I agree that updating OSS with the patches is often simple and that the software is more compartmentalized. My main statement though was that no matter where the updates come from, they are ineffective if the system administrator doesn't apply them.
I wasn't meaning to imply that MS shouldn't be blamed for the problem. Just trying to point out that even with a good patching solution, even the best ones will fail if the system admin doesn't apply them.
MS should bear the blunt of the blame. For as much revenue that is generated by their products you would expect them to have a better product by investing into it. By no means though is MS the sole bearer of the blame. The organization that chooses to use the OS and the administrators that don't keep up with the OS maintenance also share some of this responsibility.
I'm in HC too. Guess I'll need to stop in and check it out. If your at the branch on Gorman Road, I'll have to keep an eye out for someone checking out the OS on the terminal.
Glad to see the county working to not spend more of my tax dollars and recycling older equipment.
I'm going to have to dust off that library card. I live in Howard County, MD but haven't touched one of the terminals yet. Maybe it's time to get off/. for a little break and check it out.
BTW, aren't you under court order to only go by Skinner now?
OSS software has a much better track record documenting and fixing problems
Just wanted to point out that in this case, the system admins that didn't patch the MS OS probably wouldn't take the time to update their OSS either.
I agree that most OSS is more secure, but if admins don't do their part, the system will be vulnerable no matter what OS or application is used. That being said, MS certainly keeps admins busier than other OS's. I find updating my UNIX systems (Solaris and IRIX) much simpler than my MS Win32s (although sometimes patching a single MS Win32 system can be easier than a single UNIX box but for labs or remote locations, UNIX is definitely easier).
I'm now an admin for an ISP, and bad Sun CPUs make up the large portion of my hardware work.
I'm guessing you work with a lot more Sun boxes than I do, but the only thing I've ever had go bad in one of my Sun boxes was a hard disk. On SGI, I've had a board go once and SCSI cards go a time or two. Usually my biggest problem seems to be Dell power supplies on the PowerEdge server line and the occasional SCSI hard disk on some Dell workstations. The breakdown really seems to be pretty even over all the vendors (maybe the Dells a little more, but not by much), but when a Dell fails, it seems to do it on a newer box if it's going to happen. As for CPU's, can't say that I've had one of them go bad yet.
Its biggest perceived flaw (slow execution speed) is largely a thing of a past.
Just to back you up, my group does some pretty extensive image and dataset processing using Java based code. While most of the images are a couple hundred megabytes in size, it's not unusual for a several gigabyte image to to be processed too. Processing time is definitely a concern of ours and we've found the more recent Java versions to perform quite nicely.
As for the Java Desktop System, I think the bigest issues it faces are related to hardware support (device drivers) from the various vendors.
For as much complaining people here seem to do against Sun, remember how some of the popular open source projects got large chunks of their code (Apache Jakartaand Open Office are two that come to mind). I know that Sun hasn't open sourced everything, but at least they follow open standards.
I foresee a lot of folks annoyed with the restrictions more than they are joyed by the content.
I'd agree with you except that the general population doesn't concern itself with the technology side of media. If set top boxes replace DVD or VCR's, people will buy it figuring that's the future. Most unfortunately won't care as long as they get the movies/music they want to watch.
The tech folks though are going to have lots of problems with this as it limits their choice of hardware/software. I wish more people would take an interest in "how" things work rather than just being users.
OK, time to pull out the definition of "stealing". Went to Webster Online and found the following entry that seems to best describe the situation:
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully *stole a car* b : to take away by force or unjust means *they've stolen our liberty* c : to take surreptitiously or without permission *steal a kiss* d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of *steal the show*
In this sense, stealing can be appropriately applied, even if legally the terms of the lawsuit will be copyright related (IANAL). The example related to "stealing a kiss" doesn't deprive a person of any physical property but does relate to taking something that you should not have.
They do not have the right to demand that 3rd parties use their resources to enforce their copyright.
Business entities are required to follow the law similar to any individual (and in some areas, they even have greater restrictions). If they are made aware of an illegal use on their network, either by their own efforts, or that of another entity, they must take appropriate actions to resolve the situation. I'm guessing Comcast doesn't perform scans of the data passing around the networks themselves, but were provided the information by MGM (or an entity acting on behalf of MGM). Comcast (and I'm sure just about any ISP does as well) has policies that prohibit certain activities including distribution of copyrighted material without rights.
