No, the story clearly states that users who click a link that takes them to a site that LOOKS LIKE the Samsung screen but which is really another web site - where they then give up their credentials to a phony back-end system that IS NOT SAMSUNG - suddenly find themselves at the mercy of the person to whom they just handed over their credentials while not bothering to check which web site they were on. Simple phishing attack.
The flaw is that users who click a link that takes them to some OTHER web site, where they then provide their credentials, are then vulnerable to OTHER people using their credentials? How is this even news?
Sounds pretty awful! Imagine if temps actually DID reach "twofold" there because of a global average change of two degrees. It's a bit crazy, their use of that word. If temps ANYWHERE on earth hit double, we'd be talking about a global changes WAY outside of two degrees.
Who EDITS this stuff? If temperatures in the Middle East are going to increase two-fold, that's a LOT more than hitting 114F. Temps there already routinely exceed 100F... twice that would be 200F. How about "would increase by several degrees." Except that wouldn't sound so horrific, which would take some of the fun out of the shrill rantiness.
There IS nothing useful to say along those lines unless you're going to go into a long discussion about the ways in which encrypted storage and communication are used, and eventually bringing the conversation around to the fact that there are actual bad guys who do actually awful things, and addressing what matters: actual or possible compromises in his puritanical posturing on the subject, in deference to reality and the bad people who operate within it.
You seem to be having some trouble understanding what a rhetorical straw man actually is. Because organized criminals, for example, DO use encrypted communication and storage to hinder law enforcement, mentioning that isn't a case of trotting out a straw man. It's referring to the facts.
Ah, good. Always nice to know we can rely on someone who can't think about or address the substance of the point to simply trot out some lazy, juvenile ad hominem in hopes of chasing away anyone who might point out how vapid-sounding Snowden is when he says things like this without including ANY kind of useful context. Also, you may want to re-examine your understanding of the word "hipster" if you're trying to make someone else look bad. You're using it exactly, precisely the wrong way.
How about this: "Encryption is a vitally important tool. But the topic is far more complicated than can be addressed in a short interview, which makes discussing the reality of its wide-spread use by well organized criminals and terrorists impossible in this setting."
In other words, making proclamations about it in the way Snowden did servces no educational purpose, but does keep his own name in the news, which is the only reason he did it.
As soon as you're done thrashing that straw man, how about addressing how completely lacking was this publicity post from Snowden in any sort of contextual nuance. No? Not fun? OK then, go back to talking to yourself and whichever handful of low-information people you're trying to reach with your... what was your point, exactly? Please be specific.
Without fire, everything stops. If we couldn't have fire, much of the world's economy and infrastructure would grind to a halt. So what if arsonists like to burn things down, or fire is part of what makes a firearm work when a criminal is killing someone he's just raped.
What? This is a silly pronouncement that lacks any sort of context or meaningful nuance and anybody who's even a little informed will understand that there's more to this than "Fire, good!"? Yeah. No kidding. Not that that would ever persuade Snowden to introduce a little bit of real-world context into his periodic Look At Me postings.
Yup, you definitely have no idea what you're talking about. Let me guess: you also think that writing commercial software is the act of pressing keys on a keyboard. And that building a commercial building involves pushing some levers on some tools. Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? No doubt it involves sitting perfectly still while you pretend to work, and things just happen and you get paid, right? Silly me, you don't actually make a living, do you?
However, in my experience, the concept of a limited license time for a professional photography job is *extremely unusual*
It's not only not unusual, it's very common. It's routine.
Normally, if you do a job, the employer owns the results and can do with them what they want forever.
But he wasn't an employee of the company. He was contracted as an outside professional service provider, and unless the contract took the very unusual step of explicitly stating that it was "work for hire," or there was contractual language that actually conveyed copyrights (not just licensed use), then no - the photographer retains the copyrights, and the conditions under which (and the period for which) the client can use the images is simply spelled out in the license language. Limited use (in terms of time, or in terms of venue... like, OK on a single magazine cover, but not OK for other advertising, etc) is the rule, not the exception.
Typically, in a contract where you hire the photographer (pay his 4200 Euro expenses) to specifically take photos of certain things, it's a work for hire.
