Usually, DNA is enough to strongly link a person or persons to a scene, just like usually an IP is strong enough to link a person or persons to a scene.
Whether there's anything more than a correlation between those links is part of the job of law enforcement and the judiciary to sort out.
There are also many cases where there are strong doubts regarding the link between DNA or IP and a person being more than happenstance in a given situation.
The analogy is far better than many seen on Slashdot.
So you're saying 802.11 is not the WLAN group, or did you mean 802.11 is the 100BaseVG?
The only thing I noticed wrong with the post was it was a serious response to a joke, but swapping 11 and 12 in it doesn't fix any errors. Then again, I'm a bit impaired by painkillers right now so maybe I'm missing something which would otherwise be obvious.
Depends on your definition of "we." I've encountered a lot of otherwise intelligent people who couldn't wrap their head around the fact that, in many places, "electric vehicle" means "coal-powered vehicle."
Then the article is wrong. Assuming that's the case for all IE installations and OEM presets, the campaign is misdirection and should be widely acknowledged as such. I wonder why no articles have been written publicizing outright lies being made by the Apache Group if this is the case. I'm guessing there's more to the story, one way or the other, because many would not pass up such an opportunity.
I agree, but what should be and what actually is are not always the same thing. Frequently, there need to be two parallel tracks working: One to get things to where they should be, and one to help the way things are right now.
These are not mutually exclusive goals, and this step of dealing with the situation as it is would not have impeded those who are working on getting things to where they should be.
Can stop tracking for people who understand how to use it. Those who could have figured out the DNT toggle but can't operate more complex solutions are in the same position they were before.
There are multiple classes of people involved. One group != another group. This would've helped those who didn't have a workable solution before.
Since I haven't kept up with the technical details of IE, not using it, what is the big deal about then? Either they turn it on by default or they don't.
It's a tautology, but if they don't turn it on by default, they don't turn it on by default, and everyone objecting is confused.
If I believed that anything substantive would ever be done to help non-technical users make and enforce an informed choice, I'd agree that pursuing that option would be the best thing.
At this point, I believe the creation of a drop-in program is likely the only thing that will help now. There's been a lot done technically on the privacy front, but there's a lot further to go. This might've created a bit of breathing room for the technically inept. I don't see the standard doing much harm in this case, because the advertisers are crowing only to themselves and those they've already bought and paid for. Unless there was a real chance legislators could be convinced (in places they haven't already) to act, giving them another bullet point in the script of "how we're not evil" isn't going to harm anyone at this point.
I'm right with you there. That doesn't stop tracking though. My point was, that's exactly the position we were in before the DNT campaign.
DNT could have made things easier for a large class of people who have a desire to not be tracked but who do not have the technical know-how to go about it. Now it will not.
There's a difference between theoretical and practical, and that's what everyone defending MS is missing.
There are lots of options. I never said there were just two. However, there are only two outcomes. Tracking you can do something about, and tracking you can't. That's not a false dichotomy, though conflating the outcome with the multiple paths to it is an interesting attempt at making it appear to be so.
"Don't object" means holding an actual opinion on the subject, whether you know you can make a choice or not. Those who are ignorant but would object if asked were not those I was talking about.
I don't believe you intended to set up a strawman, but you did nonetheless.
While I agree with most of what you're saying, Apache was being pragmatic. Without laws to mandate that DNT is respected, the only chance in hell of it being respected was if it was 100% user initiated to set the DNT flag. Now that it's not, not even those who might have honored it will now. We went from it possibly having some effect to zero possibility of it having any effect.
Technological compromise has now failed, and the likelihood of a legislative one is roughly the same as the percentage of campaign contributions from sources other than special interests.
Without legislation, the options were "opt in" or nothing at all. By not supporting opt in, you support nothing at all, because there is nothing mandating the DNT feature be honored.
It might have been honored if only those objecting to tracking toggled it. Those who don't object to tracking probably don't care. If they don't care, they certainly won't enable it. The move negates all of the efforts of everyone involved in the DNT movement. All. Of. Them.
Now the only way to get tracking stopped is to mandate it legislatively, and the legislators are already bought and paid for.
Now we're left with what we had before, minus a lot of time spent that has now effectively been wasted.
All the people supporting MS might as well just say "DNT opt-in wasn't good enough for me, so fuck everyone who supported it. If I can't have my way, nobody can. Oh, except advertisers."
I did. While the word "fully" was not spoken, neither was the word "truthfully." That's because both are expectations made clear prior to the questioning during voir dire.
