...not even that. From TFS, you can deduce that the second piece of legislation isn't even contrary, but is just equally beneficial to ALL software instead of being tailored to encourage adoption of free software.
So the summary could be rewritten as: "Free Software Lobby fails to prevent the use of Closed Software in Government and Business."
Plus, just in the summary, two MPs are conflated, and following that, we have the idea being pushed that legislation to promote free software in government is somehow hobbled by more legislation to provide businesses with tax credits to offset software purchase costs?
Last I knew, the Chilean government wasn't a federation of businesses, and the second bill just makes commercial software look more like free software (in terms of purchase/license cost) to businesses.
Seems to me that the second bill could also be used to offset purchase costs of free software that comes with support, making it an extremely lucrative option.
Thanks! This is excellent info. I do think that a Pwn2Own on TBB would be useful either way -- either it's hardened a lot and fares well, thus getting good publicity as a private AND secure browser, or the glaring bugs are fixed, it fails miserably in the P2O, and the visibility is improved that while it may be somewhat anonymous, it is by no means secure, and people pitch in to help fix that. Seems like a win-win to me, as long as donors are footing the prize bill.
Studying AND reference is completely different on an e-book than in a textbook. With a textbook, I wrote in the margins, highlighted text, and dog-eared pages, plus used sticky tabs in various places.
With an e-book, you don't have to do most of that, as you can quickly search for anything in the entire book... or for that matter, you can quickly search through your entire collection. Highlighting is more difficult, and linked notes don't have quite the same "physical space memory" triggers due to the lack of unique muscle usage when writing them, plus the lack of being able to see them in-place where you wrote them.
So in summary, what I've found is that physical books are better for actual study, but e-books are far better as reference material. They've been about the same for me for recreational reading, with the exception that an e-book is easier to read almost everywhere, and you can keep a collection with you at all times.
All the ozone from the exhaust of cars is the culprit. We just can't make enough ozone. Time to rev the engines.
You'd need to make flying cars lucrative first... ones that could make it all the way to the ozone layer. Down here in the lower levels of the atmosphere, ozone is known as pollution.
One question I have is: They say ASLR is disabled, and then they recommend using the product with EMET. However, if ASLR is disabled, doesn't that mean that EMET won't be compatible? EMET requires a number of features to be handled correctly before it can be used.
Seems to me that what really has to happen (in this order) is:
1) Mozilla fixes jemalloc or just replaces it with something like PartitionAlloc, fixing these issues for ALL variants that depend on it.
2) TorBrowser takes the Firefox code and recompiles the source as a single package for each target platform, and feeds THAT into its reproducable build system, instead of using standard cross-compile methods. No library loads, etc, just build a binary blob + chrome. This should be able to work under ASLR, if they do it right.
3) Fix whatever's left that prevents TorBrowser running alongside EMET. However, I think after 1 and 2 are done, there shouldn't be a problem here. Some of EMET's features are already baked in to OS X, so if the above issues are fixed, OS X should be in a stable state as well.
4) Assuming 1 and 2 are listed as priorities for both OTF and Mozilla, this should be doable by sometime in Jan/Feb 2015. Probably the best route would be to start a kickstarter ending at sometime in Feb to raise money for a pwn2own slot. If they don't make the deadline in tightening things up, pledges are dropped and nobody loses. If they DO make the deadline, they get the funds, and contestants will proceed to punch holes in the browser. Mozilla will also benefit from this attack, and should probably contribute to said kickstarter.
Address Space Layout Randomization is disabled on Windows and Mac
Due to our use of cross-compilation and non-standard toolchains in our reproducible build system, several hardening features have ended up disabled. We have known about the Windows issues prior to this report, and should have a fix for them soon. However, the MacOS issues are news to us, and appear to require that we build 64 bit versions of the Tor Browser for full support. The parent ticket for all basic hardening issues in Tor Browser is bug #10065.
Participate in Pwn2Own
iSEC recommended that we find a sponsor to fund a Pwn2Own reward for bugs specific to Tor Browser in a semi-hardened configuration. We are very interested in this idea and would love to talk with anyone willing to sponsor us in this competition, but we're not yet certain that our hardening options will have stabilized with enough lead time for the 2015 contest next March.
