I think we're assuming that it is inferior because it is made in Taiwan
I think you misunderstood my statement to mean I felt Taiwan produces inferior products. Instead, I meant to imply that that might be the more popular view on/. when it comes to comparing "Apple products" to others. That was all... I think Taiwan rocks (uh oh... now I won't be able to travel to China!).;)
Are businesses REALLY interested in innovation or just being copycats?
There are two formulas for being successful in business: innovate or replicate. Rio was innovative in creating a portable MP3 player. Everything after that was basically replication (albeit with improvements, and that is what differentiates Apple's iPod from the other MP3 players currently... and now there's a scramble to replicate the iPod's features).
Now, given all that, there is still a fine line between following in a leader's footsteps and trying to create brand confusion to sell a (supposedly) inferior product.
Has anyone reviewed this "super shuffle?" If it "works better" (ie, has more memory, longer battery life, better UI, or something else), would it really be a bad thing that it mimics Apple's brand? I think we're assuming that it is inferior because it is made in Taiwan and it is trying to leech off of another brand's recognition to sell. If anything, if it is superior, then it helps Apple because it strengthens the perception of brand quality.
Of course, if it sucks... then Apple has a real interest in shooting the product down.
When will parents stop relegating their childrens' upbringing to toys (including TV) and start giving the children what is rightfully theirs: a human touch?
I had exactly the same reaction when I read about the bear.
Only thing I would add to that is this: outside of idiocy of relegating some parenting functions to a piece of tech, it also opens up the door for further damage. I don't think the average person has really considered what it means to have everything networked to everything else. At first blush it "looks really cool! I can communicate with my kid through the bear from work!" On the other hand, anyone sophisticated and motivated enough can as well.
Just as the approach to WiFi security suggests, I don't think society is really ready to have a fully networked, reachable-by-everyone-in-the-world life.
And another thing: why on earth do you have the word "profit" in quotes? Is this affectation central? If there's one thing Microsoft has been good at making (and it's certainly not software) it's profits.
First, the reason I put "profit" in quotes is because I was trying to differentiate the current value of the company as a whole from the net operating money it generates during a fiscal year; from an investor POV, I was talking about the people who bought into the company when it was young (ie, bought a lot of shares when the company wasn't valued as highly) and still own a large percentage.
The question is a matter of when/if (you missed my if before) things go horribly South for the company, how long will those investors keep their money in there, watching it shrink day by day? That's a tough thing to judge: when is a company dying without hope of real recovery? One hopes that if that happens to Microsoft, it'll naturally be a slow decrease and not an Enron-esque departure.
I think that if Microsoft started to show significant signs of weakness (do those inside invesors wait until it is publically known that Microsoft isn't profitable quarter to quarter? That's when we, the general public, would start getting our first inkling that something's amiss), there's a significant risk of investor flight; I was just proposing that when/if Microsoft falters, there's the risk of a lot of investment money in Microsoft getting pulled out thus severely crippling its ability to survive a downturn.
I've never met a cat that cared two licks about any other sentient create around it, including cats.
Hey... I didn't choose the animal (cat) for comparison, I was just sharing something I heard. This site makes the same reference... I'm sure one could find more.
She also exhibited curiosity with new objects placed into her tank, exploring them extensively, and I must admit, it is most interesting in that unlike other aquatic non mammalians.....when you looked into an octopus eye, they look back at you. There is something absolutely intelligent behind those eyes.
They say the large octopus has an intelligence equivalent to a housecat. Perhaps we don't relate to the intelligence of these creatures (ie, find it surprising when they demonstrate intelligent behavior) because we don't interact with them on a daily basis. I never think twice about the intelligence of my cats because they're so common. I'll tell you, though... I started thinking twice about eating "grilled octopus" at the local restaurant after finding out just how smart they are.
Thank you for the well-informed and thoughtful response... it is precisely what I was hoping to get from my previous post. 8) You're going on my "fan" list for certain.
My only gripe about/. is that when one asks real questions, one has a 50/50 shot of being modded a troll... as though questions are meant to provoke anger instead of dialogue.
Thanks again; I think I might crack into 101, 106, 501, 504 and give it a read. 8)
Given you are a lawyer and I am not, I'll bow to your expertise over my arm-chair knowledge. What I've put out there was from reading opinions on the topic, not the law itself.
