Except, this didn't benefit anyone. The ad providers would have to figure out that they were being given personally-identifying referrer URLs for clickthroughs, scrape the username part, and visit the user's (public) profile to retreive any personal information. From the sounds of things that conceptual leap didn't actually occur.
If you RTFA, they were doing it by simple technical accident. Unless the advertisers thought to scrape referrer URLs for usernames, they didn't get shit.
My reading of the WSJ article is that the sites were (perhaps inevitably) passing a referrer URL along when the user clicked the ad. This URL is, naturally, one of the user's pages, and will explicitly or implicitly identify the user. The advertiser can then identify the user's page on the social networking site and retrieve any public information there. The WSJ makes it clear that the information is not passed on directly, which goes some way to explaining why the advertisers claim never to have used it.
Why would a hypoglycemic want to turn on their gadgets to "burn up all the extra glucose"? That would just exacerbate the problem. I think you've read the parent without reading the grandparent.
They don't seem to say what size it is. I assume it's larger than an actual Dick Tracy watch, and they simply didn't want to call it a Bracelet Phone for obvious reasons.
The feature's been in the OS for ages. The discovery is a special message prompting the user to call AT&T on a particular number to enable the tethering service, which suggests AT&T may provide a mechanism for enabling said tethering service.
You're assuming that they were "capturing significant amounts of data" (versus the expected amount) and are extrapolating to a deliberate data-snooping conspiracy as a consequence. A more parsimonius explaination is that they captured an insignificant amount of data and correspondingly no conspiracy exists.
They have a near-monopoly on phone network infrastructure. While they continue to dog the roll-out of ADSL, parts of the country serviced by the cable TV providers that got accumulated into Virgin Media can and do bypass BT entirely. As far as fibre goes, they don't have nearly the same control.
Better analogy: I leave my phone on a cafe table. Some fraudster steals it, and uses it to con various old people out of their credit card numbers. Why should I be liable for their tortious actions?
No, the media industry's out of control. Maniacal copyright infringement suits are their current approach to profit maximisation, but saying that copyright law is the problem makes it seem like the media industry is innocently obeying an unjust law. They're not. If we fix copyright tort, they'll do something else. Maybe demonise indie music as some sex-and-drugs scene to discourage parents from letting their kids buy off-label music, or convince the press that homebrew games destroy the mainstream games industry. They've taken an unscrupulous approach to maximizing their ROI, and so fixing the laws they exploit is not enough. We've got to stop supporting them.
Your assumption is, this option exists but the USAF research lab simply didn't think to ask? Given that they had to buy retail boxes en masse and throw away the controllers in the first place, I doubt that Sony is going to give them any special consideration. It'd hardly be out of the ordinary considering that Microsoft wouldn't even give the military a bulk rate on Xbox 360s for rec rooms.
Yeah, just to get this down for our transatlantic friends, high school is mandatory until 16. Then we can begin studying S, A/S, and A-levels*, and the grades we get for those are requisites for university entry. A BSc in Biochemistry might require AABB including mathematics and at least one science, for example.
*(Intermediates, Highers, and Advanced Highers in Scotland)
I guess it must differ for different fields. I studied an undergrad masters in science and we'd burned through the entire SCE syllabus within about six months. Biology, the first 8 weeks. If you didn't get out of high school material until the third year of your degree, you were cosmically ripped off in any case.
And a lesson for the consumer: no matter what you're told about super-computer nonsense, the product is just a games console, and will always just be a games console in Sony's eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, this didn't benefit anyone. The ad providers would have to figure out that they were being given personally-identifying referrer URLs for clickthroughs, scrape the username part, and visit the user's (public) profile to retreive any personal information. From the sounds of things that conceptual leap didn't actually occur.
You clearly didn't read TFA very well.
There's no conspiracy. RTFA: as difficult as it may be to get your slashbrain around it, the privacy issue is a technical accident.