Test and recommend the Microsoft Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit on Windows
The Microsoft Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit is an optional toolkit that Windows users can run to further harden Tor Browser against exploitation. We've created bug #12820 for this analysis.
Replace the Firefox memory allocator (jemalloc) with ctmalloc/PartitionAlloc
PartitionAlloc is a memory allocator designed by Google specifically to mitigate common heap-based vulnerabilities by hardening free lists, creating partitioned allocation regions, and using guard pages to protect metadata and partitions. Its basic hardening features can be picked up by using it as a simple malloc replacement library (as ctmalloc). Bug #10281 tracks this work.
They just need to send someone out there to coat the ISS in some toxic chemicals, same as boats. So that the plankton can become resistant to toxic chemicals as well as extreme weather conditions.
What also makes perfect sense is that the equipment used to do the collection and detection wasn't as clean as they had hoped. I seem to recall this happened with some meteorites at some point. Contamination is always a factor when dealing with microorganisms.
Chrome has definitely become the interface driver; I now find that more and more interfaces are difficult to navigate with poor vision, whether it be eyesight in general, low-light situations, glare situations, etc.
The Chrome UI is definitely different, and sheds a lot of cruft that was just there for legacy's sake, but the result is something that is only really an improvement if you're under 35 and operating in optimal lighting conditions.
Human Interface Design has gone downhill a lot in the last decade, with designers thinking they know better than what came before, instead of learning from it like previous generations did. That doesn't mean that there aren't good new design ideas coming out, just that as a whole, the implementation sucks for the majority of people for the majority of use cases. It attempts to get people to conform to the design instead.
SMS is tied to a SIM on the back end; to the end user, it just looks like it's linked to the phone number, but in reality it leaves quite a paper trail, indicating which towers it passed through, what the sending and receiving SIMs were, what trunk route was used, etc. This is, in fact, the "metadata" the NSA was/is capturing, and is also required to be stored by the sending and receiving phone providers for some amount of time (can't remember the current time windows).
So yeah; SMS as we use it is designed to look easy and simple to the end users, but that's quite a few degrees removed from the actual SMS activity, which was originally the debug channel that managed the voice channels for cellular phone transmission.
SMS also has the benefit of being signed/encrypted over transport, so there's some verification that what was received matches what was sent -- EMail has none of this without PGP/MIME or the equivalent.
Email includes identifying information, text messages do not. An arbitrary string of numbers is not a good identifier. If you communicate with the sender frequently they may be in your address book, but a new contact is not.
Huh?
Email includes very little information that cannot be forged, although DKIM and originating IP are useful. SIGNED or encrypted email is much better in this respect; I hope something comes of the Google/Yahoo initiative to make GPG/PGP default.
SMS on the other hand has solid unique identifiers that cannot be easily forged. Of course, this is tied to the SIM and the entry point used to send the message, but those aren't easy to forge.
It's obviously not NFL or CFL; any tutu sewn under their leotards would be immediately obvious to the world. My guess is we're talking Premier League rules football. This kind of makes sense when you think about the artistry behind taking a dive....
This whole story is a tale of over-reaction that only seemed to have occurred, because "oh my god, video games!".
Wanting to expose your children to realities beyond those as depicted by popular media is a thoughtful thing to do. Not so much when it's a swift over-reaction to "OMG VIDEO GAMES!".
And, really, the truth seems more to be "freelance journalist does a freelance journalist thing and uses his kids as fodder for more freelance journalism". What do you figure the odds are he'd be doing this and documenting it if, say, he were a flight mechanic or a plumber and there weren't some other benefit besides that to his children?
You work with the tools you've got. You'll notice, he didn't do "OMG VIDEO GAMES!" but instead did "You guys don't have the whole picture. Let's get some education in you so you can decide what you want to do."
After all, when they got back, he let his kids play the video games. To me it seemed more that he was surprised at the lack of information they were gaining about reality (but thought they were gaining) via the CoD games. Now they'll be playing CoD and he'll be confident that they play it only as a game, as they've been exposed to some of the world's harsh realities.