Now, given that, I did go back to the document I pseudo-linked to to find the sections that gave me the opinion I stated. Given it is just a summary of the DMCA and not the text of the DMCA itself, I'll qualify my statements as saying it isn't going to be from as authoritative a source as you have available to you. Also, please pre-forgive the use of "copying" over "reproduction," as they seem prefer that word in the pdf.
From the pdf (starting bottom of page 3):
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that
prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of of a copyrighted work. "Copying" is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclusive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological
measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall
in this second category.... As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying.
To me, this states that "copying" isn't a violation of the copyright when the copying of work may be fair use under appropriate circumstances.
Where I'd need your guidance in getting the correct answer is in asking: is making an archival backup of material you've licensed a violation of the copyright? Is it illegal for me to make an archival copy of a DVD I bought in the store?
Depending on your answer to that is where I'd have to follow up and ask: since downloading of material is using an electronic means of "copying," if I own a license to the material I'm "copying," is it really a violation of the law? Hence, is the act of downloading copyrighted materials really infringement if I already have the right to access that material? It seems clear that making a copy and distributing it is always a violation. But just because I downloaded it (instead of making the archival copy from my own disc) isn't necessarily breaking the law... or, is it?
IANAL, either... but, I thought the RIAA/MPAA was going after people who distribute materials, not downloaders. The DMCA (http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf), makes the point that copying isn't necessarily a violation of fair use. This is why the suits have been filed against people providing the content and not the people downloading it... because downloading is really just another form of copying (which, since you have the rights to make archival backups, is acceptable!).
This is why there different definitions of the criminal act in file sharing: there's a distinction between someone obtaining the content illegally and someone providing it illegally.
Eventually they may go after the downloaders as well, but I would assume that the penalties would be similar to shoplifting. Of course, if you've shop-lifted thousands of dollars of merchandise (as would be overly easy to do with a computer download), then you'll face stiffer penalties simply because of the general volume of the theft.
By making their business services available to (and engaging in business with) French citizens, they have opened themselves to the jurisdiction of the French courts. It is irrelevant where their servers are located.
Ok, assuming that what you're proposing is 100% accurate, there's still a problem with this case.
The problem comes in with who's responsible for doing the damage. Saying Google is liable because they're the one running the ads is a little like blaming your ISP for SPAM you receive in your ISP mailbox; they may be the transport, but they're not the abuser.
This is why I was saying that it should be a matter of French company A suing French company B for damages in the French courts instead of putting the onus on Google.
Now, of course, that would all change if Google was actively encouraging such damage... then there's some culpability. To follow my earlier analogy, if my ISP sold my email address to the spammers, then they are indeed responsible for the "damage" I'm receiving in spam email messages.
I just don't agree that Google (no matter where they're located) are in any way at fault in this case.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that the law will apply to Google's French subsidiary, Google.fr, rather than Google.com.
While at first blush that might sound reasonable, it really doesn't have anything to do with jurisdiction.
For example, so long as Google's servers are hosted in the US, the only thing France could do is block their country from accessing Google's servers, and that isn't going to happen.
No, I think another well-informed reader hit it on the head: it would make sense to have a policy in place about competitors buying ad words that are the name of the competing company. But the only way that would work is to have the companies themselves police it (ie, do searches and see if someone else is potentially infringing with paid ads).
At that point it could be brought up in court, but it wouldn't need to involve Google at all; company A can just sue company B saying they're abusing copyrighted names yadda, yadda, yadda.
My email server received over 145,000 connections in 2004, over 143,000 were spam.
While Spamassassin is awesome for filtering, I'm still upset at the lack of action taken by the government to address the 143,000 connections in your example; just because it was blocked doesn't mean that the spammers aren't causing "damage" in wasted bandwidth and computing cycles.
More to the point, we'll soon reach a need for disparate search engines: one that caters to commercial needs and one that caters to "information only."
Perhaps this also will never happen, much as the ".com" intended for "company" soon came to mean "anyone with a website."
What I think the person you responded to meant was that any computer that could analyze what your opponent was doing could similarly apply that logic to your play. So while your computer is telling you "hey, your opponent always goes to the left," his computer could say, "I've recognized a pattern in your play that could be exploited: you always go to the left."
Same concept if the engines are the same; no communication is needed.
More to the point, it costs them less to pay legal fees and fines than it would cost them to "play fair." I don't think any legal system moves fast enough to make the cost of non-compliance more expensive to Microsoft than the cost of compliance; hence, they'll continue to play these legal games.