In the strictest sense, I agree that taking a copy doesn't deprive the owner of property, but on the other hand, obtaining something without permission can be considered stealing, tangible or not.
Then please explain how an unauthorized copy is "stealing."
Are they really free? I didn't know that time in a studio was free now. I also thought that band equipment, advertisement, and management all cost money too. While the physical act of copying doesn't remove a physical item, it does take away the ability to recoup the cost of making music. Musicians, actors, software developers, etc... all make a product that is intended for sale to a broad customer base. The unit pricing is determined by how many of those units they sell. How would you like to produce a product to only sell a handful because everyone made copies from the few that you sold?
How about if there was proof that the unauthorized copies spurred people to pay full retail price for your product and you made more because of the unauthorized copies, would it be stealing then?
This obviously is up for debate by those who copy and those who produce. Unfortunately most people seem to only see this from the perspective that benefits them most. I'm gathering from your viewpoint that you do not produce: music, movies, software, or any other digital media. I produce software so my interest obviously is to minimize piracy. Fortunately, most of the software I deal with is either R&D or specific to a customer and rarely enters the actual commercial market (customers pay us for specific functionality that may not exist in commercial products).
I guess you hate Fair Use.
No, I have no problem with fair use, but that's not what your really hinting at. Fair use must follow the end user license (I think at a minimum, a backup copy should be permissable, but other rights are nice to have too - example, a copy of my favorite CD's in both my vehicles). The issue here with Comcast though is not related to making an archive copy, but rather it is bypassing MGM's right to sell units (the movie) at a price that will recoup their investment.
As for consumers downloading for free as an alternative, this is not a viable business model. Again, back to the idea of mass producing units and selling many to recoup the investment cost. Obviously people were upset with paying $20 for a CD with one good song on it. In my case, that's why my CD collection is very small and I generally listen to the radio. Personally, I would love to download songs for free, but I can also appreciate the fact that music is a business and they need to make money. Promotions like Pepsi giving away songs on bottle caps is probably the only real way to get "free" music, but it's really not free. Pepsi is buying you to drink their product. Music is a business and businesses goal is to make money.
So is copying music/movies/software stealing? Even looking at it from a digital perspective, you have possession of data that you do not legally have a right to. If you don't think digital information can be stolen, can I have your credit card information? I'm not actually taking anything other than a copy of information from you. How about your social security number or bank accounts? I'm sure the money in your account is not "real" currency but credit.
The letter didn't indicate that Comcast initiated this investigation, MGM did. How they did their research wasn't specified, but I'd guess they attempt to download files based on the movie name and catch the IP. To me, MGM hasn't really invaded privacy as getting the IP while receiving the download is sort of like checking CallerID.
As for installing cameras in my house, I doubt you'd really enjoy watching my family. We don't do much of interest to most people.
Phone calls can be listened to, but that requires a court ordered wire tap if I understand the process correctly. Maybe that's changed recently with all the anti-terror going on in the US.
Human error could possibly result in someone being accused falsely, but the numbers will hopefully be pretty low. As for DHCP, most ISP's set the timeout to a long enough time period that you shouldn't be changing your IP very often. Even if the DHCP timeout is set low, the ISP would have to keep a database of the MAC to IP mapping just to protect themselves from illegal connections (in this case, I'm meaning physical connections to their network without being a paying customer to the ISP). I know with Comcast, they have the MAC address of my cable modem which they have on file with a related entry of my info.
If the ISP doesn't maintain a record of the actual owner of the connection, I'd say the current user of the IP has little to worry about legally, but may have a headache of dealing with defending themselves (which may be worse than paying someone else's fine - funny, but not really).
Yeah, I'm a bit selective in what rules I want to follow. I could probably argue the points about which action is more harmful, but I doubt we'd agree.
what? money for the rich man is more important than someone's life.
Never said that. I just find that my foot gets a bit heavy at times (5 MPH on most roads without population near it, 10 MPH or so over on major highways) so I'm looking to avoid a ticket. In my opinion speeding, within a reasonable amount, is not really dangerous. In some cases, the speed limit is artificially low just to increase the money generated by fines.
Man, I wish I had your vehicles over mine. My car history includes a couple of Nissan Sentras and a Ford Aerostar, not the performance vehicles by any means.
