Installing malware, whether it's on SPORE or a Sony-BMG music CD, should be a felony punishable by prison.
No, you shouldn't go to prison for buying and installing Spore. You bear the consequences, so that's punishment enough.
Nor should the publisher be punished, if the installer understands and consents. Some people think Windows is malware, and some don't. If you decide it's not, then it's not my place to punish Microsoft on the grounds that you don't understand what you're doing.
Just provide information, and let people be responsible for their choices. That's why malware labeling should be the issue.
At least there is the opportunity to secure the information on a laptop. I'm guessing there isn't a single utility to encrypt music files on iPods, much less the personal information embedded within.
That's an iPod problem, not a music file problem. And it's not like the "personal information" is the birth date, ssno, and (since you've invoked the pedophile bogeyman) a list of turn-ons.
Lost iPod + email address of owner = "Meet me by the white van with tinted windows"
You don't need to lose your iPod for someone to do that. A new iPod, someone else's iPod, or an ice cream cone will do.
A DVD or Bluray player, right out of the box, implements DRM. It doesn't need modification, because it comes pre-crippled. When the user buys a shiny disc and inserts it (and executes code from it, in the case of Bluray) nothing unexpectedly bad can happen. The player device is not damaged.
On personal computers, though, the situation is altogether different. DRM isn't already implemented out-of-the-box; installing malware is the only way to implement it. When you install Spore, your software environment is damaged, even when you're not playing Spore.
FTC shouldn't talk about this as a discussion of DRM itself, because DRM problems will still exist regardless of anything FTC does. They should instead call it a discussion about malware that implements the DRM.
This is ultimately about what labeling conventions imply consent on the part of the victim. If there isn't informed consent, then what Spore's publishers did is a crime, so there should be both criminal and civil sanctions, just like there would be if the author of some spam botnet worm were caught. If there is informed consent, then the victim isn't a victim of crime, they're just a victim of their own stupidity because they bought Spore when they should have known better.
Hopefully the outcome will be that the FTC will say that any software that is sold over state lines, will have to have a label on the outside of the box and in all advertisements: "this contains malware and will damage your operating system if installed" in situations where that happens to be the case.
My mother just bought a brand-new iPod. It doesn't work with the version of iTunes she has on her computer, and the new version of iTunes that will work requires XP (she's on 2K). So the choice is either pay for an XP upgrade, or buy her a new computer. Or, as a compromise, I've found an old computer and set up Linux and Amarok.
Or sell that iPod and buy a better music player.;)
In the real world, some bands charge $5 for their CD and some charge as high as $12. Variation in pricing is normal and no big deal, even when the RIAA isn't involved at all.
Meh, who cares? This isn't about Apple or Amazon. This is about the labels being dragged, kicking and screaming though they are, into the 21st century.
Surely you mean the 20th century. I bought my first DRM-free CD in 1988. For digital music, the 21st century has kind of sucked compared to the 20th. In the 20th century, things "just worked." Lack of DRM is the norm, and maybe we're heading back to that.
That texting is "free" (or so close to free that even the greatest mathematicians can't tell the difference between its cost and zero) isn't a secret. Even within the mainstream, I mean.
What the carriers really don't want, is for you to be even thinking about this, or wondering if there's an alternative to using them. As soon as you start to wonder what it costs, you already hate them, because you don't really have to research it or wonder very hard, to know that the bandwidth required by half-duplex latency-uncritical text is insignificant compared to the demands of voice.
I don't need 2 seconds to react to someone stopping in front of me
But we're not talking about you. We're talking about the car behind you, that you just passed and is going to collide with you if you suddenly slow down. How much time does granny need? I don't know. Do you? 2 seconds is the standard, but ok, fine, cut her off and bet your life on her reflexes. I'll think of it as evolution in action.
If granny knows.5 seconds isn't enough, though, and has to slow down to get her 2 second buffer back, then granny is going to have a bad day. But that's not your problem, I guess. When someone cuts you off by violating whatever following rule you use (apparently it's a lot less than 2 seconds), I guess it won't be their problem, either. Have a nice day.