WiMax is great for static links, not mobile, cellular is a daft way of provisioning static links.
Just because it would be cellular based, doesn't necessarily mean it would have to be mobile. Why not bring up a site on a 3G/4G connection, and just leave it sitting... much like people do today with other broadband connections?
I agree that the problem of handling routing would be attrocious in a mobile environment (imagine hosting a webserver from the back of your van... and driving through a metropolitan area, handing over every few blocks... that would make for some fun retries/routing!).
But, much in the same way WiMax would be good for static links, one could use 3G/4G.
Still, you make an excellent point: how much will they charge for or cap that usage. 8/
WiMax (or something very similar) will show up when it's good and ready, catch on, and be the Next Big Thing.
I doubt it'll be WiMax...and that has nothing to do with the technology so much as its nearest competitor: cellular data.
Seems like we're not too far away from ubiquitous 3G implementations for data transfer... and companies like DoCoMo pushing 4G Research and Development are just around the corner from implementing multi-megabit data transfer. Other techs aren't likely to get the same penetration as cellular networks have already achieved, hence, they'll start off as also-rans.
I'm looking forward to cell data networks for Internet access... leave the 802.11x for home/LANs.
That's why you have all the stuff you need to patch it on a floppy/CD/flash drive, and don't have it connected to the internet right away.
Or, more to the point, start pushing hardware firewalls down to people... build them into the DSL/Cable modems and have them set to block out of the box. I've found that for most home users, having a stateful firewall that doesn't allow any connections in without first originating them is not a hinderance.
Of course, it'll be "harder" for Joe Average to use P2P software (ie, he'll have to configure the box to allow specific ports through), but that's better than having him get infected with some damnable worm.
Another potential solution would be to have Microsoft re-distribute XP (or start distributing XP) with the firewall installed (ie, with SP2). Not that I'm a fan of MS products, but giving your average user an install disc that is already somewhat protected would be a good start. Why are they still distributing the original version of the OS when they have updates that protect (to some degree) against these current threats?
Yup... I know... logistics, cost, etc. But what is it costing them in PR?
Actually, ANY access point is risky unless you run it yourself
Actually, this isn't necessarily true, either.
One of the methods I've read for breaking into someone's network is to spoof the AP and boost the signal strength so the wireless device lands on your "evil" AP instead of the owners AP. Then, it can route traffic *back* to the user's AP, thus ensuring they have no idea that there's a "man in the middle."
Once in the middle, you get all sorts of opportunities to sniff data.
And sure... while it is unlikely someone will do this and get meaningful/realtime data from an SSL secured transaction (same risk we all face going through the public networks anyway), it can be used as a means of gaining other information that might lead to other exploits (ie, if someone is targeting my wireless network, it doesn't matter if my bank transaction is SSL protected, if I use the same username/password to login to Yahoo non-SSL).
You assume that I'm for disallowing access to gmail to search your email for marketing info; you did agree to allow that when you signed-up for a gmail account.
More to the point, I find that type of access to be less important than giving a grieving family access to a dead son's last thoughts.
You don't find it any bit hypocritical that a media organization that is going out of its way to find out everything about you so they can SELL, SELL, SELL is going to deny access to "who you are" to your own family?
If anything, I would have hoped that access to family would be the easier thing to achieve and marketing research would need more permissions.
I know this isn't a popular view on this board (as evidenced by the responses/moderation of my original post). But, I feel the family of a dead loved one should have more sway in this situation than they are obviously getting. They *want* it for some reason... sheesh.
We live in a world where your loved ones aren't allowed to access your mail after you're dead, but gmail can "read" through it to target marketing to you... and keep reading through it post-mortem for deeper demographic research?!?
I don't care if gmail is using computers to do the heuristics. In concept, access is access.
Perhaps the parents are taking the wrong approach: maybe if they can come up with a good marketing reason (like, a book about their son), that'd melt the hearts of Yahoo execs.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're assuming that it is inferior because it is made in Taiwan
/. when it comes to comparing "Apple products" to others. That was all... I think Taiwan rocks (uh oh... now I won't be able to travel to China!). ;)
I think you misunderstood my statement to mean I felt Taiwan produces inferior products. Instead, I meant to imply that that might be the more popular view on
Are businesses REALLY interested in innovation or just being copycats?