If I had the money to go globe hopping, I'd do this too. As it is, I usually settle for having my family spend time with people who are refugees but moved to MY country. Not as useful in some ways, but moreso in others.
Yeah; what I can't figure out is what happened to criminal cases being thrown against public servants proven to be intentionally serving someone other than the public. It's even beyond cronyism, and it seems to have hit all levels of government to one degree or another (excluding the alderman recently arrested for documenting police brutality).
Is this some sort of game to you? We're talking about people's livelihoods. If you want to indulge in sophistry and absurd strawman-making go ahead, but you're not likely to convince anyone with that stuff.
This is definitely not some sort of game; this is hammering out where the copyright is allowed to infringe on public domain for a limited time to promote the sciences and the arts (and as a side effect allowing individuals to make a living at it). When people assume copyright covers more than it actually does, they sometimes end up in situations where they over-invest in a process expecting returns that are above and beyond what is covered by law. In other cases, people attempt to abuse the law for private gain above and beyond what is entitled them under the law. On the other side (people misusing copyrighted works), you have people in the same two camps.
The more well defined copyright law is (and the more balanced, allowing for wide distribution of creations as well as individual profit from creations for a limited time), the fewer situations like this will occur, where a photographer assumes that because his equipment is used during an event where he is "at work" creating material that would normally make him royalties, this one work is also covered.
My comments were didactic; nobody in their right mind would think that Nikon owns the copyright to the images, but that's where your line of reasoning was going. Copyright law is very explicit about where copyright attribution stops, and it stops before the point where animals are the prime movers in creating the artefact.
Any rational, thinking person understands what "intent" means in an artistic context.
If this were true, you're either calling an awful lot of people who don't hold your views irrational non-thinkers. Intent is a very fuzzy area, which is why it's hard to prove. Usually the side with the best lawyers wins when it comes to proving intent; either that, or the side who doesn't have to prove it wins.
Of course, if Nikon were to give you a camera rig for free, fly you out to Indonesia at their expense, and tell you to take photos of monkeys, they could easily claim copyright on the resulting images - in fact, the music business, the motion picture industry, and numerous others do that sort of thing as a matter of course.
This is patently false. Nikon could not claim copyright unless they had you sign a waiver first. You take the photos, you own the copyright. That's how it's been since the 70's, and there's a lot of case law to back this up. As for the music and motion picture industries, they have their employees/artists sign "work for hire" contracts which automatically assign all work created by them to the studio for the duration of the contract. At this point you've left copyright law and entered contract law. By default, the artists get the copyright; they intentionally hand that copyright over to the studio for remuneration. Intent is REALLY easy to prove here, although it's still sometimes contested (see the National Geographic case regarding the electronic versions of the NG archives for a really interesting bit of case law on this topic -- NG won and the artists that never assigned electronic distribution rights of their photos to NG lost).
That is how copyright works; the only reason you don't often see those practices applied to photography is because the gear is relatively cheap and easily operated by one person. And regardless, this situation has nothing to do with that, because it's assumed the monkey can't knowingly sign a contract or understand its terms and his responsibilities under those terms.
...which is how the Public Domain works. If a photographer can't claim copyright because they're not human, the copyright doesn't climb up the chain (hence my point with Nikon), it instead hits the limitation of copyright, and the work fal
So if you prepared yourself a nice BBQ meal on the deck, went inside for a moment, and came back out to discover that the local fauna had consumed it all, you'd claim that you meant for them to eat it all along, because you made it?
Sorry, but your argument is tenuous to the point of breaking.
If you go with that argument, then every picture that's taken that includes some man-made artefact is in copyright violation. That's not how copyright works. You could just as easily, by extension, claim that Nikon actually owns rights to the photos, as they invented and created the hardware and tweaked the setings used by the photographer.
But wait! It's not Nikon who owns the photos... they just assembled the parts that were made for that use by a bunch of Chinese and Japanese manufacturers, who surely intended they would be used by a Monkey to take random pictures, including some of its own face....