Wrong. You've completed a pass... if you're moving faster than they are, they don't need to slow down.
Bzzt. You have neglected safety margins. Some people use the one-car-length-per-10mph rule, some people use the (superior IMHO) 2-seconds rule. Whatever. If you're going 70 MPH and pass someone who is going 60 MPH, and you pull in front of someone by two car lengths, then yes, you are not presently on a collision course with them.
So everything's ok, right?
But there's still a problem, and it's one you have created: your car and the car you just passed, are too close together for his 60MPH speed. Suppose, right after the pass, a deer suddenly jumps from the trees beside the road in front of your car, or an idiot in the right lane decides to move into your lane. You hit your breaks, and the guy you just passed is going to hit you. You fucked up the safety margin, and the only way the guy you just passed can clear himself of "wrongdoing' (hitting someone from behind) in the event a collision happens, is if he slams on his brakes, and waits until your faster speed creates enough buffer zone between you and him, before he can resume his old (slower than you!) speed.
Congratulations. By passing someone and then cutting them off instead of getting further ahead, you just ruined someone's day -- they either have to brake (aggravating) or be at fault in the unlikely event that you suddenly hit your brakes. Either way, he loses, because you couldn't be bothered to think about what's happening from someone else's point of view. That makes you an inconsiderate asshole.
I think the problem with that, is when you want files indexed more than one way. Your approach can work, but you might end up having a shitload of softlinks, since a given file might appear in several different directories. Then let's say you want to delete a file: do you really want to delete it from everywhere, or just that one directory you were looking at. Maybe you want hardlinks instead. But then, maybe not.
How is being convicted on the basis of a speed camera any worse than convicting someone from CCTV footage?
What's all this talk about "convict"ing people? Every one of these camera systems works through civil fines, not convictions. Usually when we talk about "convictions" there is a court involved, and the person being convicted gets to defend themselves. But we're talking about a situation where the government just fines someone, and if that person doesn't like it, then it's up to them to pay to start a court case to get some of the money back. See the difference?
RTFA. TFA is about a malicious exception, but in real life it has been found to accidentally happen too:
If a burglar shows up on a security camera, do we toss the evidence because there was nobody else in the building?
Bzzt. A burglar wearing a sign around his neck saying, "I a fm6" shows up on camera, and the government attacks fm6 without regard for whether or not fm6 was the person on camera.
These automated fining systems are being resisted for far bigger reason than "silly technicalities." Society came up with ways of dealing with crimes, and then government has recently decided that verifying guilt, verifying that the accused happens to be the guilty party, etc. are all too much trouble. Centuries of legislation and common law are being violated, and you call it "silly technicalities."
It sounds like you need to get one of these automated tickets, even when you're not guilty of what your government says you did, and then have to pay (probably more than the fine) for your day in civil court to contest it. Maybe that will change your mind about silly technicalities. Until then, go on and smirk at other innocent peoples' suffering at the hands of their governments.
But, he pointed out, his system has industry-norm safeguards in place
If the industry norm for phone systems is anything like the industry norm for computers, this means he has a phone on the sidewalk in front of the building, with a sign that says "free phone calls."
An irony of herbal medicine is that some exotic ones, such as those with tiger bone or rhino horn are pushing the species to the brink of extinction, due to their level of popularity in certain parts of the world.
Since tigers and rhinos are apparently herbs, can't I just buy some seeds and grow some more of them in my back yard garden? Sheesh, scientists think they're so smart but fail to see a solution right in their faces.
First of all, I think it's interesting that someone would bother to use Java (instead of, say, C) for ray-tracing. I guess JVMs have come a long way.
those tests (CPU burners) should perform the same on Linux or Windows, I don't see why JVM would behave differently.
Yep, although if they had used a more interesting test machine (dual Opterons instead of a single CPU), then the different kernels (not JVMs) might have made a difference, thanks to NUMA-related issues.
