind that a man-in-the-middle attack isn't breaking any encryption. Of course, it's eavesdropping of sorts so they would have to purchase a specially crafted law allowing them to do that first.
I believe that doesn't prevent a man-in-the-middle attack. Take the old example... Alice and Bob, who have never met, wish to exchange encrypted information. Eve, sitting in the middle of the two, is eavesdropping on their connection -- in other words, Eve intercepts Alice's and Bob's communication before it even reaches the other and decides what to send to the other.
So Alice thinks she's establishing a connection with Bob but, in reality, she has established a connection with Eve. So what happens is that Eve and Alice exchange keys just as you describe and Alice is none the wiser. Similarly, Bob and Eve exchange keys and Bob doesn't know it's not Alice.
The communication that happens is like this:
Alice -> encrypt -> Eve -> decrypt -> re-encrypt with Bob's key -> Bob -> decrypt
Bob -> encrypt -> Eve -> decrypt -> re-encrypt with Alice's key -> Alice -> decrypt
Each one thinks that they are talking to each other but there is a middle person who decrypts and re-encrypts everything to the other person.
You missed the joke because you clearly aren't a reverse [ahem!] engineer.
Assuming that the support center has the boilerplate "This call may be recorded for quality control purposes . . . " language at the beginning, is that them giving consent to have their call recorded? It certainly seems that it is them saying that you are giving consent to a recording, so isn't it tacit consent to allow you to record as well?
All you need to do at the beginnin is ask, "May I record this call?" and then their message says "This call may be recorded...", thereby answering your question and authorizing your recording.
But also, the submitter should start writing letters sent registered mail, thereby establishing a paper trail.
But wasn't the example in the movie based upon an actual real-world case? The Ford Pinto maybe?
This is the same as any news site which grabs its content from PR Newswire or Reuters. If you're on Google news, click on a link that has something like "all 50 related" and then click the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link to get all the dupes. They're all just aggregating news in a likely automated fashion and serving up ads on their site.
A blatant example
Another example
They should go all out. Now when someone in France searches for Dior, they get only one result, Dior's site along with a note to contact their government to complain if they don't like it.
Patent infringement != code theft. You could implement a one-click purchase system on your website from scratch in the Oog! language and infringe Amazon's patent even if you've never heard of one-click shopping.
Well, perhaps I can try and explain. The guy apparently returned the product because it didn't meet his system requirements. In his words: "Do what I did when i couldn't get an atari game to work with my DVD drive because of secureROM. I called my CC company and disputed the charges. Worked fine for me. Then I noCD cracked the game." So he gets his money back because the game just won't work. Fair enough. But then he keeps the product anyway, and proceeds to download the utility that he could have used in the first place to make it work.
A (poor) analogy. Let's say you drive a Hummer. So you go into a pay parking lot, purchase a ticket with your credit card, and then find out there aren't any spots big enough for your vehicle. You call your credit card company and dispute the charge. But then you stay in the lot and park in a handicap spot, thereby finding a workaround. That's what it seems like to me.
If he couldn't use the product because it was incompatible and the store couldn't take it back, then he should have given it to someone else for whom it would be compatible. But to say that it doesn't work, get your money back, and then use it anyway... seems wrong to me. Why didn't he just use the no-cd crack in the first place (which I have zero objection with) and enjoy the game he paid for? What if the box failed to mention that his mouse needed a right button as well as a left one? Should he dispute the charge and then go out and buy a two-button mouse so he can play the game?
True... neither should our correspondent post late at night when he's tired. At least I didn't spell it "rain". :)
Not to mention the proliferation of portable timepieces has made the town crier obsolete.
In next week's show, we'll examine the up-and-coming technology called the "horseless carriage". In summary, our technical correspondent says "No horse. Doesn't use reigns. Lame."
Well, I still think it's in bad taste to have a chargeback issued, then go ahead and download a no-cd crack and still play the game. Not returning the product is one thing. But to obtain a refund, crack the game, and play it anyway?
You're right -- it's not piracy. Perhaps "potentially fraudulent" might be a better description. Or, at the very least, somewhat ethically dubious to get a refund for a product and yet still enjoy the benefits of having it. The person who gets hurt in that case isn't the manufacturer of the game but the merchant.
The ethical thing would have been that, after obtaining your credit card refund, you then return the game to the store from which it was purchased so that the merchant would have some recourse for obtaining *their* money back too.
It would be interesting to see a permission based system for this...maybe even registering approved plugins with a crypto signature/hash.
;-)
You mean like the way Microsoft handles signed vs. unsigned ActiveX?
So, it's your not-so-new new minivan then? ;-)