As for the speed cameras, I'm not looking to drive dangerously. I do tend to push it a bit on the less populated roads that don't have houses along them (or at least sitting far back from the road). In my area though, the counties have been putting these up on the 40/45 MPH roads where you can easily find yourself doing 10 MPH over (these are "connector" roads between populated areas, not "in" the populated areas. I'm really just looking to avoid tickets for going a few MPH over the limit, not what I would consider excessive.
I spend a fair amount of time on the road (about 1 hour commute to/from work) so I'm just looking to reduce my chances of getting a ticket due to the foot getting a little heavy.
I don't think the question is about the legal status of P2P technology but rather the content being distributed using it. If an artist owns the music and wants to share it, they can, but I'd guess that labels probably have a bit to say on this.
Christian musicians may or may not want to use P2P for distribution (as long as the artist truly own the rights). I guess it depends on how they support themselves financially. I know people shouldn't be concerned with money, but a person needs at least some level of income to survive (trying to recall the song, but the lyrics go something like: "money isn't everything but I'd like to see you survive without it").
As for the "rock stars already have enough money", that can be debated. I'm sure you'll find differing opinions on what an appropriate amount of money is. Consider their trade to that of other high paying careers (athletes, corporate execs, etc...) and determine who is making too much money. Most of us would say they all are, but that's probably based on our income. Take other people with very low or no income and they'll probably say that our income is too much too.
No matter how much one dislikes the DMCA, it's really just enforcing ownership rights. I know that I appreciate getting paid for things I create and would be pretty upset if people started stealing my work (in my case, software integration/development). My wife would be a little upset if I didn't get paid due to everyone getting my product for free.
If consumers don't like paying for goods, then they need to look at alternative products that meet their desires. While I can see some musicians embracing the "free" model, I imagine that most would like to earn their living from their music.
Only users who engage in illegal activities really have anything to worry about. Comcast is cooperating in keeping things legal, that's all. If they don't cooperate, they essentially put themselves at risk. Not exactly a good practice to take the risk while protecting their customer who is doing illegal activities. Comcast is a business and needs to operate under the law while trying to make a profit. If your going to do illegal activities, figure that your chances of getting caught are going to keep going up as technology improves (of course counter technology improves too).
I have Comcast at home and the service they provide works very well. I haven't tried Verizon, but my brother has that and it works well too (not quite as fast as my Comcast connection though).
In an unrelated question, has anyone tried the spray on products for defeating "speed cameras"? Found one listed at Phantom Plate but don't know if the stuff really works. Probably should drive the speed limit more closely, but those darn cameras are going up everywhere in Maryland.
Somehow I don't see pleading ignorance as a valid defense. Never works for a traffic tickets - honest officer, I thought the speed limit was 45, not 35.
I suppose one could leave their wireless router wide open and use that as a defense, but I'm sure at some point, you'd have to make your systems accessible for review. Might also be difficult to convince it must be someone else if you live in a single family home with a large yard but leave your file sharing up 24/7.
Comcast is at least providing some level of warning to the end user to clean things up or they'll likely be prosecuted. The text sounds like Comcast is ready to cooperate with the copyright holders under DMCA so it might be too late, but a good system cleaning would be in order.
I'll throw in my support for your statements. I also work with Solaris SPARC and have x86 installed at home. The versions are remarkably similar.
Solaris x86 gets a bad reputation because Sun really dropped the ball in stating their intentions about supporting it. People stayed away from it due to the question about it's future.
From some presentations I've seen on Sun and talking to Sun reps, I think Sun is finally presenting a clearer strategy on the relationship of it's SPARC, x86, and Linux solutions. They are struggling though to overcome some of their earlier mistakes in representing x86 in particular.
As you obviously didn't read the articles, here's the excerpt:
Shearer also said IBM was trialling the use of RFID tags in US schools for mentally disabled children in a move that she claimed had full support from most parents.
"These children are primarily kept indoors at the moment because they escape otherwise and might get hurt. So what we are going to do is with two of these huge schools, is to give the children an RFID bracelet that they take off at the end of the day so that we know where they are, and if they walk out the gate then we would know," said Shearer.
Basically the technology used for RFID tags can be used for tracking.
No tin foil hat here. Can I borrow your dunce cap?
I'm not really worried about what RFID track as they are really a more efficient system for techniques they already use. I would just like a privacy statement and ideally an option to "opt out".
Eventually the tracking for RFID tagged items will get to the level where they can figure out your purchasing habbits. Leaving the store isn't really the big deal, but they can certainly do that. I think most people are concerned more about how their personal information will be used. For some people, this may be leaving the store, but I'd guess that more people are worried about how marketing firms are going to use the information and the usual distribution of your personal data (identity theft chances increase). RFID has potential advantages but not without some real concerns.