This is the direction I was going, but I'm not sure it's actually true -- the other end of the cable will still have access to all telemetry in the boosters and sheathe right up to the booster prior to the cut, won't it? Anyone with more experience with these cables willing to weigh in here?
Odd; I usually go to Wikipedia for the citations. I guess this just shows that if you provide an infinite graffiti wall, you get all kinds.
As for Wales; he's definitely hands-off at this point, but his figurehead position set the ground rules that people are supposed to be using. I think some people admire him purely because of what he accomplished, against significant odds. Really -- with all the things wrong with Wikipedia, it's still one of the best things of its kind we've got. You can't fix humanity.
A series of self-portraits taken by Indonesian monkeys has sparked a copyright dispute between Wikipedia and a British wildlife photographer, says Wikipedia is using his copyrighted images without permission. Photographer David Slater complained that Wikipedia rejected his requests for the images to be removed from the website. Although the monkeys pressed the button, Slater set up the self-portraits by framing them and setting the camera on a tripod. The Wikimedia Foundation claims that no one owns the copyright to the images, because under U.S. law, 'copyright cannot vest in non-human authors', the monkeys in this case.
Let's see here: 1) "A series of self-portraits" -- I seem to recall a set of pictures initially, some of which could be considered self-portraits, many of which were of the general area the camera was pointed at with some monkey bits partially in the picture. This was not a selfie-shoot; some of the pictures just happened to be a) of the monkey and b) in focus. 2) Slater set up the self-portraits. False. Slater set up the camera, and was completely surprised by the monkey who came in while he wasn't paying attention and started taking random pictures. I read his original article before this whole thing blew up. Back then he was just excited to share this with the rest of the world. It's true that he curated the photos (got rid of the ones that weren't worth publishing), but there was no artistic intent in his leaving his camera unattended. 3) Non-human authors. This same public domain situation exists if you set up your camera with a motion sensor and capture your cat doing funny things. Unless you had intent (difficult to prove, and you have to PROVE it under copyright law), such images are in the public domain.
So yeah; the thing about a site like Wikipedia, is that everyone who wants free publicity but doesn't get the concept of making information FREELY available will try to coopt it for their own use -- and someone has to be the gatekeeper.
Personally, I think for 90% of the articles, Wales does a decent job as the final gatekeeper, and Wikipedia ends up as a more useful resource than Encyclopedia Brittanica. For that other 10%... 8% of it is stuff that should indicate almost immediately that you should go somewhere else for the real story. The final 2% is an issue, but is still a better hit/miss ratio than you'd get from pretty much any other third-party source.
That was one of the thoughts I had; the other was: the actual cable would be crazy to tap, but they don't have to. Instead of tapping all of the fiber strands sheathed in the power cable, why not just dip in at the boost point? You get a momentary power fluctuation which affects the entire service, and then everything goes back online -- with the booster replaced by a destructive intercept. To the remote telemetry, it reads like a temporary boost anomaly, when really it's an intercept.
You don't need to be undetectable when you can provide some sort of reason for the anomaly (anchor a large boat in the region for example). You just need to be explainable as something less nefarious.
Or, since you've got the theoretical sub, you could just slowly bend the cable over 90 days as the gp said; but then you'd need to have some sort of transmitter to attach or have a huge local storage system on the sub.
Including the junction point during the cable lay makes much more sense.
So is it even worth it for governments to tap undersea cables? It is easy to negate the attack using end-to-end encryption. The sub also has to have the capability to record and store terabytes worth of information a second. I don't know of any recording device capable of that.
CATCHA: intent
Actually, all the sub has to be able to do is take the data and feed it back into the fiber with different destination addresses. Which means that the sub doesn't even have to stick around after pulling off the intercept. This DOES mean that the next group to intercept the data gets to see a whole bunch of encrypted (or not) data flowing to a mystery address, however.
Slashdot Mirror
...not even that. From TFS, you can deduce that the second piece of legislation isn't even contrary, but is just equally beneficial to ALL software instead of being tailored to encourage adoption of free software.
So the summary could be rewritten as: "Free Software Lobby fails to prevent the use of Closed Software in Government and Business."