No, that's not typical at all. Work for hire has to be explicitly agreed upon in advance, or can happen when the photographer is (for example) an actual employee of the company receiving the work (say, you're a staff photographer for a newspaper, etc). Otherwise, certainly in the US, almost all commercial work is definitely NOT "work for hire," and the rights to use the images are negotiated in a license.
If the photographer is acting as an independent (pays his own expenses, shoots on his own time), then he'll retain his copyright and the company simply buys rights to those copyrights.
No. The photographer retains the copyright because he created the images. Period. If he did so as part of a contract that explicitly conveys the copyrights to the client, or there's "work for hire" language in that contract, then things are different. Otherwise, an independent contractor owns the copyrights for the material they produce, regardless of how they're paid for their time or how expenses are handled.
But why? The photographs are valuable to the business, but not really to the photographer.
Of course they are. It's how the person makes their living. They negotiated and BOTH AGREED to a usage license. The photos are still valuable to the photographer because he can once again license them for additional use, later. To the same customer, once the MUTUALLY AGREED UPON initial use dries up. The hotel decided to go and use them in a couple hundred additional ways - usage to which the photographer did not agree. If the photos are still valuable to the hotel AFTER the initially agreed upon use has ended, then they are definitely still valuable to the person who created them, as well.
And WHY do you suppose "the gun industry" (along with millions of average owners) is opposed to this? Because there are states with laws already on the books that state that as soon as such a gun is available on the market, all other guns will be banned from sale. You understand that, right?
I would say that only applies if they were classified before they were sent to a private server. I haven't seen any evidence of that but I suppose if there was the FBI will find it.
The inspectors general from multiple intelligence agencies have said that some of the email messaged/files she kept on her home computer were "born classified" - information that even if stripped of any headers or subject lines indicating its nature, would be plainly obvious as classified information to ANYONE who has sat through the required training on the handling of such material (let alone the Secretary of State), and which was not merely identified as such after the fact. We're talking about human intelligence sources, satellite imagery of places like North Korea, etc.
The DoJ has finally granted immunity to the tech who set up and helped run the family mail server so that he can better explain things about it and the people who used it. Immunity? Why, right? Because he was afraid of being criminally convicted for being involved in what he knew was the purpose and years-long use of that server, and thus refused to say anything about it. Until now.
She very willfully, and very knowingly chose to keep classified (and even SAP-level!) information on an unsecured computer in her house, connected to the public internet. The "intent to harm" does NOT have to be present for a conviction in the case of simple negligence in handling that information.
Or maybe you think the Secretary of State, the Cabinet member in charge of foreign affairs, can be constrained by someone other than the President....
What? Yes, she is constrained by the SAME LAWS HE IS. It's not the president that says she's not allowed to mis-handle highly classified information. It's federal law. She AND the president are both subject to it.
You mean a criminal conviction, ending his entire career? That slap on the wrist? Over a single, comparatively benign, incident? OK, let's say that the sustained, years-long exposure of classified information that Clinton allowed to happen was considered no worse than Petraeus' transgression. That means that Clinton would also be criminally indicted and convicted. Suits me. Keeps her and her husband and their entire machine out of the office they abused so aggressively last time they had it.
No, your side just keeps throwing things at the wall and hoping something will stick.
Whose "side?" The inspectors in the intelligence community, working for the Obama administration? The more than 100 FBI agents involved with the DoJ's investigation (who work for the Obama administration) who have now granted immunity to the guy who set up and administered the server, who previously refused to talk because he didn't want to incriminate himself? The "side" that's conducting this is executing its work as part of the executive branch, which is run by Clinton's own party.
To the extent the media pushes anybody consistently, it pushes Trump
Sure, if by "pushing" you mean "ridiculing," "complaining about," and the like. Most of the media spends all of their Trump-related coverage on saying how much they hate him. And they spend more or less NONE of their time examining Sanders' pie-in-sky low-information support base or Clinton's nearly-delusional-in-their-willingness-to-ignore-her-lies-and-phoniness support base.
Of course, any group (not just the Ds and Rs) can avail themselves of the same public service, if they pass the (quite low, actually) threshold of showing they've put together a viable group that wants to run their prospective candidates through the primary process using state/county infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the story clearly states that users who click a link that takes them to a site that LOOKS LIKE the Samsung screen but which is really another web site - where they then give up their credentials to a phony back-end system that IS NOT SAMSUNG - suddenly find themselves at the mercy of the person to whom they just handed over their credentials while not bothering to check which web site they were on. Simple phishing attack.
