I RTFA, and found their claim reasonable under the circumstances. There didn't seem to be any reason for them to be interested in anybody's email other than that one person's, so why go to the extra effort of reading it?
The article clearly states that the FBI noticed that they were getting way too much email from that warrant, found out what was happening and notified the ISP. If they'd intentionally asked for more than they were entitled to, they'd have kept their mouths shut, wouldn't they?
The FBI will have no fear of any such consequence. Illegally overstepping their bounds
This being Slashdot, I can probably assume that you didn't bother to RTFA before posting, but if you had, you'd have kept your foot out of your mouth. The FBI requested that an ISP send them copies of all email sent to one address at a small domain. The ISP screwed the pooch and sent them all email sent to that domain. The FBI noticed that they were getting way too much email, found out what had happened and corrected it. At no time did they overstep their bounds, because they only asked for what a judge said they were entitled to. I hope this makes enough sense to you that you can remove your tinfoil hat, but frankly, I doubt it.
Trust me, there'd still be typos. For some people, an OK button has an irresistible attraction; if they see one, they can't resist clicking on it, without looking at what they're agreeing to.
>
I used to do telephone tech support for software. I quickly learned that if there's an OK button on the caller's screen, I never said OK, because the odds were that the caller would click on it. I can easily see this type of person clicking OK five, or even ten times on a typoed domain name without bothering to read the message even once. No, if you want to avoid typos, have them type the domain name twice, like many programs do with setting passwords and not continue unless they match. Yes, people can always use copy/paste to get around that, but if there's only so much you can do to protect people from their own missteaks.
So, just patent the idea of using a fingerprint instead. If this is patentable, that should be too. Of course, I don't think either deserves a patent. A watermark is a watermark is a watermark, and this is just using something personal for it.
I wonder. If you clam that your fingerprints are an original work of art, they're already copyrighted. I rather doubt that using them for identification purposes against your will would come under Fair Use. IANAL, and I doubt such a claim could (or should) be supported, but the implications are interesting, to say the least.
Thank you. It answered one question for me that TFA didn't: what happens if a phisher copies the DKIM from a legitimate email? It wasn't clear from TFA that the DKIM is unique for each message and that it won't verify if the message's been altered.
But who does use RealPlayer anyway, that this could possibly affect?
All the Aunt Tillies out there who use Windows because it came installed on their computers and have no idea what an operating system is. They use IE for the same reason, and when they want to hear an audio file, guess what IE tells them to install? One hint: it won't be VLC.
Why should I have to, especially for an OS that takes so much hardware to do so little? What is there about Windows iCandy that is so much better than anything else out there that I'd want to have it?
So you don't like them. Fine. Don't use them. I'm quite happy with them and if I can get an occasional commission by pointing somebody their way, why shouldn't I?
You can easily make up that deficit by making arrangements with one of your local fast-food shops to take their waste frying oil off their hands. Yes, I realize that there's an obvious limit to how many people can do this, but there's lots of those places out there, and they all need to dispose of that oil. Most of them sell it to companies that recycle it in things like feedstock, and even if you have to outbid their current contact it's still going to be less than using petroleum.
You have a valid point on science being a consensus thing,
Science is not "a consensus thing" and calling it one just shows how little you understand of it. Science deals in facts, not in what various people agree is true. In science, fact trumps opinion. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree that a theory is true, is proved and that there's no debate remaining on it if that theory is wrong. 120 years ago, you could ask as many scientists as you liked if it was possible, in principle, to exceed the speed of light and all of them would have told you it was possible. Did this make it so? No, of course not. The same thing is true today. Just because we think something's been proven doesn't make it right if, in fact, the proof was faulty.
I've always thought the Soviet Union failed because it expected human nature to change. While it was saying, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need," the people were saying, "As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." Guess which slogan had more power.
I realize this is Slashdot, but I still have to ask if you even bothered to read the post before hitting Reply? The OP wasn't saying that the people at W3C aren't responsible, he was saying that webmasters aren't responsible, and he's right. The problem here is with badly-written programs constantly requesting something they neither need nor use.
Slashdot Mirror
I RTFA, and found their claim reasonable under the circumstances. There didn't seem to be any reason for them to be interested in anybody's email other than that one person's, so why go to the extra effort of reading it?
