The onus is on you to protect yourself if you're so paranoid about your privacy. A harmless ad server using your collection to serve relevant ads is a reasonable thing to expect a company to do if you have a business relationship with them.
Not when the collection's on my personal hard drive. They sell me songs, they can do what they like with the info they have from that - but once they've given me a program, that should be my program, not snooping around on their behalf.
Did you know every major web browser by default sends out info about your operating system name and version, your CPU type, usually your ISP, your browser and version and sometimes extras added onto your browser, and allows it to be logged on almost every single website you have ever visited.
I have no problem with a site knowing about the browser I'm visiting it with. If it wanted information on what other programs I was running, then I'd have a problem with it. Similarly, I don't mind iTMS knowing about the songs I buy from there, but my songs I have from other things are my business.
Most web browsers DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO CHANGE THIS.
Then, if you don't like it, use a decent browser, like my personal favourite, Konqueror. One menu and you're IE, lynx, googlebot or whatever you want to be.
Given the way Norton will not uninstall without downloading a separate removal tool (and the fact they've known about this for five years but continue to ship versions that won't uninstall) I have zero confidence in Symantec having had good intentions with this.
"Slick" describes Apple perfectly, but isn't a word I'd use to talk about Sun stuff. Sun's hardware is pricey but not because of its looks. It's because it's built like a tank. Apple is all about style, Sun is about rock solid workhorse machines. I think they're both better off as separate companies.
With regards to the google desktop thing, I don't run google desktop myself, the problem is there may be other stuff in the background that go about doing similar things (maybe not on my personal PC but other people's PCs e.g. mom's), and I worry that those processes just might be running with higher privileges than normal restricted user (which I've got mom etc to run as - with no complaints so far).
Good point. I wonder whether XP's indexed search feature could trigger this, if so, ouch.
It's the same machine, and I have less drivers in win2k (got things like e.g. the second nic disabled, I don't do any routing in windows). It's my experience that NT series windows is pretty stable, certainly nothing like 98, but not as stable as linux.
Keeping water liquid at high temperature is just a question of putting enough pressure on it. We do this all the time using water to cool normal (fission) nuclear reactors - it heats to 7000+ C but stays liquid because it's under enough pressure. 15000 doesn't seem unreasonable.
I've been trying to use 2.6 for features, and have found all of two versions which don't crash hourly. And it's different issues, before anyone suggests I bugreport (I have. More than once) and get my problem fixed. They just need to make the stable branch actually stable - stop adding the features and make some bugsquashing releases.
Win2K is very, very stable - especially when you're not surfing to Russian pr0n sites, installing free casino software, or trying to overclock under a beta video driver for maximum frag resolution.
That's entirely untrue. I do none of that, and I use linux at least three times as much as win2k. I see more crashes from win2k.
cdparanoia, which forms the backend for pretty much every linux ripper. I've never met a CD I couldn't just drag-and-drop in KDE, and I've thrown a fair few modern "protected" disks at it.
I think it's time for a fork. There are too many questionable design decisions. I'm with you for the coding time I have (which isn't much, but I'll do what I can).
Not properly - the homepage is misaligned. I use Konqueror, and the main search stuff works but a lot of their fancy new stuff doesn't, even where it looks like it would take minimal effort (since they support safari).
Or perhaps Apple's not as lame as Microsoft or Sony when it comes to this sort of thing. Windows Media Player had a "feature" that allowed MS to mine your listening habits that you had to specifically go deep into the configuration pages to disable.
It was right there in the first-run wizard, and no harder to get to than any other config setting (I'm not denying it was deep, WMP's config pages are a nightmare, but it didn't look to be deliberately hidden). And there was nothing personally identifiable involved. If you've bought anything off iTMS, Apple can tie this to your name and address.
Not to mention this doesn't tag your stuff with identifiable information like the WMP stuff did.
Er, no. Look in the comment field of an MP3 ripped by itunes.