Your statement of "bullshit" is as accurate applied to this as it would be if I had said "he was asked to truthfully elaborate." That is, only in the most pedantically technical way, completely disregarding the context of the situation. The failure to use the term in each question does not in any way mean that it does not apply to each question.
I can only hope that during each voir dire I manage to taint the rest of the jurors in the room with what is right.
Even if you only taint one of them, you did a good thing. Oregon is the same way. The Oregon Constitution specifically protects the right of the jury to be the final arbiter of both law and fact in all cases. Funny, the jury instructions in Oregon specifically contradict that passage.
He wasn't asked for an example, he was asked to explain why he raised his hand. Absent the case he presented, he still would've been required to answer in the affirmative, which means his answer was not a full and complete answer, an expectation which is made clear during voir dire. If that expectation was not made clear by the judge, there were other procedural errors.
In voir dire, failing to answer completely is the same thing as not answering truthfully. It is a lie of omission because he was asked to fully elaborate, not cherry pick the lawsuit(s) that had no bearing on the trial while omitting the one(s) which did.
I've got to second this. When they dropped their no-contract plans (which were $10-$20 cheaper a month than the same contract plan) and I needed to switch, they gave me a $100 credit because I was annoyed at having to renew a contract despite never getting a subsidized phone from them. They'll also unlock any phone they sell after 90 days, free of charge.
while the guvmint says they don't keep records of who has bought a gun, you'd be a fool to think that every gun background check wasn't recorded in perpetuity somewhere.
This is why all firearms should be resold privately at least once.
The problem with the idea that the tears were for show was that it was deliberately kept from him that they knew he was the perpetrator. He confessed without being confronted with evidence linking him to it, or even the slightest hint that they suspected he was the perpetrator. At least that's the picture presented by the article.
Unless he's already very practiced and had reason to believe he'd been caught after years of successfully pulling this behavior off, the fact that he spontaneously burst into tears without any indication that Leo actually knew it was him means it's unlikely. The scenario was a trap, and he confessed without being presented as the suspect.
Not likely a sociopath, but definitely fucked up in some way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I read it as a joke, especially considering the "They're NOT fooling me with these minor alphabet releases!"
Usually, DNA is enough to strongly link a person or persons to a scene, just like usually an IP is strong enough to link a person or persons to a scene.
Whether there's anything more than a correlation between those links is part of the job of law enforcement and the judiciary to sort out.
There are also many cases where there are strong doubts regarding the link between DNA or IP and a person being more than happenstance in a given situation.
The analogy is far better than many seen on Slashdot.
So you're saying 802.11 is not the WLAN group, or did you mean 802.11 is the 100BaseVG?
The only thing I noticed wrong with the post was it was a serious response to a joke, but swapping 11 and 12 in it doesn't fix any errors. Then again, I'm a bit impaired by painkillers right now so maybe I'm missing something which would otherwise be obvious.
Depends on your definition of "we." I've encountered a lot of otherwise intelligent people who couldn't wrap their head around the fact that, in many places, "electric vehicle" means "coal-powered vehicle."
Then the article is wrong. Assuming that's the case for all IE installations and OEM presets, the campaign is misdirection and should be widely acknowledged as such. I wonder why no articles have been written publicizing outright lies being made by the Apache Group if this is the case. I'm guessing there's more to the story, one way or the other, because many would not pass up such an opportunity.
I agree, but what should be and what actually is are not always the same thing. Frequently, there need to be two parallel tracks working: One to get things to where they should be, and one to help the way things are right now.
These are not mutually exclusive goals, and this step of dealing with the situation as it is would not have impeded those who are working on getting things to where they should be.
Can stop tracking for people who understand how to use it. Those who could have figured out the DNT toggle but can't operate more complex solutions are in the same position they were before.
There are multiple classes of people involved. One group != another group. This would've helped those who didn't have a workable solution before.
Since I haven't kept up with the technical details of IE, not using it, what is the big deal about then? Either they turn it on by default or they don't.
It's a tautology, but if they don't turn it on by default, they don't turn it on by default, and everyone objecting is confused.
So is the article completely wrong?
In some cases it is worse, in some it's not.
If I believed that anything substantive would ever be done to help non-technical users make and enforce an informed choice, I'd agree that pursuing that option would be the best thing.
At this point, I believe the creation of a drop-in program is likely the only thing that will help now. There's been a lot done technically on the privacy front, but there's a lot further to go. This might've created a bit of breathing room for the technically inept. I don't see the standard doing much harm in this case, because the advertisers are crowing only to themselves and those they've already bought and paid for. Unless there was a real chance legislators could be convinced (in places they haven't already) to act, giving them another bullet point in the script of "how we're not evil" isn't going to harm anyone at this point.