The article clearly states that the FBI noticed that they were getting way too much email from that warrant, found out what was happening and notified the ISP. If they'd intentionally asked for more than they were entitled to, they'd have kept their mouths shut, wouldn't they?
This being Slashdot, I can probably assume that you didn't bother to RTFA before posting, but if you had, you'd have kept your foot out of your mouth. The FBI requested that an ISP send them copies of all email sent to one address at a small domain. The ISP screwed the pooch and sent them all email sent to that domain. The FBI noticed that they were getting way too much email, found out what had happened and corrected it. At no time did they overstep their bounds, because they only asked for what a judge said they were entitled to. I hope this makes enough sense to you that you can remove your tinfoil hat, but frankly, I doubt it.
Yes. Humans. In case you haven't noticed, the atmosphere of Mars is considerably less dense than either the Earth's atmosphere or your brain.
Of course. Alas, I only wish the others had been intentional as well.
> I used to do telephone tech support for software. I quickly learned that if there's an OK button on the caller's screen, I never said OK, because the odds were that the caller would click on it. I can easily see this type of person clicking OK five, or even ten times on a typoed domain name without bothering to read the message even once. No, if you want to avoid typos, have them type the domain name twice, like many programs do with setting passwords and not continue unless they match. Yes, people can always use copy/paste to get around that, but if there's only so much you can do to protect people from their own missteaks.
You'd be surprised how many of the characters in that book are based on real people, including both of the authors.
You mean like Comet Hammner-Brown?
Oh, they not only respect copyright law, they practically worship it. Of course, that's only when they hold the copyright.
So, just patent the idea of using a fingerprint instead. If this is patentable, that should be too. Of course, I don't think either deserves a patent. A watermark is a watermark is a watermark, and this is just using something personal for it.
I wonder. If you clam that your fingerprints are an original work of art, they're already copyrighted. I rather doubt that using them for identification purposes against your will would come under Fair Use. IANAL, and I doubt such a claim could (or should) be supported, but the implications are interesting, to say the least.
I thought we were all supposed to Blame Canada for everything.
Thank you. It answered one question for me that TFA didn't: what happens if a phisher copies the DKIM from a legitimate email? It wasn't clear from TFA that the DKIM is unique for each message and that it won't verify if the message's been altered.
And what about that huge majority of Aunt Tillies who don't have a geek for a nephew? What are they going to do?
All the Aunt Tillies out there who use Windows because it came installed on their computers and have no idea what an operating system is. They use IE for the same reason, and when they want to hear an audio file, guess what IE tells them to install? One hint: it won't be VLC.
Why should I have to, especially for an OS that takes so much hardware to do so little? What is there about Windows iCandy that is so much better than anything else out there that I'd want to have it?
I take it, then, you're not familiar with what happened to the Czechs in '68?
Well, if you had a bad experience, I'm sorry. I've had nothing but good luck with them as have several of my friends.
So you don't like them. Fine. Don't use them. I'm quite happy with them and if I can get an occasional commission by pointing somebody their way, why shouldn't I?
You can easily make up that deficit by making arrangements with one of your local fast-food shops to take their waste frying oil off their hands. Yes, I realize that there's an obvious limit to how many people can do this, but there's lots of those places out there, and they all need to dispose of that oil. Most of them sell it to companies that recycle it in things like feedstock, and even if you have to outbid their current contact it's still going to be less than using petroleum.
Why?
Science is not "a consensus thing" and calling it one just shows how little you understand of it. Science deals in facts, not in what various people agree is true. In science, fact trumps opinion. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree that a theory is true, is proved and that there's no debate remaining on it if that theory is wrong. 120 years ago, you could ask as many scientists as you liked if it was possible, in principle, to exceed the speed of light and all of them would have told you it was possible. Did this make it so? No, of course not. The same thing is true today. Just because we think something's been proven doesn't make it right if, in fact, the proof was faulty.
In Korea, only old people make overlord jokes.
I've always thought the Soviet Union failed because it expected human nature to change. While it was saying, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need," the people were saying, "As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." Guess which slogan had more power.
I realize this is Slashdot, but I still have to ask if you even bothered to read the post before hitting Reply? The OP wasn't saying that the people at W3C aren't responsible, he was saying that webmasters aren't responsible, and he's right. The problem here is with badly-written programs constantly requesting something they neither need nor use.