:-) While not being that old I guess that law just predates the idea that anyone in his sane mind could even have the idea to use a hidden microphone and a radio transmitter as a toy.
First of all, it has nothing to do with any radio licensing or bugs or hijacking, The description of what is forbidden is pretty clear:
die ihrer Form nach einen anderen Gegenstand vortäuschen oder die mit Gegenständen des täglichen Gebrauchs verkleidet sind und auf Grund dieser Umstände oder auf Grund ihrer Funktionsweise in besonderer Weise geeignet und dazu bestimmt sind, das nicht öffentlich gesprochene Wort eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt abzuhören oder das Bild eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt aufzunehmen.
Let's start from the back: The device has to be capable to record or transmit non-public speech or image unnoticed. Check. But that would be true for any phone or mp3-player, so there are some other required features: The device has to be either a) pretending to be another class of object or b) to be disguised with an everyday object or c) suitable and meant to facilitate secret recordings or transmissions.
We have a recording device that is hidden in a doll (everyday object). It transmits speech to a server. That's basically it. Even small changes, as local speech processing would let that doll of the hook, so comparisons to your other examples are academic exercises, as these aren't identical. Then lots of detail is lost in translation, like a subtle difference for audio and "images" (still or moving)
The case would be clear for Alexa: This device is not disguised and lights up when recording or transmitting. So nothing unnoticed.
The phone in the pocket.. well.. just say if you set it to record before putting it into your pocket, you would WISH that this law was used, because secretly recording someone is a criminal offense, while this here only calls for verified destruction of offending devices.
The microphone and camera in the Smart TV is a really interesting case. If you think actions should be taken, there is an email address to report suspicious devices.
And as a fun fact: it is not enough to attach a warning label to legalize hidden recording devices. Heck knows why. But we're talking about lawyers, so it's probably not heaven knows why....
The refund idea probably won't work, as you had to buy that doll somewhere where they are legal, so there's no need for a refund there.
But I like the idea with the witch burning. Just imagine telling little girls "Yes sweetheart, Cayla was a bad doll.. se what we do with bad dolls here....? Muahaha..."
In Germany, the BNetzA licenses such devices. Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? What changed between then and now?
I don't think anything has changed.
It was never licensed in Germany, but if it us sold anywhere in the EU, it can be imported into Germany without problems. And even radio equipment that was licensed and tested to behave to its standards (like Wifi, Bluetooth, LTE...) in one EU country is legal to be used everywhere in Europe. (Assuming it is correctly operated according to additional national regulations and instruction manual. Example: Operating WiFi is legal only if the channel selection is set to your current country - channel assignments vary)
But as not all laws are identical all over germany, it may be legal to sell or buy something in france that is illegal 5 miles away across the border. People from the states should know that. It's exactly like buying alcohol in a supermarket in Virginia and driving back to Maryland.
Your phone uses Bluetooth. If you leave it in your pocket, does that make it a hidden surveillance device?
No. If you set it to record, it does make your jacket the illiegal device and you the manufacturer of an object that contains a hidden recording or transmission device.
As long as the phone is clearly recognizable as a phone, there is no problem with the phone or for the phone manufacturer.
From a security viewpoint it's even worse. The usual popular time sinks (Angy Birds, Candy Crush...) should have been under enough scrutiny to assume that they are "clean". Banning the popular originals will drive users to the $chinese-knockoffs where no one knows what kind of payload is inside.
The real issue here is that it should have never gotten to the point where the vendor "allowing" something or not was possible in the first place. The owner of a device -- i.e., the user -- should have 100% complete control over every aspect of that device, full stop. All DRM should be illegal!
We had it that way in the good ol' days of DOS. But still users flocked to AppStore when the iPhone came out like stray cats would run to a leaking milk truck! So what happend back then, when users could install anything they wanted without restrictions?
And not much has changed since then. Go to Joe Sixpacks PC and you'll find tons of malware, adware and who knows what. A friend had so many search bars in his browser, he couldn't see anything of the website anymore.
As nice as the idea of the free PC is, you have to give credit to the fact that users want curation. Not in a traditional sense that it is a positive selection of what to see or install, but even more in terms of what NOT to install.
I have pictures of my dad building my parents house. Not single handed and of course not the part that needs heavy machines, but the brick walls were build by him and his friends.(and help from his dad, who was the actual crafty guy)
I expect the casino to be a little more savvy than the average rube.