Which leads me to ask - what would entice an ISP to follow the RIAA's 'suggestions'? Very few of them have anything to do with the entertainment industry directly
Maybe your situation is different, but in my city, the major ISPs are the phone company and the cable TV company. The cable TV company is, of course, up to their neck inside the entertainment industry's ass. The phone company is trying hard to match them, and offers TV service as part of the phone/tv/tcpip bundle that they're pushing.
I think the close relationship between ISPs and higher-level services (voice and video) is a serious problem. Comcast wants you to pay extra to use the same wire to receive TV, and doesn't want you replacing that service with TV over IP. Qwest wants you to pay more for a landline as part of their DSL bundle, not use your own VoIP.
If you are breaking the law how on earth should you be allowed to keep breaking the law?
Irrelevant, because we're talking about the RIAA. Look at their track record; they were often suing people who didn't break the law. They misidentified people. People who didn't even have access to computers, were paying big bucks in court to defend themselves from accusations of violating copyright using p2p software.
When the RIAA comes after you, copyright infringement is not an issue. How much you're willing to spend on lawyers and court fees, vs how much you're willing to spend on a settlement, is the only question.
So what you need to ask is: "If you are not breaking the law, how on earth should you be allowed to keep not breaking the law?"
We have no reason to believe that they have suddenly become more ethical about weighing the consequences of their inaccurate attacks. If they were suing the wrong people, then they'll also be asking ISPs to cut off the wrong people.
Not to mention, in many cases, schools can be exposed to criminal liability if students do some classes of things. Some degree of control is necessary to limit this liability.
Then the school is screwed, because the only possible way to limit the problem, is to expel any student who is ever seen using a computer, or a phone, reading or writing, talking to another person, or making gestures or smiling. Anything less, leaves the door wide open for communications abuse. If someone wants to speak or hear something inappropriate, they'll find a way to do it, unless you kill them.
The state mandates web filtering on all machines. However, there is some flexibility on exactly what should be filtered.
If you're required by law to filter, but the law is vague about what to filter, then do something useful: filter ads. Install privoxy and there's your web filter.
Are things like Facebook and Myspace a legitimate use of a school computer? What about games, forums, or blogs, all of which could be educational, distracting or obscene?
Probably nothing is a legitimate use of a school computer. The students shouldn't even be on the 'net except for whatever is required (e.g. do the they email their homework to the teacher?). The thing is, you also said the kids are expected to take the computers home. If they are expected to not touch it when they're at home, ok. But if it's ok to use it, then you should assume it's personal use, and therefore filter nothing unless the law specifically requires you to filter that site. For any site (e.g. MySpace) where you have to ask, the answer is that you don't have to filter it.
Here's what it's all about: the filtering laws aren't there to fulfill a useful purpose. They just exist to be obeyed. Obey them, but beyond that, you can safely assume their purpose is to serve some special interest (filter software vendors, religious fundamentalists, whatever) and you need not go to any extra trouble to aid those interests. Once you've met the legal requirements, switch gears and do useful and sensible things instead.
Here's your real problem:
The students will essentially own the computers
You say that, but if it were even remotely true, then the rest of your post would be blank. If it's the student's computer, then you don't ask "how much freedom do you give to students?" Instead, you ask, "how much freedom do we go to extra trouble to take away from the students?" If it's their computer, then from that point on, no action on your part can be described as "giving;" you can only take. Therefore you should limit your aggression to whatever is required by law.
Will a perceived lack of trust cripple the effectiveness of the program?
Maybe. Unfortunately you haven't said why the students are getting the computers. Without knowing the purpose of the program, how could anyone measure effectiveness?
I don't really have any problem at all with this guy, even if I disagree with him on a few poi-- "Wait, did you say disagree? Dude, you're disagreeing with science!! Didn't you see that it's a scientific comparison (supposedly the first? um, let's talk about that later) of energy sources?!"