If you RTFA, they were doing it by simple technical accident. Unless the advertisers thought to scrape referrer URLs for usernames, they didn't get shit.
The sharing only happens when you actually click on an ad, because it's an issue with referral URLs.
My reading of the WSJ article is that the sites were (perhaps inevitably) passing a referrer URL along when the user clicked the ad. This URL is, naturally, one of the user's pages, and will explicitly or implicitly identify the user. The advertiser can then identify the user's page on the social networking site and retrieve any public information there. The WSJ makes it clear that the information is not passed on directly, which goes some way to explaining why the advertisers claim never to have used it.
I guess you could say that the new compiler arrived... just in time?
Why would a hypoglycemic want to turn on their gadgets to "burn up all the extra glucose"? That would just exacerbate the problem. I think you've read the parent without reading the grandparent.
They don't seem to say what size it is. I assume it's larger than an actual Dick Tracy watch, and they simply didn't want to call it a Bracelet Phone for obvious reasons.
iPhone OS Version 4. Not iPhone 4.
The feature's been in the OS for ages. The discovery is a special message prompting the user to call AT&T on a particular number to enable the tethering service, which suggests AT&T may provide a mechanism for enabling said tethering service.
You're assuming that they were "capturing significant amounts of data" (versus the expected amount) and are extrapolating to a deliberate data-snooping conspiracy as a consequence. A more parsimonius explaination is that they captured an insignificant amount of data and correspondingly no conspiracy exists.
They have a near-monopoly on phone network infrastructure. While they continue to dog the roll-out of ADSL, parts of the country serviced by the cable TV providers that got accumulated into Virgin Media can and do bypass BT entirely. As far as fibre goes, they don't have nearly the same control.
"Unsecured wi-fi is to the media industry as the unlocked gun case is to the tottler."
Civil law is not like criminal law. You're not usually under an obligation to pursue everyone you're legally entitled to pursue.
Even if you stole CDs from a retail store yourself, you wouldn't be charged with "copyright theft".
Better analogy: I leave my phone on a cafe table. Some fraudster steals it, and uses it to con various old people out of their credit card numbers. Why should I be liable for their tortious actions?
No, the media industry's out of control. Maniacal copyright infringement suits are their current approach to profit maximisation, but saying that copyright law is the problem makes it seem like the media industry is innocently obeying an unjust law. They're not. If we fix copyright tort, they'll do something else. Maybe demonise indie music as some sex-and-drugs scene to discourage parents from letting their kids buy off-label music, or convince the press that homebrew games destroy the mainstream games industry. They've taken an unscrupulous approach to maximizing their ROI, and so fixing the laws they exploit is not enough. We've got to stop supporting them.
The F@H application doesn't need OtherOS, it's been part of the main OS from day one.
Your assumption is, this option exists but the USAF research lab simply didn't think to ask? Given that they had to buy retail boxes en masse and throw away the controllers in the first place, I doubt that Sony is going to give them any special consideration. It'd hardly be out of the ordinary considering that Microsoft wouldn't even give the military a bulk rate on Xbox 360s for rec rooms.
I don't think that Ask were the originators of the idea of a natural language search system.
Yeah, just to get this down for our transatlantic friends, high school is mandatory until 16. Then we can begin studying S, A/S, and A-levels*, and the grades we get for those are requisites for university entry. A BSc in Biochemistry might require AABB including mathematics and at least one science, for example.
*(Intermediates, Highers, and Advanced Highers in Scotland)
I guess it must differ for different fields. I studied an undergrad masters in science and we'd burned through the entire SCE syllabus within about six months. Biology, the first 8 weeks. If you didn't get out of high school material until the third year of your degree, you were cosmically ripped off in any case.
And a lesson for the consumer: no matter what you're told about super-computer nonsense, the product is just a games console, and will always just be a games console in Sony's eyes.
This isn't at university level, it's high school.