Plus, just in the summary, two MPs are conflated, and following that, we have the idea being pushed that legislation to promote free software in government is somehow hobbled by more legislation to provide businesses with tax credits to offset software purchase costs?
Last I knew, the Chilean government wasn't a federation of businesses, and the second bill just makes commercial software look more like free software (in terms of purchase/license cost) to businesses.
Seems to me that the second bill could also be used to offset purchase costs of free software that comes with support, making it an extremely lucrative option.
Thanks! This is excellent info. I do think that a Pwn2Own on TBB would be useful either way -- either it's hardened a lot and fares well, thus getting good publicity as a private AND secure browser, or the glaring bugs are fixed, it fails miserably in the P2O, and the visibility is improved that while it may be somewhat anonymous, it is by no means secure, and people pitch in to help fix that. Seems like a win-win to me, as long as donors are footing the prize bill.
Studying AND reference is completely different on an e-book than in a textbook. With a textbook, I wrote in the margins, highlighted text, and dog-eared pages, plus used sticky tabs in various places.
With an e-book, you don't have to do most of that, as you can quickly search for anything in the entire book... or for that matter, you can quickly search through your entire collection. Highlighting is more difficult, and linked notes don't have quite the same "physical space memory" triggers due to the lack of unique muscle usage when writing them, plus the lack of being able to see them in-place where you wrote them.
So in summary, what I've found is that physical books are better for actual study, but e-books are far better as reference material. They've been about the same for me for recreational reading, with the exception that an e-book is easier to read almost everywhere, and you can keep a collection with you at all times.
It's obvious where it's coming from... China and all those other "cheap labor" part of the world who don't give a damn about the environment.
You know the world has changed when the USA gets listed under "all those other 'cheap labor' parts of the world" and China gets top billing....
All the ozone from the exhaust of cars is the culprit. We just can't make enough ozone. Time to rev the engines.
You'd need to make flying cars lucrative first... ones that could make it all the way to the ozone layer. Down here in the lower levels of the atmosphere, ozone is known as pollution.
Ah; so they're not saying that they disable ASLR, they're just saying they aren't baking it in (which EMET can do for free).
That makes much more sense if it's the case. I never use TorBrowser on Windows, so I haven't seen how it actually behaves.
One question I have is:
They say ASLR is disabled, and then they recommend using the product with EMET. However, if ASLR is disabled, doesn't that mean that EMET won't be compatible? EMET requires a number of features to be handled correctly before it can be used.
Seems to me that what really has to happen (in this order) is:
1) Mozilla fixes jemalloc or just replaces it with something like PartitionAlloc, fixing these issues for ALL variants that depend on it.
2) TorBrowser takes the Firefox code and recompiles the source as a single package for each target platform, and feeds THAT into its reproducable build system, instead of using standard cross-compile methods. No library loads, etc, just build a binary blob + chrome. This should be able to work under ASLR, if they do it right.
3) Fix whatever's left that prevents TorBrowser running alongside EMET. However, I think after 1 and 2 are done, there shouldn't be a problem here. Some of EMET's features are already baked in to OS X, so if the above issues are fixed, OS X should be in a stable state as well.
4) Assuming 1 and 2 are listed as priorities for both OTF and Mozilla, this should be doable by sometime in Jan/Feb 2015. Probably the best route would be to start a kickstarter ending at sometime in Feb to raise money for a pwn2own slot. If they don't make the deadline in tightening things up, pledges are dropped and nobody loses. If they DO make the deadline, they get the funds, and contestants will proceed to punch holes in the browser. Mozilla will also benefit from this attack, and should probably contribute to said kickstarter.
Address Space Layout Randomization is disabled on Windows and Mac
Due to our use of cross-compilation and non-standard toolchains in our reproducible build system, several hardening features have ended up disabled. We have known about the Windows issues prior to this report, and should have a fix for them soon. However, the MacOS issues are news to us, and appear to require that we build 64 bit versions of the Tor Browser for full support. The parent ticket for all basic hardening issues in Tor Browser is bug #10065.