The comparison, no matter how you do it, is still going to have subjective weights and values on everything. That doesn't make any of its analysis less "scientific" but it does mean the conclusions aren't exactly science. Not that there's anything wrong with it. But you throw that "scientific" word in there, and I can't help but feel like we're trying to gain some dogmatic authority.
Science is never going to tell you that burning coal is "better" than solar. Reason and common sense probably will. Science will tell you that burning mined fuel costs fewer dollars per joule, provided that you ignore the costs of pollution, which you probably will, because you'll never know the costs, much less actually pay them.
You would have thought that the sandbox would prevent applications from doing unsanctioned things.
I agree. It's pretty disappointing.
This also gives more credibility to Apple's policy of validating third-party applications, despite possible flaws in the process.
Not really. It just gives credibility to testing the platform in general. Now this Android flaw is known and can be fixed. A central authority validating each app might have even ended up hiding the flaw.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you shouldn't go to prison for buying and installing Spore. You bear the consequences, so that's punishment enough.
Nor should the publisher be punished, if the installer understands and consents. Some people think Windows is malware, and some don't. If you decide it's not, then it's not my place to punish Microsoft on the grounds that you don't understand what you're doing.
Just provide information, and let people be responsible for their choices. That's why malware labeling should be the issue.
Then remove the info. You would blank out your address book if you sold your phone, wouldn't you? Or would you complain about the extra work?
What Apple has done here is both useless and harmless. Doing business with Apple has real problems, and this just isn't one of them.
That's an iPod problem, not a music file problem. And it's not like the "personal information" is the birth date, ssno, and (since you've invoked the pedophile bogeyman) a list of turn-ons.
You don't need to lose your iPod for someone to do that. A new iPod, someone else's iPod, or an ice cream cone will do.
A DVD or Bluray player, right out of the box, implements DRM. It doesn't need modification, because it comes pre-crippled. When the user buys a shiny disc and inserts it (and executes code from it, in the case of Bluray) nothing unexpectedly bad can happen. The player device is not damaged.
On personal computers, though, the situation is altogether different. DRM isn't already implemented out-of-the-box; installing malware is the only way to implement it. When you install Spore, your software environment is damaged, even when you're not playing Spore.
FTC shouldn't talk about this as a discussion of DRM itself, because DRM problems will still exist regardless of anything FTC does. They should instead call it a discussion about malware that implements the DRM.
This is ultimately about what labeling conventions imply consent on the part of the victim. If there isn't informed consent, then what Spore's publishers did is a crime, so there should be both criminal and civil sanctions, just like there would be if the author of some spam botnet worm were caught. If there is informed consent, then the victim isn't a victim of crime, they're just a victim of their own stupidity because they bought Spore when they should have known better.
Hopefully the outcome will be that the FTC will say that any software that is sold over state lines, will have to have a label on the outside of the box and in all advertisements: "this contains malware and will damage your operating system if installed" in situations where that happens to be the case.
Or sell that iPod and buy a better music player. ;)
Amazon sells CDs too.
In the real world, some bands charge $5 for their CD and some charge as high as $12. Variation in pricing is normal and no big deal, even when the RIAA isn't involved at all.
Surely you mean the 20th century. I bought my first DRM-free CD in 1988. For digital music, the 21st century has kind of sucked compared to the 20th. In the 20th century, things "just worked." Lack of DRM is the norm, and maybe we're heading back to that.
Sheesh. Why are these weirdo things being invented, which don't work as well as HTML? A web site would absolutely crush what DDJ and pcmag are doing.
That texting is "free" (or so close to free that even the greatest mathematicians can't tell the difference between its cost and zero) isn't a secret. Even within the mainstream, I mean.
What the carriers really don't want, is for you to be even thinking about this, or wondering if there's an alternative to using them. As soon as you start to wonder what it costs, you already hate them, because you don't really have to research it or wonder very hard, to know that the bandwidth required by half-duplex latency-uncritical text is insignificant compared to the demands of voice.