The flaw is that users who click a link that takes them to some OTHER web site, where they then provide their credentials, are then vulnerable to OTHER people using their credentials? How is this even news?
Sounds pretty awful! Imagine if temps actually DID reach "twofold" there because of a global average change of two degrees. It's a bit crazy, their use of that word. If temps ANYWHERE on earth hit double, we'd be talking about a global changes WAY outside of two degrees.
Who EDITS this stuff? If temperatures in the Middle East are going to increase two-fold, that's a LOT more than hitting 114F. Temps there already routinely exceed 100F ... twice that would be 200F. How about "would increase by several degrees." Except that wouldn't sound so horrific, which would take some of the fun out of the shrill rantiness.
There IS nothing useful to say along those lines unless you're going to go into a long discussion about the ways in which encrypted storage and communication are used, and eventually bringing the conversation around to the fact that there are actual bad guys who do actually awful things, and addressing what matters: actual or possible compromises in his puritanical posturing on the subject, in deference to reality and the bad people who operate within it.
Oh dear! Talk about your straw man!
You seem to be having some trouble understanding what a rhetorical straw man actually is. Because organized criminals, for example, DO use encrypted communication and storage to hinder law enforcement, mentioning that isn't a case of trotting out a straw man. It's referring to the facts.
Ah, good. Always nice to know we can rely on someone who can't think about or address the substance of the point to simply trot out some lazy, juvenile ad hominem in hopes of chasing away anyone who might point out how vapid-sounding Snowden is when he says things like this without including ANY kind of useful context. Also, you may want to re-examine your understanding of the word "hipster" if you're trying to make someone else look bad. You're using it exactly, precisely the wrong way.
How about this: "Encryption is a vitally important tool. But the topic is far more complicated than can be addressed in a short interview, which makes discussing the reality of its wide-spread use by well organized criminals and terrorists impossible in this setting."
In other words, making proclamations about it in the way Snowden did servces no educational purpose, but does keep his own name in the news, which is the only reason he did it.
As soon as you're done thrashing that straw man, how about addressing how completely lacking was this publicity post from Snowden in any sort of contextual nuance. No? Not fun? OK then, go back to talking to yourself and whichever handful of low-information people you're trying to reach with your ... what was your point, exactly? Please be specific.
Without fire, everything stops. If we couldn't have fire, much of the world's economy and infrastructure would grind to a halt. So what if arsonists like to burn things down, or fire is part of what makes a firearm work when a criminal is killing someone he's just raped.
What? This is a silly pronouncement that lacks any sort of context or meaningful nuance and anybody who's even a little informed will understand that there's more to this than "Fire, good!"? Yeah. No kidding. Not that that would ever persuade Snowden to introduce a little bit of real-world context into his periodic Look At Me postings.
Yup, you definitely have no idea what you're talking about. Let me guess: you also think that writing commercial software is the act of pressing keys on a keyboard. And that building a commercial building involves pushing some levers on some tools. Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? No doubt it involves sitting perfectly still while you pretend to work, and things just happen and you get paid, right? Silly me, you don't actually make a living, do you?
However, in my experience, the concept of a limited license time for a professional photography job is *extremely unusual*
It's not only not unusual, it's very common. It's routine.
Normally, if you do a job, the employer owns the results and can do with them what they want forever.
But he wasn't an employee of the company. He was contracted as an outside professional service provider, and unless the contract took the very unusual step of explicitly stating that it was "work for hire," or there was contractual language that actually conveyed copyrights (not just licensed use), then no - the photographer retains the copyrights, and the conditions under which (and the period for which) the client can use the images is simply spelled out in the license language. Limited use (in terms of time, or in terms of venue ... like, OK on a single magazine cover, but not OK for other advertising, etc) is the rule, not the exception.
Typically, in a contract where you hire the photographer (pay his 4200 Euro expenses) to specifically take photos of certain things, it's a work for hire.
No, that's not typical at all. Work for hire has to be explicitly agreed upon in advance, or can happen when the photographer is (for example) an actual employee of the company receiving the work (say, you're a staff photographer for a newspaper, etc). Otherwise, certainly in the US, almost all commercial work is definitely NOT "work for hire," and the rights to use the images are negotiated in a license.