You would think so, but then again "I though anyone could see that" is each con mans usual defense.
If I walk into a baccarat room and complain that they aren't using my favorite Frobozz Magic Playing Cards with an official Frobozz Magic Card Shuffler and dealing them from a certified Frobozz Magic Baccarat Shoe, I expect to be unceremoniously thrown out.
But I guess I'm naive when it comes to the world of high-stakes gambling, huh.
Yes. Greed and being afraid to lose that high-stakes gambler. And again, as in every fraud, they work best when the victim himself thinks he is conning the actual fraudster.
I noticed that according to the summary, he had to pay back his "win", but no charges for fraud were even mentioned. I think the judge couldn't put his opinion on casino ethics more clearly...
It's more like "people don't understand how marketing departments slap the "AI" label on any old analysis software because "Artificial Intelligence" sounds much cooler than beefed up excel sheet"
Marked cards are cards that allow you to distinguish different cards (or here: different card orientations) without seeing their front side. It is of no importance if these marks where printed in the factory or added manually to an originally unmarked set.
You can buy marked cards in any magicians store that are specifically designed to be marked and are in no way tampered with.
Plus the form factor about the size of your palm, could handle it with one hand better than a CD (without bending it) not tiny as current usb sticks being lost forever if you dropped them in your car once.
They could have made a zip-disc killer if they made a combined data/music drive at that time.. Company policies killing a product.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it still in time for the ignobel awards?
:-) While not being that old I guess that law just predates the idea that anyone in his sane mind could even have the idea to use a hidden microphone and a radio transmitter as a toy.
First of all, it has nothing to do with any radio licensing or bugs or hijacking, The description of what is forbidden is pretty clear:
die ihrer Form nach einen anderen Gegenstand vortäuschen oder die mit Gegenständen des täglichen Gebrauchs verkleidet sind und auf Grund dieser Umstände oder auf Grund ihrer Funktionsweise in besonderer Weise geeignet und dazu bestimmt sind, das nicht öffentlich gesprochene Wort eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt abzuhören oder das Bild eines anderen von diesem unbemerkt aufzunehmen.
Let's start from the back: The device has to be capable to record or transmit non-public speech or image unnoticed. Check. But that would be true for any phone or mp3-player, so there are some other required features: The device has to be either a) pretending to be another class of object or b) to be disguised with an everyday object or c) suitable and meant to facilitate secret recordings or transmissions.
We have a recording device that is hidden in a doll (everyday object). It transmits speech to a server. That's basically it. Even small changes, as local speech processing would let that doll of the hook, so comparisons to your other examples are academic exercises, as these aren't identical. Then lots of detail is lost in translation, like a subtle difference for audio and "images" (still or moving)
The case would be clear for Alexa: This device is not disguised and lights up when recording or transmitting. So nothing unnoticed.
The phone in the pocket.. well.. just say if you set it to record before putting it into your pocket, you would WISH that this law was used, because secretly recording someone is a criminal offense, while this here only calls for verified destruction of offending devices.
The microphone and camera in the Smart TV is a really interesting case. If you think actions should be taken, there is an email address to report suspicious devices.
And as a fun fact: it is not enough to attach a warning label to legalize hidden recording devices. Heck knows why. But we're talking about lawyers, so it's probably not heaven knows why....
Reference: 90 TKG
The refund idea probably won't work, as you had to buy that doll somewhere where they are legal, so there's no need for a refund there.
But I like the idea with the witch burning. Just imagine telling little girls "Yes sweetheart, Cayla was a bad doll.. se what we do with bad dolls here....? Muahaha..."
In Germany, the BNetzA licenses such devices. Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place? What changed between then and now?
I don't think anything has changed.
It was never licensed in Germany, but if it us sold anywhere in the EU, it can be imported into Germany without problems. And even radio equipment that was licensed and tested to behave to its standards (like Wifi, Bluetooth, LTE...) in one EU country is legal to be used everywhere in Europe. (Assuming it is correctly operated according to additional national regulations and instruction manual. Example: Operating WiFi is legal only if the channel selection is set to your current country - channel assignments vary)
But as not all laws are identical all over germany, it may be legal to sell or buy something in france that is illegal 5 miles away across the border. People from the states should know that. It's exactly like buying alcohol in a supermarket in Virginia and driving back to Maryland.
Your phone uses Bluetooth. If you leave it in your pocket, does that make it a hidden surveillance device?