But we're not talking about you. We're talking about the car behind you, that you just passed and is going to collide with you if you suddenly slow down. How much time does granny need? I don't know. Do you? 2 seconds is the standard, but ok, fine, cut her off and bet your life on her reflexes. I'll think of it as evolution in action.
If granny knows .5 seconds isn't enough, though, and has to slow down to get her 2 second buffer back, then granny is going to have a bad day. But that's not your problem, I guess. When someone cuts you off by violating whatever following rule you use (apparently it's a lot less than 2 seconds), I guess it won't be their problem, either. Have a nice day.
Bzzt. You have neglected safety margins. Some people use the one-car-length-per-10mph rule, some people use the (superior IMHO) 2-seconds rule. Whatever. If you're going 70 MPH and pass someone who is going 60 MPH, and you pull in front of someone by two car lengths, then yes, you are not presently on a collision course with them.
So everything's ok, right?
But there's still a problem, and it's one you have created: your car and the car you just passed, are too close together for his 60MPH speed. Suppose, right after the pass, a deer suddenly jumps from the trees beside the road in front of your car, or an idiot in the right lane decides to move into your lane. You hit your breaks, and the guy you just passed is going to hit you. You fucked up the safety margin, and the only way the guy you just passed can clear himself of "wrongdoing' (hitting someone from behind) in the event a collision happens, is if he slams on his brakes, and waits until your faster speed creates enough buffer zone between you and him, before he can resume his old (slower than you!) speed.
Congratulations. By passing someone and then cutting them off instead of getting further ahead, you just ruined someone's day -- they either have to brake (aggravating) or be at fault in the unlikely event that you suddenly hit your brakes. Either way, he loses, because you couldn't be bothered to think about what's happening from someone else's point of view. That makes you an inconsiderate asshole.
I think the problem with that, is when you want files indexed more than one way. Your approach can work, but you might end up having a shitload of softlinks, since a given file might appear in several different directories. Then let's say you want to delete a file: do you really want to delete it from everywhere, or just that one directory you were looking at. Maybe you want hardlinks instead. But then, maybe not.
What's all this talk about "convict"ing people? Every one of these camera systems works through civil fines, not convictions. Usually when we talk about "convictions" there is a court involved, and the person being convicted gets to defend themselves. But we're talking about a situation where the government just fines someone, and if that person doesn't like it, then it's up to them to pay to start a court case to get some of the money back. See the difference?
Bzzt. A burglar wearing a sign around his neck saying, "I a fm6" shows up on camera, and the government attacks fm6 without regard for whether or not fm6 was the person on camera.
These automated fining systems are being resisted for far bigger reason than "silly technicalities." Society came up with ways of dealing with crimes, and then government has recently decided that verifying guilt, verifying that the accused happens to be the guilty party, etc. are all too much trouble. Centuries of legislation and common law are being violated, and you call it "silly technicalities."
It sounds like you need to get one of these automated tickets, even when you're not guilty of what your government says you did, and then have to pay (probably more than the fine) for your day in civil court to contest it. Maybe that will change your mind about silly technicalities. Until then, go on and smirk at other innocent peoples' suffering at the hands of their governments.
If the industry norm for phone systems is anything like the industry norm for computers, this means he has a phone on the sidewalk in front of the building, with a sign that says "free phone calls."
Since tigers and rhinos are apparently herbs, can't I just buy some seeds and grow some more of them in my back yard garden? Sheesh, scientists think they're so smart but fail to see a solution right in their faces.
First of all, I think it's interesting that someone would bother to use Java (instead of, say, C) for ray-tracing. I guess JVMs have come a long way.
Yep, although if they had used a more interesting test machine (dual Opterons instead of a single CPU), then the different kernels (not JVMs) might have made a difference, thanks to NUMA-related issues.