DNT being ignored completely does just that: throws non-technical users under the bus.
Technical users already have an arsenal of options. DNT that is not honored is the same as DNT not existing.
I'm right with you there. That doesn't stop tracking though. My point was, that's exactly the position we were in before the DNT campaign.
DNT could have made things easier for a large class of people who have a desire to not be tracked but who do not have the technical know-how to go about it. Now it will not.
There's a difference between theoretical and practical, and that's what everyone defending MS is missing.
There are lots of options. I never said there were just two. However, there are only two outcomes. Tracking you can do something about, and tracking you can't. That's not a false dichotomy, though conflating the outcome with the multiple paths to it is an interesting attempt at making it appear to be so.
"Don't object" means holding an actual opinion on the subject, whether you know you can make a choice or not. Those who are ignorant but would object if asked were not those I was talking about.
I don't believe you intended to set up a strawman, but you did nonetheless.
While I agree with most of what you're saying, Apache was being pragmatic. Without laws to mandate that DNT is respected, the only chance in hell of it being respected was if it was 100% user initiated to set the DNT flag. Now that it's not, not even those who might have honored it will now. We went from it possibly having some effect to zero possibility of it having any effect.
Technological compromise has now failed, and the likelihood of a legislative one is roughly the same as the percentage of campaign contributions from sources other than special interests.
Without legislation, the options were "opt in" or nothing at all. By not supporting opt in, you support nothing at all, because there is nothing mandating the DNT feature be honored.
It might have been honored if only those objecting to tracking toggled it. Those who don't object to tracking probably don't care. If they don't care, they certainly won't enable it. The move negates all of the efforts of everyone involved in the DNT movement. All. Of. Them.
Now the only way to get tracking stopped is to mandate it legislatively, and the legislators are already bought and paid for.
Now we're left with what we had before, minus a lot of time spent that has now effectively been wasted.
All the people supporting MS might as well just say "DNT opt-in wasn't good enough for me, so fuck everyone who supported it. If I can't have my way, nobody can. Oh, except advertisers."
Takes about a minute to determine it's someone taking a comment and running with it.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3126413&cid=41374821
Started here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3126413&cid=41374821
The first one is near the end of the above comment section.
I did. While the word "fully" was not spoken, neither was the word "truthfully." That's because both are expectations made clear prior to the questioning during voir dire.
Your statement of "bullshit" is as accurate applied to this as it would be if I had said "he was asked to truthfully elaborate." That is, only in the most pedantically technical way, completely disregarding the context of the situation. The failure to use the term in each question does not in any way mean that it does not apply to each question.
I can only hope that during each voir dire I manage to taint the rest of the jurors in the room with what is right.
Even if you only taint one of them, you did a good thing. Oregon is the same way. The Oregon Constitution specifically protects the right of the jury to be the final arbiter of both law and fact in all cases. Funny, the jury instructions in Oregon specifically contradict that passage.
He wasn't asked for an example, he was asked to explain why he raised his hand. Absent the case he presented, he still would've been required to answer in the affirmative, which means his answer was not a full and complete answer, an expectation which is made clear during voir dire. If that expectation was not made clear by the judge, there were other procedural errors.
In voir dire, failing to answer completely is the same thing as not answering truthfully. It is a lie of omission because he was asked to fully elaborate, not cherry pick the lawsuit(s) that had no bearing on the trial while omitting the one(s) which did.
I've got to second this. When they dropped their no-contract plans (which were $10-$20 cheaper a month than the same contract plan) and I needed to switch, they gave me a $100 credit because I was annoyed at having to renew a contract despite never getting a subsidized phone from them. They'll also unlock any phone they sell after 90 days, free of charge.
while the guvmint says they don't keep records of who has bought a gun, you'd be a fool to think that every gun background check wasn't recorded in perpetuity somewhere.
This is why all firearms should be resold privately at least once.
The problem with the idea that the tears were for show was that it was deliberately kept from him that they knew he was the perpetrator. He confessed without being confronted with evidence linking him to it, or even the slightest hint that they suspected he was the perpetrator. At least that's the picture presented by the article.
Unless he's already very practiced and had reason to believe he'd been caught after years of successfully pulling this behavior off, the fact that he spontaneously burst into tears without any indication that Leo actually knew it was him means it's unlikely. The scenario was a trap, and he confessed without being presented as the suspect.
Not likely a sociopath, but definitely fucked up in some way or another.