Participate in Pwn2Own
iSEC recommended that we find a sponsor to fund a Pwn2Own reward for bugs specific to Tor Browser in a semi-hardened configuration. We are very interested in this idea and would love to talk with anyone willing to sponsor us in this competition, but we're not yet certain that our hardening options will have stabilized with enough lead time for the 2015 contest next March.
Test and recommend the Microsoft Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit on Windows
The Microsoft Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit is an optional toolkit that Windows users can run to further harden Tor Browser against exploitation. We've created bug #12820 for this analysis.
Replace the Firefox memory allocator (jemalloc) with ctmalloc/PartitionAlloc
PartitionAlloc is a memory allocator designed by Google specifically to mitigate common heap-based vulnerabilities by hardening free lists, creating partitioned allocation regions, and using guard pages to protect metadata and partitions. Its basic hardening features can be picked up by using it as a simple malloc replacement library (as ctmalloc). Bug #10281 tracks this work.
They just need to send someone out there to coat the ISS in some toxic chemicals, same as boats. So that the plankton can become resistant to toxic chemicals as well as extreme weather conditions.
What also makes perfect sense is that the equipment used to do the collection and detection wasn't as clean as they had hoped. I seem to recall this happened with some meteorites at some point. Contamination is always a factor when dealing with microorganisms.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Chrome has definitely become the interface driver; I now find that more and more interfaces are difficult to navigate with poor vision, whether it be eyesight in general, low-light situations, glare situations, etc.
The Chrome UI is definitely different, and sheds a lot of cruft that was just there for legacy's sake, but the result is something that is only really an improvement if you're under 35 and operating in optimal lighting conditions.
Human Interface Design has gone downhill a lot in the last decade, with designers thinking they know better than what came before, instead of learning from it like previous generations did. That doesn't mean that there aren't good new design ideas coming out, just that as a whole, the implementation sucks for the majority of people for the majority of use cases. It attempts to get people to conform to the design instead.
SMS is tied to a SIM on the back end; to the end user, it just looks like it's linked to the phone number, but in reality it leaves quite a paper trail, indicating which towers it passed through, what the sending and receiving SIMs were, what trunk route was used, etc. This is, in fact, the "metadata" the NSA was/is capturing, and is also required to be stored by the sending and receiving phone providers for some amount of time (can't remember the current time windows).
So yeah; SMS as we use it is designed to look easy and simple to the end users, but that's quite a few degrees removed from the actual SMS activity, which was originally the debug channel that managed the voice channels for cellular phone transmission.
SMS also has the benefit of being signed/encrypted over transport, so there's some verification that what was received matches what was sent -- EMail has none of this without PGP/MIME or the equivalent.
Email includes identifying information, text messages do not. An arbitrary string of numbers is not a good identifier. If you communicate with the sender frequently they may be in your address book, but a new contact is not.
Huh?
Email includes very little information that cannot be forged, although DKIM and originating IP are useful. SIGNED or encrypted email is much better in this respect; I hope something comes of the Google/Yahoo initiative to make GPG/PGP default.
SMS on the other hand has solid unique identifiers that cannot be easily forged. Of course, this is tied to the SIM and the entry point used to send the message, but those aren't easy to forge.
It's obviously not NFL or CFL; any tutu sewn under their leotards would be immediately obvious to the world. My guess is we're talking Premier League rules football. This kind of makes sense when you think about the artistry behind taking a dive....
This whole story is a tale of over-reaction that only seemed to have occurred, because "oh my god, video games!".
Wanting to expose your children to realities beyond those as depicted by popular media is a thoughtful thing to do. Not so much when it's a swift over-reaction to "OMG VIDEO GAMES!".
And, really, the truth seems more to be "freelance journalist does a freelance journalist thing and uses his kids as fodder for more freelance journalism". What do you figure the odds are he'd be doing this and documenting it if, say, he were a flight mechanic or a plumber and there weren't some other benefit besides that to his children?
You work with the tools you've got. You'll notice, he didn't do "OMG VIDEO GAMES!" but instead did "You guys don't have the whole picture. Let's get some education in you so you can decide what you want to do."
