The purpose of the registration regime appears to be to criminalize anonymity. This is essential for the effective enforcement of this law which criminalizes saying hurtful things about public officials.
I'm not so sure. They clearly state that they receive messages in the "information we receive about you" section, and then clearly state that they use the information that they receive to "measure or understand the effectiveness of ads you and others see, including to deliver relevant ads to you"
While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:
received your permission;
given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or
removed your name and any other personally identifying information from it.
Answering my own question - this is a non-issue (it seems). Chrome apparently uses an API (at least on windows) to use account info to encrypt the passwords which presumably is only available if the user has actually logged in.
Locked, unlocked, what's the difference? If you're not using whole disk encryption, what good is locking going to do if someone steals your computer? Removing user account passwords from systems tends to be rather trivial...
Sure but this is supposed to be targeted at power users (the whole F1 metaphor). How do the specs of the Edge compare to your current or even last primary workstation?
Aside from the question of how and when to update the 'time and motion' study data, does this setup the right incentives for the industry? It essentially says 'we will set the benchmark for adequate, and then you try to do whatever you can to beat it economically.' If the revenue at the margin is fixed, the way to drive profit is to decrease costs as much as possible. Of course, the benefits are not passed on to the consumer if the price fixer is asleep at the switch...
What about a provision that says you are only allowed to run this software on hardware that I have sold you? Or a provision that says you can watch this media any time within the next 24 hours?
I dont think purveyors of DRM systems view them as being flawless. The point is not to make it impossible to pirate content but to make it inconvenient enough that the average consumer wont do it.
The steep curve here is content licensing not distribution technology. All of their current implementations / platforms will become obsolete long before their potential competitors will have a crack at getting the same content on their platforms.
Well, sure, but copyright allows the rights holder to exclude users and uses of their content. If they say you can only use access this content on the third sunday of a month while hopping on one foot, they have the right to set those conditions or deny you access if you decline to adhere to them. It feels to me that if you oppose DRM on these grounds, you must also be opposed to proprietary software licenses.
Actually I have read the spec for HLS and it does not specify any restrictions on the operating system, handling of keys, or handling of decrypted content.
The fact still remains - your issue here is with "DRM" as a concept, which is perfectly fine. I honestly don't think it matters to most consumers.
I dont think purveyors of DRM systems view them as being flawless. The point is not to make it impossible to pirate content but to make it inconvenient enough that the average consumer wont do it. HDCP, CSS, FairPlay, AACS etc. have been very effective at that.
Slashdot Mirror
When does observation become spying?
She has not actually been sentenced yet (based on the article linked) - just convicted.
The purpose of the registration regime appears to be to criminalize anonymity. This is essential for the effective enforcement of this law which criminalizes saying hurtful things about public officials.
What do you mean by "controlled?" This sounds like an anecdotal correlation at best, which does not prove the existence of an effective police state.
I'm not so sure. They clearly state that they receive messages in the "information we receive about you" section, and then clearly state that they use the information that they receive to "measure or understand the effectiveness of ads you and others see, including to deliver relevant ads to you"
While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:
https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info
Have to be careful of those "or" situations.
and on mac it uses the keychain to store things...? I'm starting to see why this may actually be a non-issue
Answering my own question - this is a non-issue (it seems). Chrome apparently uses an API (at least on windows) to use account info to encrypt the passwords which presumably is only available if the user has actually logged in.
Locked, unlocked, what's the difference? If you're not using whole disk encryption, what good is locking going to do if someone steals your computer? Removing user account passwords from systems tends to be rather trivial...
Fair enough. I would buy the argument that it will be 'soon.'
Sure but this is supposed to be targeted at power users (the whole F1 metaphor). How do the specs of the Edge compare to your current or even last primary workstation?
It seems to me like the real purpose of a device like the edge is to replace your desktop hardware. Is that really possible yet?
Aside from the question of how and when to update the 'time and motion' study data, does this setup the right incentives for the industry? It essentially says 'we will set the benchmark for adequate, and then you try to do whatever you can to beat it economically.' If the revenue at the margin is fixed, the way to drive profit is to decrease costs as much as possible. Of course, the benefits are not passed on to the consumer if the price fixer is asleep at the switch...
Or does this story dismiss its own relevance at the end?
What about a provision that says you are only allowed to run this software on hardware that I have sold you? Or a provision that says you can watch this media any time within the next 24 hours?
It's unclear at best what effects license terms can have on the 'first sale doctrine.' Hopefully that will be clarified by congress at some point.
I dont think purveyors of DRM systems view them as being flawless. The point is not to make it impossible to pirate content but to make it inconvenient enough that the average consumer wont do it.
there is no reason those shouldn't work on players in other regions.
Other than, of course, that the company which produced the content wants to sell it that way and today has the right to do so.
The steep curve here is content licensing not distribution technology. All of their current implementations / platforms will become obsolete long before their potential competitors will have a crack at getting the same content on their platforms.
Or the legislation is outdated. AFAIK the big DRM users (Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc) are not doing anything illegal with it.
Well, sure, but copyright allows the rights holder to exclude users and uses of their content. If they say you can only use access this content on the third sunday of a month while hopping on one foot, they have the right to set those conditions or deny you access if you decline to adhere to them. It feels to me that if you oppose DRM on these grounds, you must also be opposed to proprietary software licenses.
Actually I have read the spec for HLS and it does not specify any restrictions on the operating system, handling of keys, or handling of decrypted content.
The fact still remains - your issue here is with "DRM" as a concept, which is perfectly fine. I honestly don't think it matters to most consumers.
I dont think purveyors of DRM systems view them as being flawless. The point is not to make it impossible to pirate content but to make it inconvenient enough that the average consumer wont do it. HDCP, CSS, FairPlay, AACS etc. have been very effective at that.
In fact, Consumer oriented DRM should be illegal. It's an anti-competive anti-consumer dangerous practice.
How is it any more anti-competitive or anti-consumer than copyright in general? If your issue is with copyright why not just come out and say it?
I feel like reasonable people can disagree about both sides of that statement.