If you hate Apple so much, why are you reading this thread? Just filter out Apple posts and things will be fine. You don't have to see how ridiculous everyone is.
I still hold hope for people. I don't hate Apple, but I can't stand the fanboyism when they're no different from any other company.
It's recommending based on what song is currently playing. What is "wrong" about that?
Unless I've given explicit permission, no-one other than me has a right to know about it.
You may as well freak whenever your CD player app automatically accesses CDDB for the song titles. I can't imagine being that paranoid.
My CD player a) has no access to any of my personal information and b) required me to explicitly enable CDDB lookups before it would do them. Neither of those is true of this.
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Do you assume that you never need to learn or know anything, because if it was important enough, someone would learn it for you?
I try to learn anything I can.
Do you not read contracts - be they with a bank, landlord, or other party - because if there was something "important" in a document that controls your future, someone would read it and explain it to you?
No, I don't, I haven't the time. It's their obligation to tell me if there is anything important in it. If there is something they don't mention, it's invalid.
Do you assume that no one on the face of this earth is the least bit malicious?
No, I know they have obligations for their conditions to be valid.
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
What browser do you use though? If it's Mozilla or a derivative (e.g. FireFox) I'd say you should be more careful. Mozilla is probably in the same order of magnitude of bugginess as IE (if not more so - just look at Mozilla's track record). It's just not targetted as much publicly. Just wait till it gains even more marketshare.
Konqueror. I don't trust anything extensible that has to deal with remote content.
Basically any software that has had a history of crashing can probably be exploited[1].
Konq doesn't. Very clean codebase, because the KDE people are very strict about such things.
This way I have a lot less to worry about. Hackers might wipe the files I've downloaded using the browser, but it's harder for them to touch my main files. Of course I still have to be careful that there aren't any local root exploits.
I settle for a nightly backup that is done under a separate user, not touchable from my normal account. I haven't had to go to it yet.
(I have found some bugs but I think they are not exploitable)
I'd expect it to be exploitable - perhaps not easily (e.g. double free() is notoriously tricky to exploit, but it can be done)
or a bug in the graphics driver, NIC driver or something similar (which won't be Microsoft's fault)...
Depends where exactly the fault occurs - if there's a flaw in the hardware-independent part of the TCP stack, that will be MS' fault.
There was a bug in one version of my NIC drivers which caused bluescreens when certain data patterns were downloaded. Definitely doubleplus ungood. So I had to resort to a different version.
Ouch. Well done diagnosing it.
The problem with this WMF bug is it seems that stuff like Google Desktop can trigger payload executiion whilst trying to index the WMF files. I don't use Google Desktop, so I don't know how one could restrict permissions for it.
Anything that tries to read the files in the standard way will trigger the bug. You could run google desktop as another user with no access to your files, but that would kind of defeat the point. Maybe a user with read-only access to the stuff you want to index?
This must mean you aren't able to write legible Perl code.
Not at all. I can write perfectly legible Perl code - but it takes effort. I write legible Python code without thinking about how it works.
Perl has been making complicated things simple for more than a decade.
Simple, yes, but not in legible ways.
If you don't know how to write clean code, then your Python will also suck.
No it won't. That's the great thing about Python. It's possible to write illegible Python, but it takes a lot of effort. You can get someone who just brute-forces the code to do what it needs to do, without caring about how it looks, and their python will still be quite legible.
One thing that drives me buggy about some python evangelists, (and many evangelists, in general) is the need to bash anything that is not their favorite brand (be it Creative vs iPOD, Python vs (insert any language here). And so on.
The submitter is describing an advantage of python over perl, because python is often an alternative to perl for the same project.
(yes, I've seen some scary code, but I've seen scary code in C++, Python, Java, etc., etc., etc.)
I've never seen scary python that wasn't specifically trying to be obfuscated. And I've seen a far greater proportion of scary perl code than in any other language.
Slashdot Mirror
Says the guy anonymously insulting people on slashdot.