There are two formulas for being successful in business: innovate or replicate. Rio was innovative in creating a portable MP3 player. Everything after that was basically replication (albeit with improvements, and that is what differentiates Apple's iPod from the other MP3 players currently... and now there's a scramble to replicate the iPod's features).
Now, given all that, there is still a fine line between following in a leader's footsteps and trying to create brand confusion to sell a (supposedly) inferior product.
Has anyone reviewed this "super shuffle?" If it "works better" (ie, has more memory, longer battery life, better UI, or something else), would it really be a bad thing that it mimics Apple's brand? I think we're assuming that it is inferior because it is made in Taiwan and it is trying to leech off of another brand's recognition to sell. If anything, if it is superior, then it helps Apple because it strengthens the perception of brand quality.
Of course, if it sucks... then Apple has a real interest in shooting the product down.
This is almost tinfoil hat territory...
Ironically, your tinfoil hat may actually help in this instance! 8)
When will parents stop relegating their childrens' upbringing to toys (including TV) and start giving the children what is rightfully theirs: a human touch?
I had exactly the same reaction when I read about the bear.
Only thing I would add to that is this: outside of idiocy of relegating some parenting functions to a piece of tech, it also opens up the door for further damage. I don't think the average person has really considered what it means to have everything networked to everything else. At first blush it "looks really cool! I can communicate with my kid through the bear from work!" On the other hand, anyone sophisticated and motivated enough can as well.
Just as the approach to WiFi security suggests, I don't think society is really ready to have a fully networked, reachable-by-everyone-in-the-world life.
...the PC will refuse to work with anything other than pure, 100% IBM parts.
;)
Woo! Micro-channel all over again, but without the proprietary slot type!
And another thing: why on earth do you have the word "profit" in quotes? Is this affectation central? If there's one thing Microsoft has been good at making (and it's certainly not software) it's profits.
First, the reason I put "profit" in quotes is because I was trying to differentiate the current value of the company as a whole from the net operating money it generates during a fiscal year; from an investor POV, I was talking about the people who bought into the company when it was young (ie, bought a lot of shares when the company wasn't valued as highly) and still own a large percentage.
The question is a matter of when/if (you missed my if before) things go horribly South for the company, how long will those investors keep their money in there, watching it shrink day by day? That's a tough thing to judge: when is a company dying without hope of real recovery? One hopes that if that happens to Microsoft, it'll naturally be a slow decrease and not an Enron-esque departure.
I think that if Microsoft started to show significant signs of weakness (do those inside invesors wait until it is publically known that Microsoft isn't profitable quarter to quarter? That's when we, the general public, would start getting our first inkling that something's amiss), there's a significant risk of investor flight; I was just proposing that when/if Microsoft falters, there's the risk of a lot of investment money in Microsoft getting pulled out thus severely crippling its ability to survive a downturn.
A company that has more cash reserves than the GNP of a couple of Eastern-European countries taken together, is gonna take a looong time to fall.
That presumes that the people who own it would be willing to spend their "profit" to allow it to fall slowly.
My money would be on greed and a run on the Microsoft bank when (if) the time comes.
I've never met a cat that cared two licks about any other sentient create around it, including cats.
Hey... I didn't choose the animal (cat) for comparison, I was just sharing something I heard. This site makes the same reference... I'm sure one could find more.
She also exhibited curiosity with new objects placed into her tank, exploring them extensively, and I must admit, it is most interesting in that unlike other aquatic non mammalians.....when you looked into an octopus eye, they look back at you. There is something absolutely intelligent behind those eyes.
They say the large octopus has an intelligence equivalent to a housecat. Perhaps we don't relate to the intelligence of these creatures (ie, find it surprising when they demonstrate intelligent behavior) because we don't interact with them on a daily basis. I never think twice about the intelligence of my cats because they're so common. I'll tell you, though... I started thinking twice about eating "grilled octopus" at the local restaurant after finding out just how smart they are.
Thank you for the well-informed and thoughtful response... it is precisely what I was hoping to get from my previous post. 8)
/. is that when one asks real questions, one has a 50/50 shot of being modded a troll... as though questions are meant to provoke anger instead of dialogue.
You're going on my "fan" list for certain.
My only gripe about
Thanks again; I think I might crack into 101, 106, 501, 504 and give it a read. 8)
Given you are a lawyer and I am not, I'll bow to your expertise over my arm-chair knowledge. What I've put out there was from reading opinions on the topic, not the law itself.