After all, when they got back, he let his kids play the video games. To me it seemed more that he was surprised at the lack of information they were gaining about reality (but thought they were gaining) via the CoD games. Now they'll be playing CoD and he'll be confident that they play it only as a game, as they've been exposed to some of the world's harsh realities.
If I had the money to go globe hopping, I'd do this too. As it is, I usually settle for having my family spend time with people who are refugees but moved to MY country. Not as useful in some ways, but moreso in others.
Yeah; what I can't figure out is what happened to criminal cases being thrown against public servants proven to be intentionally serving someone other than the public. It's even beyond cronyism, and it seems to have hit all levels of government to one degree or another (excluding the alderman recently arrested for documenting police brutality).
Roman roads
Terraced farming
Fracking
Horses
The railroad
The internet
At the heart of most political and social problems, you'll find an issue with a technical solution that obviates the debate.
Of course, such solutions usually open up a whole new universe of political and social problems to be explored.
Is this some sort of game to you? We're talking about people's livelihoods. If you want to indulge in sophistry and absurd strawman-making go ahead, but you're not likely to convince anyone with that stuff.
This is definitely not some sort of game; this is hammering out where the copyright is allowed to infringe on public domain for a limited time to promote the sciences and the arts (and as a side effect allowing individuals to make a living at it). When people assume copyright covers more than it actually does, they sometimes end up in situations where they over-invest in a process expecting returns that are above and beyond what is covered by law. In other cases, people attempt to abuse the law for private gain above and beyond what is entitled them under the law. On the other side (people misusing copyrighted works), you have people in the same two camps.
The more well defined copyright law is (and the more balanced, allowing for wide distribution of creations as well as individual profit from creations for a limited time), the fewer situations like this will occur, where a photographer assumes that because his equipment is used during an event where he is "at work" creating material that would normally make him royalties, this one work is also covered.
My comments were didactic; nobody in their right mind would think that Nikon owns the copyright to the images, but that's where your line of reasoning was going. Copyright law is very explicit about where copyright attribution stops, and it stops before the point where animals are the prime movers in creating the artefact.
Any rational, thinking person understands what "intent" means in an artistic context.
If this were true, you're either calling an awful lot of people who don't hold your views irrational non-thinkers. Intent is a very fuzzy area, which is why it's hard to prove. Usually the side with the best lawyers wins when it comes to proving intent; either that, or the side who doesn't have to prove it wins.
Of course, if Nikon were to give you a camera rig for free, fly you out to Indonesia at their expense, and tell you to take photos of monkeys, they could easily claim copyright on the resulting images - in fact, the music business, the motion picture industry, and numerous others do that sort of thing as a matter of course.
This is patently false. Nikon could not claim copyright unless they had you sign a waiver first. You take the photos, you own the copyright. That's how it's been since the 70's, and there's a lot of case law to back this up.
As for the music and motion picture industries, they have their employees/artists sign "work for hire" contracts which automatically assign all work created by them to the studio for the duration of the contract. At this point you've left copyright law and entered contract law. By default, the artists get the copyright; they intentionally hand that copyright over to the studio for remuneration. Intent is REALLY easy to prove here, although it's still sometimes contested (see the National Geographic case regarding the electronic versions of the NG archives for a really interesting bit of case law on this topic -- NG won and the artists that never assigned electronic distribution rights of their photos to NG lost).
That is how copyright works; the only reason you don't often see those practices applied to photography is because the gear is relatively cheap and easily operated by one person. And regardless, this situation has nothing to do with that, because it's assumed the monkey can't knowingly sign a contract or understand its terms and his responsibilities under those terms.
...which is how the Public Domain works. If a photographer can't claim copyright because they're not human, the copyright doesn't climb up the chain (hence my point with Nikon), it instead hits the limitation of copyright, and the work fal
So if you prepared yourself a nice BBQ meal on the deck, went inside for a moment, and came back out to discover that the local fauna had consumed it all, you'd claim that you meant for them to eat it all along, because you made it?
Sorry, but your argument is tenuous to the point of breaking.
If you go with that argument, then every picture that's taken that includes some man-made artefact is in copyright violation. That's not how copyright works. You could just as easily, by extension, claim that Nikon actually owns rights to the photos, as they invented and created the hardware and tweaked the setings used by the photographer.
