I telecommute as the editor of a fairly lage magazine (circ. ~ 100k). Net outages or low bandwidth are killers to us (I up- down-load hundreds of megs of text and photos daily). Because I am in a rural area, I hve NO choice of ISPs. Were Comcast one of them, I would NOT choose them because of theor lacadasical attutude toward outgoing spm from zombied machines on their network.
...get its head out of its ass and do something about the hundreds (thousands?) of spam-spewing zombied machines on its network, instead of blocking incoming mail from legitimate servers.
"...her admission dissolved her privacy more than Aol's info did."
Having reporters show up at your door--even if they do not know your name--and start asking questions is PRIVACY? Perhaps on your planet, but not on this one.
My point is that "AOL did not provide any of the information necessary to identify the searchers" is obviously not correct. Clearly the search data itself was sufficient information whereby to identify and locate at least some users.
I often Google search my own name (to look for [gasp] copyright infringement or plagiarism). Were I an AOL user whose data got released, I would certainly have been easily identified.
"AOL did not provide any of the information necessary to identify the searchers."
Oh, really? A couple of NY Times reporters didn't let that stop them. They used the search data to find and interview User No. 4417749, Thelma Arnold, a 62-year-old widow who lives in Lilburn, Ga. Link to story below. Bugmenot login works.
"Tufte's most recent book is filled with hundreds of illustrations that demonstrate one concept: good design is timeless, while bad design can be a matter of life and death." "
"(Unless you want to also argue that we do not think either, which is fine.;) )"
I wouldn't touch that with a borrowed 11-foot pole.;-)
No, I propose that humans are thinking entities because that is how we evolved. Our ability to think, reason, plan, understand the "why" of things, and create is what sets us apart.
Of course, I *could* make the argument that Man is the only created being into which God personally breathed "the breath of life" (i.e. a portion of his spirit) and that is what sets us apart, but that would start an inestinguishable flame war. (insert big evil grin)
"Because environmental conditions that are unique to each generation of animal cannot be solved by instinct."
Instinct is nothing more than genetic memory, i.e. an EEPROM-held base dataset. Adaptation to environmental changes that carries to the next generation. Natural selection. Get it?
Animals are biological machines, not thinking entities.
"The latest trick in the spam arsenal seems to be a crack at social engineering with emails that purport to be from Ebay, Bank of America or whatnot. If you click on the link, and the URL isn't even close to the purported source of the email, it takes you to the spammers web site where the actual marketing is done."
"would assume, and I recognize that I could be completely incorrect, that most spam today comes from mass mailing companies. These companies of course use devious methods to deliver messages, from targeting open relays to abusing web hosts to running servers in "anything goes" data centers."
Your are correct that you are incorrect. Simply examine the IP addresses that spam comes from: Comcast, RoadRunner, SBCglobal, Adelphia, ATT, kingwoodcable.com, cebridge.net, Verizon, calpop.com, atmlinkinc.com, Charter, uci.net, ctccom.net, Earthlink, Qwest, suddenlink.net, Sprint, knology.net, insightcom.com, mdm.net, zoominternet.net, mnsi.net, Netzero.
Those are just a few of the sources of spam that was in my spam folder this morning. It does not include andy of the 300 or so that were trapped at the server by an IP filter that blackholes anything sent from a foreign (non-U.S.) IP address.
Why so many different sources and why from consumer IP addresses if these are not zombied machines?
From TFA: The Convention on Cybercrime does recognize this, and to its credit provides a set of exceptions to mutual assistance that should help prevent the worst abuses. The Convention does require members to adopt similar legislation on the following issues: illegal access, illegal interception of computer data, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, computer-related fraud and forgery, child pornography, and copyright violations "on a commerical scale." The goal of the treaty is not to let the Chinese crack down on dissidents living in America, however, and so countries may refuse to cooperate with requests that involve a "political offence" or if a country believes the request would "prejudice its soverignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests." The US Department of Justice has already announced that "essential interests" would allow the US to refuse any request that would violate the Constitution.
Given these safeguards, fears of political persecutions seem overblown, as do concerns that these requests will simply be issued directly from Beijing (which is not a signatory) to Comcast HQ without court oversight.
I once wtote an editorial encouraging cities to sue liquor manufacturers for all the carnage caused by their products: vehicle accidents, unwanted pregnancies, teen alcoholism, etc. I further suggested that to "reduce the amount of alcohol on the streets and preven 'straw purchases', we need laws limiting alcohol purchases by individuals to no more than one U.S. gallon in aggregate per month."
Further, automobiles cause thousands of deaths per year, are used to commit and facillitate crimes, etc. So, why isn't somebody suing auto makers?
**AA and those of similar mindset are prime examples of ignorance (or maybe stupidity) gone to seed.
On the assumption this comment (clicked on the Popup menu "Reply") is for Slashdot's New Discussion Systemto comments, the popup is troublesome in that it covers the left side navigation, and you cannot drag it out of the way (at least not in Firefox).