Not when the collection's on my personal hard drive. They sell me songs, they can do what they like with the info they have from that - but once they've given me a program, that should be my program, not snooping around on their behalf.
I have no problem with a site knowing about the browser I'm visiting it with. If it wanted information on what other programs I was running, then I'd have a problem with it. Similarly, I don't mind iTMS knowing about the songs I buy from there, but my songs I have from other things are my business.
Most web browsers DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO CHANGE THIS.
Then, if you don't like it, use a decent browser, like my personal favourite, Konqueror. One menu and you're IE, lynx, googlebot or whatever you want to be.
Given the way Norton will not uninstall without downloading a separate removal tool (and the fact they've known about this for five years but continue to ship versions that won't uninstall) I have zero confidence in Symantec having had good intentions with this.
"Slick" describes Apple perfectly, but isn't a word I'd use to talk about Sun stuff. Sun's hardware is pricey but not because of its looks. It's because it's built like a tank. Apple is all about style, Sun is about rock solid workhorse machines. I think they're both better off as separate companies.
Huh? One battery is easily equivalent to five or six rolls of film in terms of how many pictures you can take, and a lot less to carry around.
You underestimate the LZW algorithm. IME LZW'd TIFF isn't noticeably bigger (file size wise) than 75% JPEG. It really is very good compression.
Good point. I wonder whether XP's indexed search feature could trigger this, if so, ouch.
It's the same machine, and I have less drivers in win2k (got things like e.g. the second nic disabled, I don't do any routing in windows). It's my experience that NT series windows is pretty stable, certainly nothing like 98, but not as stable as linux.
Keeping water liquid at high temperature is just a question of putting enough pressure on it. We do this all the time using water to cool normal (fission) nuclear reactors - it heats to 7000+ C but stays liquid because it's under enough pressure. 15000 doesn't seem unreasonable.
No, you wait for someone to say "That sounds like the combination some idiot would have on his luggage" first.
I haven't seen proof of this. Once it's on Apple's servers, how do we know?
you can turn it off as easily as it was turned on,
Considering it was turned on by you doing absolutely nothing, no, you can't.
and it does not tag uniquely identifiable information to you any more than using Amazon.com does if you have never bought anything from them.
Again, how do we know?
The WMP stuff was still buried deep in a configuration page and was not "turn off collecting personal data."
No, as there was no personal data involved. IIRC it was "Send information about my music preferences to Microsoft". Pretty obvious.
What's in the comment field of a mp3 ripped by iTunes?
A very long hex string. I can't be sure, but it looks like a UUID to me.
If there was something in the mp3 version, why not put it in the AAC version too?
Maybe it's elsewhere in the AAC stream. It's their format, so it's easier for them to put whatever they want in it.
If it were some sort of plot against your privacy, it would show up under both.
Not necessarily. MP3s are shared a lot more. If you share AACs, you're probably going to use an ipod to play them on, so Apple's happy.
I've been trying to use 2.6 for features, and have found all of two versions which don't crash hourly. And it's different issues, before anyone suggests I bugreport (I have. More than once) and get my problem fixed. They just need to make the stable branch actually stable - stop adding the features and make some bugsquashing releases.
That's entirely untrue. I do none of that, and I use linux at least three times as much as win2k. I see more crashes from win2k.
cdparanoia, which forms the backend for pretty much every linux ripper. I've never met a CD I couldn't just drag-and-drop in KDE, and I've thrown a fair few modern "protected" disks at it.
I think it's time for a fork. There are too many questionable design decisions. I'm with you for the coding time I have (which isn't much, but I'll do what I can).
If as you're implying they don't care about other people's copyrights, why do they care about not releasing their code?
Not properly - the homepage is misaligned. I use Konqueror, and the main search stuff works but a lot of their fancy new stuff doesn't, even where it looks like it would take minimal effort (since they support safari).