Now WalMart will know that I go through Sam's club to sample their food without necessarily buying that product.
Personally I don't really care much about who is tracking my purchasing habbits. If they want to know that I compared a couple items before choosing which to buy, who cares. The point is that the public should know what their personal information is being used for. Most companies have privacy statements to describe how they intend to handle your data and often include "opt out" options.
As for the live person handling the transaction, typically the live person uses a scanner of some sort today and soon a RFID scanner. Use of these tools will provide the data. The person in the transaction won't have to handle the data directly.
Most of them may be empty, but as the price of cameras come down, I'd expect them to be filled over time.
My mother was a school bus driver back when the company she worked for started to put cameras on the buses. They did the "empty housing" thing too. Guess they figured the kids wouldn't be able to figure out if the real camera was on the bus watching them.
Actually they can tell the difference between individual RFID tagged items. See this link from Sun - Enhance Your Supply Chain for information about tracking an individual item.
Excerpt
For one thing, RFID tags have far greater capacity than bar-code labels for storing information. While the familiar universal product code (UPC) labels on typical retail packaging fit only 12 to 14 bits of information, current-generation RFID tags could accommodate up to 96 bits. Consequently, while bar-code labels are only capable of identifying that the item is a 1-pound box of cornflakes, RFID tags could identify exactly which box it is. Additionally, the new generation of RFID technology is being reinvented to work using the Internet. That unique product identifier could be hyperlinked to additional information, including manufacturing batch and production history, product handling instructions, storage or delivery instructions, expiration dates, and other details. The possibilities are limited only by the imagination.
So yes, they will likely be able to figure out who you are, unless you revert to paying cash for your purchases.
Actually at some point they can. Once you go to the checkout, you'll likely be identifiable via non-cash payment (debit/credit card, check, or a customer discount card). Putting together the clues from the items you have and the items you actually stopped to check out may be possible, depending on the item you initially pick up (if you check out items before one you actually purchase, they likely won't be able to detect these).
They can't see you walk out
Actually they can. The article about IBM discussed ID bracelets that could track people to make sure they didn't leave the property (for safety of course, but still a form of tracking).
The RFID technology will present some privacy concerns that shoppers should at least be aware of. I'm not saying that the technology is necessarily bad, but as consumers, we should at least have an idea of what's going on.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that updating OSS with the patches is often simple and that the software is more compartmentalized. My main statement though was that no matter where the updates come from, they are ineffective if the system administrator doesn't apply them.
I wasn't meaning to imply that MS shouldn't be blamed for the problem. Just trying to point out that even with a good patching solution, even the best ones will fail if the system admin doesn't apply them.
MS should bear the blunt of the blame. For as much revenue that is generated by their products you would expect them to have a better product by investing into it. By no means though is MS the sole bearer of the blame. The organization that chooses to use the OS and the administrators that don't keep up with the OS maintenance also share some of this responsibility.
I'm in HC too. Guess I'll need to stop in and check it out. If your at the branch on Gorman Road, I'll have to keep an eye out for someone checking out the OS on the terminal.
Glad to see the county working to not spend more of my tax dollars and recycling older equipment.
I'm going to have to dust off that library card. I live in Howard County, MD but haven't touched one of the terminals yet. Maybe it's time to get off /. for a little break and check it out.
BTW, aren't you under court order to only go by Skinner now?
OSS software has a much better track record documenting and fixing problems
Just wanted to point out that in this case, the system admins that didn't patch the MS OS probably wouldn't take the time to update their OSS either.
I agree that most OSS is more secure, but if admins don't do their part, the system will be vulnerable no matter what OS or application is used. That being said, MS certainly keeps admins busier than other OS's. I find updating my UNIX systems (Solaris and IRIX) much simpler than my MS Win32s (although sometimes patching a single MS Win32 system can be easier than a single UNIX box but for labs or remote locations, UNIX is definitely easier).
I'm now an admin for an ISP, and bad Sun CPUs make up the large portion of my hardware work.