"Much as people might like to think otherwise, police forces don't coordinate much with each other."
It isn't so much a matter of "coordination" as infec tious concensus building. If cops in City A get by with something, cops in City B will (a) leanr about it and (b) adopt it. There is no conspiracy or collusion, just observation and mimickry.
Further, police (and I have 5 cops in my immediate and extended family, so know a bit about them) very much have a common "us against them" attitude. Incidents like this camera fiasco are manifestations of that.
(On a side note, one of my grandons-in-law who is a cop in a major city has a refrigerator magnet that reads: "Hi, I am police officer and I can kick your ass and get by with it.")
"This isn't a major civil liberties breach because it's an isolated incident, not far reaching."
First off, if you even read the summary let alone followed the links, you would know it was not an "isolated incident" but just the latest manifestation of police making up "laws" to fit any situation they do not like.
Second, even if it were an "isolated incident" (whatever that means), that does not mean it "isn't a major civil liberties breach." Any breach of rights is major and serious.
Third, even though the guy "got off," the chilling effect (just what the police/government hoped for) is VERY "far reaching." Who among us after reading about incidents like this will not henceforth think twice before photographing police or any other government official?
On a personal note, I was once threatened by a fire marshall and told, "You've taken the last picture you are going to take here!" because I was photographing a wildland brush fire--and I was/am a journalist.
It is the "other internet" for people who have not a clue. It protects them from viruses, spam, and other net evils. But, the best part is that AOL protects us from the clueless by making it extremely difficult to spam or spew viruses, trojans, et al from their servers. The walled community of AOL keeps evil out, but also helps keep evil in.
I am glad AOL exists because it keeps many clueless users away (mostly) from the real internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude:
I telecommute as the editor of a fairly lage magazine (circ. ~ 100k). Net outages or low bandwidth are killers to us (I up- down-load hundreds of megs of text and photos daily). Because I am in a rural area, I hve NO choice of ISPs. Were Comcast one of them, I would NOT choose them because of theor lacadasical attutude toward outgoing spm from zombied machines on their network.
Comcast sucks.
...get its head out of its ass and do something about the hundreds (thousands?) of spam-spewing zombied machines on its network, instead of blocking incoming mail from legitimate servers.
Same goes for RoadRunner, SBCglobal, and Charter.
I concede the point.
Mod parent Hilarous!
Note to mods: He is using sarcasm in a VERY funny way.
"...taking into account relevency to africans..."
Africans or Africaans? One is a nationality, the other a language spoken mostly in South Africa.
"English is the lingua franca of the world and they will have a lot more content at their hands than if they simply learned their language."
True, but Chenyanja/Chichewa ("the "tongue of the lakes") is the lingua franca of southern Africa.
...the many African dialects.
Swahili
Zulu
Chenyanja
Fanagalo
etc.
Chimbudzi miombo basopa njoka!
(if you shit in the woods, watch out for snakes)
The term "ngwenya" means "crocodile" in some dialects and "snake" in others, while it is "njoka" or nyoka" in others for snake.
See the problem?
"Fear is more debilitating than terrorism."
Uhm, I thought inciting fear was the whole point of terrorism.
I think he richly deserved 6 years or more because odds are he was responsible for much of the software spams in my inbox.
"...her admission dissolved her privacy more than Aol's info did."
Having reporters show up at your door--even if they do not know your name--and start asking questions is PRIVACY? Perhaps on your planet, but not on this one.
My point is that "AOL did not provide any of the information necessary to identify the searchers" is obviously not correct. Clearly the search data itself was sufficient information whereby to identify and locate at least some users.
I often Google search my own name (to look for [gasp] copyright infringement or plagiarism). Were I an AOL user whose data got released, I would certainly have been easily identified.
"AOL did not provide any of the information necessary to identify the searchers."
l .html?ex=1156392000&en=4908a895fec7a6a7&ei=5070
Oh, really? A couple of NY Times reporters didn't let that stop them. They used the search data to find and interview User No. 4417749, Thelma Arnold, a 62-year-old widow who lives in Lilburn, Ga. Link to story below. Bugmenot login works.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09ao
"Tufte's most recent book is filled with hundreds of illustrations that demonstrate one concept: good design is timeless, while bad design can be a matter of life and death." "
Good communication is essential?
"(Unless you want to also argue that we do not think either, which is fine. ;) )"
;-)
I wouldn't touch that with a borrowed 11-foot pole.
No, I propose that humans are thinking entities because that is how we evolved. Our ability to think, reason, plan, understand the "why" of things, and create is what sets us apart.
Of course, I *could* make the argument that Man is the only created being into which God personally breathed "the breath of life" (i.e. a portion of his spirit) and that is what sets us apart, but that would start an inestinguishable flame war. (insert big evil grin)
"Because environmental conditions that are unique to each generation of animal cannot be solved by instinct."