No. If you set it to record, it does make your jacket the illiegal device and you the manufacturer of an object that contains a hidden recording or transmission
device.
As long as the phone is clearly recognizable as a phone, there is no problem with the phone or for the phone manufacturer.
I'm sure there will be a lot of hardening when you mention Curie on a geek site.
really?
I agree with you.
From a security viewpoint it's even worse. The usual popular time sinks (Angy Birds, Candy Crush...) should have been under enough scrutiny to assume that they are "clean". Banning the popular originals will drive users to the $chinese-knockoffs where no one knows what kind of payload is inside.
The ones doing a good job are NOT wasting their time on slashdot.
And now back to work!
P.S. I'm probably closer to the weekend than most of you :-)
The opposite of on-the-fly...
Pre-recorded:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/0...
Superbowl halftime show is now on par with the chinese Olympic Opening Ceremony fireworks, that many people called "cheating"
The real issue here is that it should have never gotten to the point where the vendor "allowing" something or not was possible in the first place. The owner of a device -- i.e., the user -- should have 100% complete control over every aspect of that device, full stop. All DRM should be illegal!
We had it that way in the good ol' days of DOS. But still users flocked to AppStore when the iPhone came out like stray cats would run to a leaking milk truck! So what happend back then, when users could install anything they wanted without restrictions?
BonziBuddy!
And not much has changed since then. Go to Joe Sixpacks PC and you'll find tons of malware, adware and who knows what. A friend had so many search bars in his browser, he couldn't see anything of the website anymore.
As nice as the idea of the free PC is, you have to give credit to the fact that users want curation. Not in a traditional sense that it is a positive selection of what to see or install, but even more in terms of what NOT to install.
You picked the right one for that. I'm reading sheet music several times a week since being a kid.
No need to repeat those people who already told you how wrong you are with the rest of your post.
I have pictures of my dad building my parents house. Not single handed and of course not the part that needs heavy machines, but the brick walls were build by him and his friends.(and help from his dad, who was the actual crafty guy)
Presence of hair, breasts, and other evidence points to merpeople being mammals.
They may be like Platypuses and still lay eggs?
When writing to it, when reading to it, when transfering an analog signal from any source to and sink using non supraconducting wire.
In other words: A hypothetical, perfect anlog medium, with a hypothetical, perfect analog signal chain, you wouldn't loose information.
Any piece of analog equipment will loose more signal than the cheapest DAC.
while vinyl is an analog recording by nature.
Which doesn't say anything about any similarity with the original signal.
I expect the casino to be a little more savvy than the average rube.
You would think so, but then again "I though anyone could see that" is each con mans usual defense.
If I walk into a baccarat room and complain that they aren't using my favorite Frobozz Magic Playing Cards with an official Frobozz Magic Card Shuffler and dealing them from a certified Frobozz Magic Baccarat Shoe, I expect to be unceremoniously thrown out.
But I guess I'm naive when it comes to the world of high-stakes gambling, huh.
Yes. Greed and being afraid to lose that high-stakes gambler. And again, as in every fraud, they work best when the victim himself thinks he is conning the actual fraudster.
I noticed that according to the summary, he had to pay back his "win", but no charges for fraud were even mentioned. I think the judge couldn't put his opinion on casino ethics more clearly...
It's more like "people don't understand how marketing departments slap the "AI" label on any old analysis software because "Artificial Intelligence" sounds much cooler than beefed up excel sheet"
Thanks.
But I would have expected that today no one would make such mistakes in designing a card back.
These look pretty symmetrical to me?
http://playingcards.wikidot.co...
Not if you trick the casino into using or accepting marked cards without their knowledge.
Part of the magic tricks with marked cards is to convince the victim that they aren't marked.
If a casino would use marked cards to fleece the gamblers, would you say it's their fault for accepting the suggested cards?
Marked cards are cards that allow you to distinguish different cards (or here: different card orientations) without seeing their front side. It is of no importance if these marks where printed in the factory or added manually to an originally unmarked set.
You can buy marked cards in any magicians store that are specifically designed to be marked and are in no way tampered with.
Full ack.
Plus the form factor about the size of your palm, could handle it with one hand better than a CD (without bending it) not tiny as current usb sticks being lost forever if you dropped them in your car once.
They could have made a zip-disc killer if they made a combined data/music drive at that time.. Company policies killing a product.
So after book stores, Amazon now wants to push Banana stores out of business?
So they don't even have the decency to pretend that those anti-piracy measures were meant to curb piracy?