But wait! It's not Nikon who owns the photos... they just assembled the parts that were made for that use by a bunch of Chinese and Japanese manufacturers, who surely intended they would be used by a Monkey to take random pictures, including some of its own face....
This is the direction I was going, but I'm not sure it's actually true -- the other end of the cable will still have access to all telemetry in the boosters and sheathe right up to the booster prior to the cut, won't it? Anyone with more experience with these cables willing to weigh in here?
Odd; I usually go to Wikipedia for the citations. I guess this just shows that if you provide an infinite graffiti wall, you get all kinds.
As for Wales; he's definitely hands-off at this point, but his figurehead position set the ground rules that people are supposed to be using. I think some people admire him purely because of what he accomplished, against significant odds. Really -- with all the things wrong with Wikipedia, it's still one of the best things of its kind we've got. You can't fix humanity.
A series of self-portraits taken by Indonesian monkeys has sparked a copyright dispute between Wikipedia and a British wildlife photographer, says Wikipedia is using his copyrighted images without permission. Photographer David Slater complained that Wikipedia rejected his requests for the images to be removed from the website. Although the monkeys pressed the button, Slater set up the self-portraits by framing them and setting the camera on a tripod. The Wikimedia Foundation claims that no one owns the copyright to the images, because under U.S. law, 'copyright cannot vest in non-human authors', the monkeys in this case.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor...
Let's see here:
1) "A series of self-portraits" -- I seem to recall a set of pictures initially, some of which could be considered self-portraits, many of which were of the general area the camera was pointed at with some monkey bits partially in the picture. This was not a selfie-shoot; some of the pictures just happened to be a) of the monkey and b) in focus.
2) Slater set up the self-portraits. False. Slater set up the camera, and was completely surprised by the monkey who came in while he wasn't paying attention and started taking random pictures. I read his original article before this whole thing blew up. Back then he was just excited to share this with the rest of the world. It's true that he curated the photos (got rid of the ones that weren't worth publishing), but there was no artistic intent in his leaving his camera unattended.
3) Non-human authors. This same public domain situation exists if you set up your camera with a motion sensor and capture your cat doing funny things. Unless you had intent (difficult to prove, and you have to PROVE it under copyright law), such images are in the public domain.
So yeah; the thing about a site like Wikipedia, is that everyone who wants free publicity but doesn't get the concept of making information FREELY available will try to coopt it for their own use -- and someone has to be the gatekeeper.
Personally, I think for 90% of the articles, Wales does a decent job as the final gatekeeper, and Wikipedia ends up as a more useful resource than Encyclopedia Brittanica. For that other 10%... 8% of it is stuff that should indicate almost immediately that you should go somewhere else for the real story. The final 2% is an issue, but is still a better hit/miss ratio than you'd get from pretty much any other third-party source.
That was one of the thoughts I had; the other was: the actual cable would be crazy to tap, but they don't have to. Instead of tapping all of the fiber strands sheathed in the power cable, why not just dip in at the boost point? You get a momentary power fluctuation which affects the entire service, and then everything goes back online -- with the booster replaced by a destructive intercept. To the remote telemetry, it reads like a temporary boost anomaly, when really it's an intercept.
You don't need to be undetectable when you can provide some sort of reason for the anomaly (anchor a large boat in the region for example). You just need to be explainable as something less nefarious.
Or, since you've got the theoretical sub, you could just slowly bend the cable over 90 days as the gp said; but then you'd need to have some sort of transmitter to attach or have a huge local storage system on the sub.
Including the junction point during the cable lay makes much more sense.
So is it even worth it for governments to tap undersea cables? It is easy to negate the attack using end-to-end encryption. The sub also has to have the capability to record and store terabytes worth of information a second. I don't know of any recording device capable of that.
CATCHA: intent
Actually, all the sub has to be able to do is take the data and feed it back into the fiber with different destination addresses. Which means that the sub doesn't even have to stick around after pulling off the intercept. This DOES mean that the next group to intercept the data gets to see a whole bunch of encrypted (or not) data flowing to a mystery address, however.