I'm guessing you work with a lot more Sun boxes than I do, but the only thing I've ever had go bad in one of my Sun boxes was a hard disk. On SGI, I've had a board go once and SCSI cards go a time or two. Usually my biggest problem seems to be Dell power supplies on the PowerEdge server line and the occasional SCSI hard disk on some Dell workstations. The breakdown really seems to be pretty even over all the vendors (maybe the Dells a little more, but not by much), but when a Dell fails, it seems to do it on a newer box if it's going to happen. As for CPU's, can't say that I've had one of them go bad yet.
Its biggest perceived flaw (slow execution speed) is largely a thing of a past.
Just to back you up, my group does some pretty extensive image and dataset processing using Java based code. While most of the images are a couple hundred megabytes in size, it's not unusual for a several gigabyte image to to be processed too. Processing time is definitely a concern of ours and we've found the more recent Java versions to perform quite nicely.
As for the Java Desktop System, I think the bigest issues it faces are related to hardware support (device drivers) from the various vendors.
For as much complaining people here seem to do against Sun, remember how some of the popular open source projects got large chunks of their code (Apache Jakartaand Open Office are two that come to mind). I know that Sun hasn't open sourced everything, but at least they follow open standards.
I foresee a lot of folks annoyed with the restrictions more than they are joyed by the content.
I'd agree with you except that the general population doesn't concern itself with the technology side of media. If set top boxes replace DVD or VCR's, people will buy it figuring that's the future. Most unfortunately won't care as long as they get the movies/music they want to watch.
The tech folks though are going to have lots of problems with this as it limits their choice of hardware/software. I wish more people would take an interest in "how" things work rather than just being users.
In this sense, stealing can be appropriately applied, even if legally the terms of the lawsuit will be copyright related (IANAL). The example related to "stealing a kiss" doesn't deprive a person of any physical property but does relate to taking something that you should not have.
They do not have the right to demand that 3rd parties use their resources to enforce their copyright.
Business entities are required to follow the law similar to any individual (and in some areas, they even have greater restrictions). If they are made aware of an illegal use on their network, either by their own efforts, or that of another entity, they must take appropriate actions to resolve the situation. I'm guessing Comcast doesn't perform scans of the data passing around the networks themselves, but were provided the information by MGM (or an entity acting on behalf of MGM). Comcast (and I'm sure just about any ISP does as well) has policies that prohibit certain activities including distribution of copyrighted material without rights.
In the strictest sense, I agree that taking a copy doesn't deprive the owner of property, but on the other hand, obtaining something without permission can be considered stealing, tangible or not.
Then please explain how an unauthorized copy is "stealing."
Are they really free? I didn't know that time in a studio was free now. I also thought that band equipment, advertisement, and management all cost money too. While the physical act of copying doesn't remove a physical item, it does take away the ability to recoup the cost of making music. Musicians, actors, software developers, etc... all make a product that is intended for sale to a broad customer base. The unit pricing is determined by how many of those units they sell. How would you like to produce a product to only sell a handful because everyone made copies from the few that you sold?
How about if there was proof that the unauthorized copies spurred people to pay full retail price for your product and you made more because of the unauthorized copies, would it be stealing then?
This obviously is up for debate by those who copy and those who produce. Unfortunately most people seem to only see this from the perspective that benefits them most. I'm gathering from your viewpoint that you do not produce: music, movies, software, or any other digital media. I produce software so my interest obviously is to minimize piracy. Fortunately, most of the software I deal with is either R&D or specific to a customer and rarely enters the actual commercial market (customers pay us for specific functionality that may not exist in commercial products).
I guess you hate Fair Use.
No, I have no problem with fair use, but that's not what your really hinting at. Fair use must follow the end user license (I think at a minimum, a backup copy should be permissable, but other rights are nice to have too - example, a copy of my favorite CD's in both my vehicles). The issue here with Comcast though is not related to making an archive copy, but rather it is bypassing MGM's right to sell units (the movie) at a price that will recoup their investment.
As for consumers downloading for free as an alternative, this is not a viable business model. Again, back to the idea of mass producing units and selling many to recoup the investment cost. Obviously people were upset with paying $20 for a CD with one good song on it. In my case, that's why my CD collection is very small and I generally listen to the radio. Personally, I would love to download songs for free, but I can also appreciate the fact that music is a business and they need to make money. Promotions like Pepsi giving away songs on bottle caps is probably the only real way to get "free" music, but it's really not free. Pepsi is buying you to drink their product. Music is a business and businesses goal is to make money.