Instinct is nothing more than genetic memory, i.e. an EEPROM-held base dataset. Adaptation to environmental changes that carries to the next generation. Natural selection. Get it?
Animals are biological machines, not thinking entities.
"The latest trick in the spam arsenal seems to be a crack at social engineering with emails that purport to be from Ebay, Bank of America or whatnot. If you click on the link, and the URL isn't even close to the purported source of the email, it takes you to the spammers web site where the actual marketing is done."
Ever heard of "phishing"? http://www.antiphishing.org/
"would assume, and I recognize that I could be completely incorrect, that most spam today comes from mass mailing companies. These companies of course use devious methods to deliver messages, from targeting open relays to abusing web hosts to running servers in "anything goes" data centers."
Your are correct that you are incorrect. Simply examine the IP addresses that spam comes from: Comcast, RoadRunner, SBCglobal, Adelphia, ATT, kingwoodcable.com, cebridge.net, Verizon, calpop.com, atmlinkinc.com, Charter, uci.net, ctccom.net, Earthlink, Qwest, suddenlink.net, Sprint, knology.net, insightcom.com, mdm.net, zoominternet.net, mnsi.net, Netzero.
Those are just a few of the sources of spam that was in my spam folder this morning. It does not include andy of the 300 or so that were trapped at the server by an IP filter that blackholes anything sent from a foreign (non-U.S.) IP address.
Why so many different sources and why from consumer IP addresses if these are not zombied machines?
From TFA: The Convention on Cybercrime does recognize this, and to its credit provides a set of exceptions to mutual assistance that should help prevent the worst abuses. The Convention does require members to adopt similar legislation on the following issues: illegal access, illegal interception of computer data, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, computer-related fraud and forgery, child pornography, and copyright violations "on a commerical scale." The goal of the treaty is not to let the Chinese crack down on dissidents living in America, however, and so countries may refuse to cooperate with requests that involve a "political offence" or if a country believes the request would "prejudice its soverignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests." The US Department of Justice has already announced that "essential interests" would allow the US to refuse any request that would violate the Constitution.
Given these safeguards, fears of political persecutions seem overblown, as do concerns that these requests will simply be issued directly from Beijing (which is not a signatory) to Comcast HQ without court oversight.
I once wtote an editorial encouraging cities to sue liquor manufacturers for all the carnage caused by their products: vehicle accidents, unwanted pregnancies, teen alcoholism, etc. I further suggested that to "reduce the amount of alcohol on the streets and preven 'straw purchases', we need laws limiting alcohol purchases by individuals to no more than one U.S. gallon in aggregate per month."
Further, automobiles cause thousands of deaths per year, are used to commit and facillitate crimes, etc. So, why isn't somebody suing auto makers?
**AA and those of similar mindset are prime examples of ignorance (or maybe stupidity) gone to seed.
"This is like sueing Remington because guns make it easier to kill people."
You do realize this has been done (unsuccessfully) by dozens of city governments against a variety of gun manufacturers and importers?
On the assumption this comment (clicked on the Popup menu "Reply") is for Slashdot's New Discussion Systemto comments, the popup is troublesome in that it covers the left side navigation, and you cannot drag it out of the way (at least not in Firefox).
Give the man a kewpie doll or at least a +5 Insightful. Excellent observation.
"Much as people might like to think otherwise, police forces don't coordinate much with each other."
It isn't so much a matter of "coordination" as infec tious concensus building. If cops in City A get by with something, cops in City B will (a) leanr about it and (b) adopt it. There is no conspiracy or collusion, just observation and mimickry.
Further, police (and I have 5 cops in my immediate and extended family, so know a bit about them) very much have a common "us against them" attitude. Incidents like this camera fiasco are manifestations of that.
(On a side note, one of my grandons-in-law who is a cop in a major city has a refrigerator magnet that reads: "Hi, I am police officer and I can kick your ass and get by with it.")
"This isn't a major civil liberties breach because it's an isolated incident, not far reaching."
First off, if you even read the summary let alone followed the links, you would know it was not an "isolated incident" but just the latest manifestation of police making up "laws" to fit any situation they do not like.
Second, even if it were an "isolated incident" (whatever that means), that does not mean it "isn't a major civil liberties breach." Any breach of rights is major and serious.
Third, even though the guy "got off," the chilling effect (just what the police/government hoped for) is VERY "far reaching." Who among us after reading about incidents like this will not henceforth think twice before photographing police or any other government official?
On a personal note, I was once threatened by a fire marshall and told, "You've taken the last picture you are going to take here!" because I was photographing a wildland brush fire--and I was/am a journalist.
"What is the point of AOL?"
It is the "other internet" for people who have not a clue. It protects them from viruses, spam, and other net evils. But, the best part is that AOL protects us from the clueless by making it extremely difficult to spam or spew viruses, trojans, et al from their servers. The walled community of AOL keeps evil out, but also helps keep evil in.
I am glad AOL exists because it keeps many clueless users away (mostly) from the real internet.