... As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying.
Now, given that, I did go back to the document I pseudo-linked to to find the sections that gave me the opinion I stated. Given it is just a summary of the DMCA and not the text of the DMCA itself, I'll qualify my statements as saying it isn't going to be from as authoritative a source as you have available to you. Also, please pre-forgive the use of "copying" over "reproduction," as they seem prefer that word in the pdf.
From the pdf (starting bottom of page 3):
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of of a copyrighted work. "Copying" is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclusive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall in this second category.
To me, this states that "copying" isn't a violation of the copyright when the copying of work may be fair use under appropriate circumstances.
Where I'd need your guidance in getting the correct answer is in asking: is making an archival backup of material you've licensed a violation of the copyright? Is it illegal for me to make an archival copy of a DVD I bought in the store?
Depending on your answer to that is where I'd have to follow up and ask: since downloading of material is using an electronic means of "copying," if I own a license to the material I'm "copying," is it really a violation of the law? Hence, is the act of downloading copyrighted materials really infringement if I already have the right to access that material?
It seems clear that making a copy and distributing it is always a violation. But just because I downloaded it (instead of making the archival copy from my own disc) isn't necessarily breaking the law... or, is it?
Just to add to what the parent has stated...
//www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf), makes the point that copying isn't necessarily a violation of fair use. This is why the suits have been filed against people providing the content and not the people downloading it... because downloading is really just another form of copying (which, since you have the rights to make archival backups, is acceptable!).
IANAL, either... but, I thought the RIAA/MPAA was going after people who distribute materials, not downloaders. The DMCA (http:
This is why there different definitions of the criminal act in file sharing: there's a distinction between someone obtaining the content illegally and someone providing it illegally.
Eventually they may go after the downloaders as well, but I would assume that the penalties would be similar to shoplifting. Of course, if you've shop-lifted thousands of dollars of merchandise (as would be overly easy to do with a computer download), then you'll face stiffer penalties simply because of the general volume of the theft.
By making their business services available to (and engaging in business with) French citizens, they have opened themselves to the jurisdiction of the French courts. It is irrelevant where their servers are located.
Ok, assuming that what you're proposing is 100% accurate, there's still a problem with this case.
The problem comes in with who's responsible for doing the damage. Saying Google is liable because they're the one running the ads is a little like blaming your ISP for SPAM you receive in your ISP mailbox; they may be the transport, but they're not the abuser.
This is why I was saying that it should be a matter of French company A suing French company B for damages in the French courts instead of putting the onus on Google.
Now, of course, that would all change if Google was actively encouraging such damage... then there's some culpability. To follow my earlier analogy, if my ISP sold my email address to the spammers, then they are indeed responsible for the "damage" I'm receiving in spam email messages.
I just don't agree that Google (no matter where they're located) are in any way at fault in this case.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that the law will apply to Google's French subsidiary, Google.fr, rather than Google.com.
While at first blush that might sound reasonable, it really doesn't have anything to do with jurisdiction.
For example, so long as Google's servers are hosted in the US, the only thing France could do is block their country from accessing Google's servers, and that isn't going to happen.
No, I think another well-informed reader hit it on the head: it would make sense to have a policy in place about competitors buying ad words that are the name of the competing company. But the only way that would work is to have the companies themselves police it (ie, do searches and see if someone else is potentially infringing with paid ads).
At that point it could be brought up in court, but it wouldn't need to involve Google at all; company A can just sue company B saying they're abusing copyrighted names yadda, yadda, yadda.
My email server received over 145,000 connections in 2004, over 143,000 were spam.
While Spamassassin is awesome for filtering, I'm still upset at the lack of action taken by the government to address the 143,000 connections in your example; just because it was blocked doesn't mean that the spammers aren't causing "damage" in wasted bandwidth and computing cycles.
More to the point, we'll soon reach a need for disparate search engines: one that caters to commercial needs and one that caters to "information only."
Perhaps this also will never happen, much as the ".com" intended for "company" soon came to mean "anyone with a website."
What I think the person you responded to meant was that any computer that could analyze what your opponent was doing could similarly apply that logic to your play. So while your computer is telling you "hey, your opponent always goes to the left," his computer could say, "I've recognized a pattern in your play that could be exploited: you always go to the left."
Same concept if the engines are the same; no communication is needed.