It was right there in the first-run wizard, and no harder to get to than any other config setting (I'm not denying it was deep, WMP's config pages are a nightmare, but it didn't look to be deliberately hidden). And there was nothing personally identifiable involved. If you've bought anything off iTMS, Apple can tie this to your name and address.
Not to mention this doesn't tag your stuff with identifiable information like the WMP stuff did.
Er, no. Look in the comment field of an MP3 ripped by itunes.
If you hate Apple so much, why are you reading this thread? Just filter out Apple posts and things will be fine. You don't have to see how ridiculous everyone is.
I still hold hope for people. I don't hate Apple, but I can't stand the fanboyism when they're no different from any other company.
Unless I've given explicit permission, no-one other than me has a right to know about it.
You may as well freak whenever your CD player app automatically accesses CDDB for the song titles. I can't imagine being that paranoid.
My CD player a) has no access to any of my personal information and b) required me to explicitly enable CDDB lookups before it would do them. Neither of those is true of this.
I try to learn anything I can.
Do you not read contracts - be they with a bank, landlord, or other party - because if there was something "important" in a document that controls your future, someone would read it and explain it to you?
No, I don't, I haven't the time. It's their obligation to tell me if there is anything important in it. If there is something they don't mention, it's invalid.
Do you assume that no one on the face of this earth is the least bit malicious?
No, I know they have obligations for their conditions to be valid.
Given the length of the readme, no.
Konqueror. I don't trust anything extensible that has to deal with remote content.
Basically any software that has had a history of crashing can probably be exploited[1].
Konq doesn't. Very clean codebase, because the KDE people are very strict about such things.
This way I have a lot less to worry about. Hackers might wipe the files I've downloaded using the browser, but it's harder for them to touch my main files. Of course I still have to be careful that there aren't any local root exploits.
I settle for a nightly backup that is done under a separate user, not touchable from my normal account. I haven't had to go to it yet.
(I have found some bugs but I think they are not exploitable)
I'd expect it to be exploitable - perhaps not easily (e.g. double free() is notoriously tricky to exploit, but it can be done)
or a bug in the graphics driver, NIC driver or something similar (which won't be Microsoft's fault)...
Depends where exactly the fault occurs - if there's a flaw in the hardware-independent part of the TCP stack, that will be MS' fault.
There was a bug in one version of my NIC drivers which caused bluescreens when certain data patterns were downloaded. Definitely doubleplus ungood. So I had to resort to a different version.
Ouch. Well done diagnosing it.
The problem with this WMF bug is it seems that stuff like Google Desktop can trigger payload executiion whilst trying to index the WMF files. I don't use Google Desktop, so I don't know how one could restrict permissions for it.
Anything that tries to read the files in the standard way will trigger the bug. You could run google desktop as another user with no access to your files, but that would kind of defeat the point. Maybe a user with read-only access to the stuff you want to index?
Yeah, but this way we can get maybe 3 or 4 +5 funny's in a row. It'll be like the thing that happens when someone mentions the number 12345
Not at all. I can write perfectly legible Perl code - but it takes effort. I write legible Python code without thinking about how it works.
Perl has been making complicated things simple for more than a decade.
Simple, yes, but not in legible ways.
If you don't know how to write clean code, then your Python will also suck.
No it won't. That's the great thing about Python. It's possible to write illegible Python, but it takes a lot of effort. You can get someone who just brute-forces the code to do what it needs to do, without caring about how it looks, and their python will still be quite legible.
One thing that drives me buggy about some python evangelists, (and many evangelists, in general) is the need to bash anything that is not their favorite brand (be it Creative vs iPOD, Python vs (insert any language here). And so on.
The submitter is describing an advantage of python over perl, because python is often an alternative to perl for the same project.
(yes, I've seen some scary code, but I've seen scary code in C++, Python, Java, etc., etc., etc.)
I've never seen scary python that wasn't specifically trying to be obfuscated. And I've seen a far greater proportion of scary perl code than in any other language.