If the photographer is acting as an independent (pays his own expenses, shoots on his own time), then he'll retain his copyright and the company simply buys rights to those copyrights.
No. The photographer retains the copyright because he created the images. Period. If he did so as part of a contract that explicitly conveys the copyrights to the client, or there's "work for hire" language in that contract, then things are different. Otherwise, an independent contractor owns the copyrights for the material they produce, regardless of how they're paid for their time or how expenses are handled.
It's just industrial work.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and definitely no idea about what does into actual commercial photography.
But why? The photographs are valuable to the business, but not really to the photographer.
Of course they are. It's how the person makes their living. They negotiated and BOTH AGREED to a usage license. The photos are still valuable to the photographer because he can once again license them for additional use, later. To the same customer, once the MUTUALLY AGREED UPON initial use dries up. The hotel decided to go and use them in a couple hundred additional ways - usage to which the photographer did not agree. If the photos are still valuable to the hotel AFTER the initially agreed upon use has ended, then they are definitely still valuable to the person who created them, as well.
Why is it worth more than 300 euros? He was already paid 4200 euros, so 300 more would be 4500. That seems like plenty for one afternoon of work.
If you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, why not just admit that? Wouldn't that make you feel better in the long run?
And WHY do you suppose "the gun industry" (along with millions of average owners) is opposed to this? Because there are states with laws already on the books that state that as soon as such a gun is available on the market, all other guns will be banned from sale. You understand that, right?
... it was a Schrödinger's Weasel. It could have been a stoat or a marmot until they looked at it.
I would say that only applies if they were classified before they were sent to a private server. I haven't seen any evidence of that but I suppose if there was the FBI will find it.
The inspectors general from multiple intelligence agencies have said that some of the email messaged/files she kept on her home computer were "born classified" - information that even if stripped of any headers or subject lines indicating its nature, would be plainly obvious as classified information to ANYONE who has sat through the required training on the handling of such material (let alone the Secretary of State), and which was not merely identified as such after the fact. We're talking about human intelligence sources, satellite imagery of places like North Korea, etc.
The DoJ has finally granted immunity to the tech who set up and helped run the family mail server so that he can better explain things about it and the people who used it. Immunity? Why, right? Because he was afraid of being criminally convicted for being involved in what he knew was the purpose and years-long use of that server, and thus refused to say anything about it. Until now.
Or maybe you think the Secretary of State, the Cabinet member in charge of foreign affairs, can be constrained by someone other than the President....
What? Yes, she is constrained by the SAME LAWS HE IS. It's not the president that says she's not allowed to mis-handle highly classified information. It's federal law. She AND the president are both subject to it.
I didn't say it did. My point is that it's very unlikely that an indicted, let alone convicted, Hillary Clinton would be elected.
You mean a criminal conviction, ending his entire career? That slap on the wrist? Over a single, comparatively benign, incident? OK, let's say that the sustained, years-long exposure of classified information that Clinton allowed to happen was considered no worse than Petraeus' transgression. That means that Clinton would also be criminally indicted and convicted. Suits me. Keeps her and her husband and their entire machine out of the office they abused so aggressively last time they had it.
No, your side just keeps throwing things at the wall and hoping something will stick.
Whose "side?" The inspectors in the intelligence community, working for the Obama administration? The more than 100 FBI agents involved with the DoJ's investigation (who work for the Obama administration) who have now granted immunity to the guy who set up and administered the server, who previously refused to talk because he didn't want to incriminate himself? The "side" that's conducting this is executing its work as part of the executive branch, which is run by Clinton's own party.
To the extent the media pushes anybody consistently, it pushes Trump
Sure, if by "pushing" you mean "ridiculing," "complaining about," and the like. Most of the media spends all of their Trump-related coverage on saying how much they hate him. And they spend more or less NONE of their time examining Sanders' pie-in-sky low-information support base or Clinton's nearly-delusional-in-their-willingness-to-ignore-her-lies-and-phoniness support base.
Of course, any group (not just the Ds and Rs) can avail themselves of the same public service, if they pass the (quite low, actually) threshold of showing they've put together a viable group that wants to run their prospective candidates through the primary process using state/county infrastructure.