No, if it saves them market share.
More to the point, it costs them less to pay legal fees and fines than it would cost them to "play fair." I don't think any legal system moves fast enough to make the cost of non-compliance more expensive to Microsoft than the cost of compliance; hence, they'll continue to play these legal games.
WiMax is great for static links, not mobile, cellular is a daft way of provisioning static links.
Just because it would be cellular based, doesn't necessarily mean it would have to be mobile. Why not bring up a site on a 3G/4G connection, and just leave it sitting... much like people do today with other broadband connections?
I agree that the problem of handling routing would be attrocious in a mobile environment (imagine hosting a webserver from the back of your van... and driving through a metropolitan area, handing over every few blocks... that would make for some fun retries/routing!).
But, much in the same way WiMax would be good for static links, one could use 3G/4G.
Still, you make an excellent point: how much will they charge for or cap that usage. 8/
WiMax (or something very similar) will show up when it's good and ready, catch on, and be the Next Big Thing.
I doubt it'll be WiMax...and that has nothing to do with the technology so much as its nearest competitor: cellular data.
Seems like we're not too far away from ubiquitous 3G implementations for data transfer... and companies like DoCoMo pushing 4G Research and Development are just around the corner from implementing multi-megabit data transfer. Other techs aren't likely to get the same penetration as cellular networks have already achieved, hence, they'll start off as also-rans.
I'm looking forward to cell data networks for Internet access... leave the 802.11x for home/LANs.
That's why you have all the stuff you need to patch it on a floppy/CD/flash drive, and don't have it connected to the internet right away.
Or, more to the point, start pushing hardware firewalls down to people... build them into the DSL/Cable modems and have them set to block out of the box.
I've found that for most home users, having a stateful firewall that doesn't allow any connections in without first originating them is not a hinderance.
Of course, it'll be "harder" for Joe Average to use P2P software (ie, he'll have to configure the box to allow specific ports through), but that's better than having him get infected with some damnable worm.
Another potential solution would be to have Microsoft re-distribute XP (or start distributing XP) with the firewall installed (ie, with SP2). Not that I'm a fan of MS products, but giving your average user an install disc that is already somewhat protected would be a good start. Why are they still distributing the original version of the OS when they have updates that protect (to some degree) against these current threats?
Yup... I know... logistics, cost, etc. But what is it costing them in PR?
Actually, ANY access point is risky unless you run it yourself
Actually, this isn't necessarily true, either.
One of the methods I've read for breaking into someone's network is to spoof the AP and boost the signal strength so the wireless device lands on your "evil" AP instead of the owners AP. Then, it can route traffic *back* to the user's AP, thus ensuring they have no idea that there's a "man in the middle."
Once in the middle, you get all sorts of opportunities to sniff data.
And sure... while it is unlikely someone will do this and get meaningful/realtime data from an SSL secured transaction (same risk we all face going through the public networks anyway), it can be used as a means of gaining other information that might lead to other exploits (ie, if someone is targeting my wireless network, it doesn't matter if my bank transaction is SSL protected, if I use the same username/password to login to Yahoo non-SSL).
You assume that I'm for disallowing access to gmail to search your email for marketing info; you did agree to allow that when you signed-up for a gmail account.
More to the point, I find that type of access to be less important than giving a grieving family access to a dead son's last thoughts.
You don't find it any bit hypocritical that a media organization that is going out of its way to find out everything about you so they can SELL, SELL, SELL is going to deny access to "who you are" to your own family?
If anything, I would have hoped that access to family would be the easier thing to achieve and marketing research would need more permissions.
I know this isn't a popular view on this board (as evidenced by the responses/moderation of my original post). But, I feel the family of a dead loved one should have more sway in this situation than they are obviously getting. They *want* it for some reason... sheesh.
We live in a world where your loved ones aren't allowed to access your mail after you're dead, but gmail can "read" through it to target marketing to you... and keep reading through it post-mortem for deeper demographic research?!?
I don't care if gmail is using computers to do the heuristics. In concept, access is access.
Perhaps the parents are taking the wrong approach: maybe if they can come up with a good marketing reason (like, a book about their son), that'd melt the hearts of Yahoo execs.
Mute is cool (totally forgot the name of the project, but that's the one I was thinking of when writing the reply... thanks!).
But, I'd check out WASTE instead... seems to have some promise, but only for "private networks."