So is copying music/movies/software stealing? Even looking at it from a digital perspective, you have possession of data that you do not legally have a right to. If you don't think digital information can be stolen, can I have your credit card information? I'm not actually taking anything other than a copy of information from you. How about your social security number or bank accounts? I'm sure the money in your account is not "real" currency but credit.
The letter didn't indicate that Comcast initiated this investigation, MGM did. How they did their research wasn't specified, but I'd guess they attempt to download files based on the movie name and catch the IP. To me, MGM hasn't really invaded privacy as getting the IP while receiving the download is sort of like checking CallerID.
As for installing cameras in my house, I doubt you'd really enjoy watching my family. We don't do much of interest to most people.
Phone calls can be listened to, but that requires a court ordered wire tap if I understand the process correctly. Maybe that's changed recently with all the anti-terror going on in the US.
Human error could possibly result in someone being accused falsely, but the numbers will hopefully be pretty low. As for DHCP, most ISP's set the timeout to a long enough time period that you shouldn't be changing your IP very often. Even if the DHCP timeout is set low, the ISP would have to keep a database of the MAC to IP mapping just to protect themselves from illegal connections (in this case, I'm meaning physical connections to their network without being a paying customer to the ISP). I know with Comcast, they have the MAC address of my cable modem which they have on file with a related entry of my info.
If the ISP doesn't maintain a record of the actual owner of the connection, I'd say the current user of the IP has little to worry about legally, but may have a headache of dealing with defending themselves (which may be worse than paying someone else's fine - funny, but not really).
Yeah, I'm a bit selective in what rules I want to follow. I could probably argue the points about which action is more harmful, but I doubt we'd agree.
what? money for the rich man is more important than someone's life.
Never said that. I just find that my foot gets a bit heavy at times (5 MPH on most roads without population near it, 10 MPH or so over on major highways) so I'm looking to avoid a ticket. In my opinion speeding, within a reasonable amount, is not really dangerous. In some cases, the speed limit is artificially low just to increase the money generated by fines.
Man, I wish I had your vehicles over mine. My car history includes a couple of Nissan Sentras and a Ford Aerostar, not the performance vehicles by any means.
As for the speed cameras, I'm not looking to drive dangerously. I do tend to push it a bit on the less populated roads that don't have houses along them (or at least sitting far back from the road). In my area though, the counties have been putting these up on the 40/45 MPH roads where you can easily find yourself doing 10 MPH over (these are "connector" roads between populated areas, not "in" the populated areas. I'm really just looking to avoid tickets for going a few MPH over the limit, not what I would consider excessive.
I spend a fair amount of time on the road (about 1 hour commute to/from work) so I'm just looking to reduce my chances of getting a ticket due to the foot getting a little heavy.
I don't think the question is about the legal status of P2P technology but rather the content being distributed using it. If an artist owns the music and wants to share it, they can, but I'd guess that labels probably have a bit to say on this.
Christian musicians may or may not want to use P2P for distribution (as long as the artist truly own the rights). I guess it depends on how they support themselves financially. I know people shouldn't be concerned with money, but a person needs at least some level of income to survive (trying to recall the song, but the lyrics go something like: "money isn't everything but I'd like to see you survive without it").
As for the "rock stars already have enough money", that can be debated. I'm sure you'll find differing opinions on what an appropriate amount of money is. Consider their trade to that of other high paying careers (athletes, corporate execs, etc...) and determine who is making too much money. Most of us would say they all are, but that's probably based on our income. Take other people with very low or no income and they'll probably say that our income is too much too.
No matter how much one dislikes the DMCA, it's really just enforcing ownership rights. I know that I appreciate getting paid for things I create and would be pretty upset if people started stealing my work (in my case, software integration/development). My wife would be a little upset if I didn't get paid due to everyone getting my product for free.
If consumers don't like paying for goods, then they need to look at alternative products that meet their desires. While I can see some musicians embracing the "free" model, I imagine that most would like to earn their living from their music.
Only users who engage in illegal activities really have anything to worry about. Comcast is cooperating in keeping things legal, that's all. If they don't cooperate, they essentially put themselves at risk. Not exactly a good practice to take the risk while protecting their customer who is doing illegal activities. Comcast is a business and needs to operate under the law while trying to make a profit. If your going to do illegal activities, figure that your chances of getting caught are going to keep going up as technology improves (of course counter technology improves too).
I have Comcast at home and the service they provide works very well. I haven't tried Verizon, but my brother has that and it works well too (not quite as fast as my Comcast connection though).