Maybe your situation is different, but in my city, the major ISPs are the phone company and the cable TV company. The cable TV company is, of course, up to their neck inside the entertainment industry's ass. The phone company is trying hard to match them, and offers TV service as part of the phone/tv/tcpip bundle that they're pushing.
I think the close relationship between ISPs and higher-level services (voice and video) is a serious problem. Comcast wants you to pay extra to use the same wire to receive TV, and doesn't want you replacing that service with TV over IP. Qwest wants you to pay more for a landline as part of their DSL bundle, not use your own VoIP.
Irrelevant, because we're talking about the RIAA. Look at their track record; they were often suing people who didn't break the law. They misidentified people. People who didn't even have access to computers, were paying big bucks in court to defend themselves from accusations of violating copyright using p2p software.
When the RIAA comes after you, copyright infringement is not an issue. How much you're willing to spend on lawyers and court fees, vs how much you're willing to spend on a settlement, is the only question.
So what you need to ask is: "If you are not breaking the law, how on earth should you be allowed to keep not breaking the law?"
We have no reason to believe that they have suddenly become more ethical about weighing the consequences of their inaccurate attacks. If they were suing the wrong people, then they'll also be asking ISPs to cut off the wrong people.
Then the school is screwed, because the only possible way to limit the problem, is to expel any student who is ever seen using a computer, or a phone, reading or writing, talking to another person, or making gestures or smiling. Anything less, leaves the door wide open for communications abuse. If someone wants to speak or hear something inappropriate, they'll find a way to do it, unless you kill them.
If you're required by law to filter, but the law is vague about what to filter, then do something useful: filter ads. Install privoxy and there's your web filter.
Probably nothing is a legitimate use of a school computer. The students shouldn't even be on the 'net except for whatever is required (e.g. do the they email their homework to the teacher?). The thing is, you also said the kids are expected to take the computers home. If they are expected to not touch it when they're at home, ok. But if it's ok to use it, then you should assume it's personal use, and therefore filter nothing unless the law specifically requires you to filter that site. For any site (e.g. MySpace) where you have to ask, the answer is that you don't have to filter it.
Here's what it's all about: the filtering laws aren't there to fulfill a useful purpose. They just exist to be obeyed. Obey them, but beyond that, you can safely assume their purpose is to serve some special interest (filter software vendors, religious fundamentalists, whatever) and you need not go to any extra trouble to aid those interests. Once you've met the legal requirements, switch gears and do useful and sensible things instead.
Here's your real problem:
You say that, but if it were even remotely true, then the rest of your post would be blank. If it's the student's computer, then you don't ask "how much freedom do you give to students?" Instead, you ask, "how much freedom do we go to extra trouble to take away from the students?" If it's their computer, then from that point on, no action on your part can be described as "giving;" you can only take. Therefore you should limit your aggression to whatever is required by law.
Maybe. Unfortunately you haven't said why the students are getting the computers. Without knowing the purpose of the program, how could anyone measure effectiveness?
Reveal a secret (that they were somehow bound to keep) without ever being held accountable.
I don't really have any problem at all with this guy, even if I disagree with him on a few poi-- "Wait, did you say disagree? Dude, you're disagreeing with science!! Didn't you see that it's a scientific comparison (supposedly the first? um, let's talk about that later) of energy sources?!"
The comparison, no matter how you do it, is still going to have subjective weights and values on everything. That doesn't make any of its analysis less "scientific" but it does mean the conclusions aren't exactly science. Not that there's anything wrong with it. But you throw that "scientific" word in there, and I can't help but feel like we're trying to gain some dogmatic authority.
Science is never going to tell you that burning coal is "better" than solar. Reason and common sense probably will. Science will tell you that burning mined fuel costs fewer dollars per joule, provided that you ignore the costs of pollution, which you probably will, because you'll never know the costs, much less actually pay them.
I agree. It's pretty disappointing.
Not really. It just gives credibility to testing the platform in general. Now this Android flaw is known and can be fixed. A central authority validating each app might have even ended up hiding the flaw.