In an unrelated question, has anyone tried the spray on products for defeating "speed cameras"? Found one listed at Phantom Plate but don't know if the stuff really works. Probably should drive the speed limit more closely, but those darn cameras are going up everywhere in Maryland.
Somehow I don't see pleading ignorance as a valid defense. Never works for a traffic tickets - honest officer, I thought the speed limit was 45, not 35.
I suppose one could leave their wireless router wide open and use that as a defense, but I'm sure at some point, you'd have to make your systems accessible for review. Might also be difficult to convince it must be someone else if you live in a single family home with a large yard but leave your file sharing up 24/7.
Comcast is at least providing some level of warning to the end user to clean things up or they'll likely be prosecuted. The text sounds like Comcast is ready to cooperate with the copyright holders under DMCA so it might be too late, but a good system cleaning would be in order.
I'll throw in my support for your statements. I also work with Solaris SPARC and have x86 installed at home. The versions are remarkably similar.
Solaris x86 gets a bad reputation because Sun really dropped the ball in stating their intentions about supporting it. People stayed away from it due to the question about it's future.
From some presentations I've seen on Sun and talking to Sun reps, I think Sun is finally presenting a clearer strategy on the relationship of it's SPARC, x86, and Linux solutions. They are struggling though to overcome some of their earlier mistakes in representing x86 in particular.
Basically the technology used for RFID tags can be used for tracking.
No tin foil hat here. Can I borrow your dunce cap?
I'm not really worried about what RFID track as they are really a more efficient system for techniques they already use. I would just like a privacy statement and ideally an option to "opt out".
Eventually the tracking for RFID tagged items will get to the level where they can figure out your purchasing habbits. Leaving the store isn't really the big deal, but they can certainly do that. I think most people are concerned more about how their personal information will be used. For some people, this may be leaving the store, but I'd guess that more people are worried about how marketing firms are going to use the information and the usual distribution of your personal data (identity theft chances increase). RFID has potential advantages but not without some real concerns.
Now WalMart will know that I go through Sam's club to sample their food without necessarily buying that product.
Personally I don't really care much about who is tracking my purchasing habbits. If they want to know that I compared a couple items before choosing which to buy, who cares. The point is that the public should know what their personal information is being used for. Most companies have privacy statements to describe how they intend to handle your data and often include "opt out" options.
As for the live person handling the transaction, typically the live person uses a scanner of some sort today and soon a RFID scanner. Use of these tools will provide the data. The person in the transaction won't have to handle the data directly.
Most of them may be empty, but as the price of cameras come down, I'd expect them to be filled over time.
My mother was a school bus driver back when the company she worked for started to put cameras on the buses. They did the "empty housing" thing too. Guess they figured the kids wouldn't be able to figure out if the real camera was on the bus watching them.
Actually they can tell the difference between individual RFID tagged items. See this link from Sun - Enhance Your Supply Chain for information about tracking an individual item.
Excerpt
For one thing, RFID tags have far greater capacity than bar-code labels for storing information. While the familiar universal product code (UPC) labels on typical retail packaging fit only 12 to 14 bits of information, current-generation RFID tags could accommodate up to 96 bits. Consequently, while bar-code labels are only capable of identifying that the item is a 1-pound box of cornflakes, RFID tags could identify exactly which box it is. Additionally, the new generation of RFID technology is being reinvented to work using the Internet. That unique product identifier could be hyperlinked to additional information, including manufacturing batch and production history, product handling instructions, storage or delivery instructions, expiration dates, and other details. The possibilities are limited only by the imagination.
So yes, they will likely be able to figure out who you are, unless you revert to paying cash for your purchases.
The tags do not tell the store WHO you are.
Actually at some point they can. Once you go to the checkout, you'll likely be identifiable via non-cash payment (debit/credit card, check, or a customer discount card). Putting together the clues from the items you have and the items you actually stopped to check out may be possible, depending on the item you initially pick up (if you check out items before one you actually purchase, they likely won't be able to detect these).
They can't see you walk out
Actually they can. The article about IBM discussed ID bracelets that could track people to make sure they didn't leave the property (for safety of course, but still a form of tracking).
The RFID technology will present some privacy concerns that shoppers should at least be aware of. I'm not saying that the technology is necessarily bad, but as consumers, we should at least have an idea of what's going on.
The Weather Channel has/had something similar to this too but I haven't seen it recently. Theirs was for a desktop weather application.