E.g., if I give you the key to someone's house so you can murder them, I'm not innocent. This is such common sense it's hard to believe you are challenging it.
Saying the guy is a dick for revealing the exploit is like saying your neighbour is a dick for leaving a note on your door saying "Stop leaving your front door open, you will get robbed"
Uh no, it's not all like that. It's like your neighbor discovering your door is unlocked and putting a note on everyone door letting them know. https://slashdot.org/comments....
It's NOT a requirement that companies offer bug bounties, just as it's not a requirement that people who find these exploits are required to report them to the company in question.
IKR. It's completely reasonable to compromise the security of hundreds of thousands of users because you didn't get your paycheck.
I think a fair compromise would have been to archive photos
Sure. But that'd cost them more money... to archive, and later restore the photos. I don't know what you mean by "cold storage"? Tapes or optical drives? Sure seems expensive to store and keep track of any physical media. Whatever the mechanism it has to be as fail-safe as whatever "warm" storage they use now.
And I suspect people would claim they are holding photos for ransom. Which they would be in a way.
I mean aside from Lord Vader, is anyone else allowed to do this? Why do people stand for it?
The alternative being that they continue for a bit longer with money-losing ToS and shut down their service when they run out of money.
Do you think that any ToS you click "accept" on are bound to hold true until the end of time? ToS can be altered. You can refuse to accept them and stop using the service.
Exactly, what kind of moron uploads all their personal photos to the permanent record? A FUCKING moron, that's what kind. If it's all emojis and cat gifs then whatever but anything you upload is owned by them.
FUD much?
Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
They have to have the right to "distribute" your photos, because it's a photo SHARING service. Could they technically steal your photos and share them under the TOS? Maybe, so let me know when there's a single case of that happening and I'll get outraged.
Aren't corporations supposed to possess personhood? Wasn't cannibalism of other persons supposed to be illegal? I'm confused.
You are thinking of people. Corporations possesses investors and the values thereof: profit, but may involve some other human-like qualities in small amounts where they do not conflict.
I jumped ship immediately when I got the announcement. I have no interest in lining new owners' pockets to justify their corporate cannibalism.
So you jumped ship from one big corporation to an even bigger one, that's gobbled up tens (hundreds?) of smaller companies?
It's a tough argument that Google's a better option. Flickr is a photography-focused business trying to make a profit. Seems like a photographers would want to support that, as opposed to a company that has a side business of photos for the purpose of driving traffic to ads.
Right, and if you are so confident, post with your real name, and make some death threats against the president. You can even state that you love him and agree with his policy in the same post to rule out political motives.
You'd love to paint this as political, but threats against the president are always taken seriously.
The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.
When Kathy held up a Trump head, the right wing headed out to silence her and get her sacked. Fuck all care for free speech there.
Threatening to kill the president isn't covered by free speech. It's a felony under US law:
Threatening the President of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".
The constitution and the supreme court tells me that.
As soon as I move my videos to some other platform, nobody will be able to find them anymore and it will be effectively memory holed.
I don't think you understand free speech. Free speech does not guarantee you an audience. It gives you the right to speak without fear of reprisal from the government, and legal protections against reprisal from private citizens. Nobody is going to buy you a megaphone and gather people in the town square to listen to you. That's not how it works.
Instead of generating revenue for me, it will start COSTING me revenue for all the bandwidth hosting fees, especially if it were to get popular.
Nowhere in the concept of free speech is the right to earn a profit from it.
The best way to optimize for profit is to hold people at gun point. Very few companies operate that way.
Sorry, let me correct myself then: "The only thing it does is optimize for profit, within the laws of the countries in which it operates."
That's a working capitalistic system: corporations maximizing profit but being kept in check by laws and regulations.
What keeps people watching the longest are videos which invoke emotions and confrontations, which is what the conspiracy and false facts videos do.
You have a good point. What I should have said was Youtube does what results in the most advertiser dollars. Those videos may get eyeballs, but they can't sell ads for them so it's just a drain on their resources.
Of course, almost nothing actually gets banned from Youtube, it's just demonetized. The creators are free to garner funds from Patreon, or whatever other source they want.
In the world of corporations, it is. Youtube exists to sell ads to Coke, Honda, Marriott and the like. Those companies aren't keen on having their ads shown inline with any sort of controversial content. They just want happy people buying their products. They don't want headlines "COKE SUPPORTS RACIST CONTENT" because they paid to have an ad shown inline with it.
That's the whole ad-apocalypse on Youtube. Advertisers woke up to the fact that Youtube was showing their ads with racy content, and they told Youtube to stop it or they'd spend their billions somewhere else. Youtube stopped it.
This is just the wheels of capitalism grinding away.
If they are excluding content, it's because the people making the decision to do so want it done for reasons that are completely aside from profit or loss.
Corporations have boards of directors elected by stockholders to ensure this is not the case.
Monopolies are stopping them. When you will reach a tenth of the public or less by sharing it on a different platform, the value of sharing it is reduced to a tenth or less. Your can say then it is not censorship, not entirely, it is only 90%+ censorship.
You do not understand what free speech means. It doesn't mean equal access to private resources to promote your speech. It means you have the right to speak within your own means to do so without fear of reprisal.
Sounds like you are suggesting a world where every crackpot is guaranteed equal distribution of their ideas. One where private companies and individuals are coerced by law to promote all theories equally. For example, you have a "MAGA" sign on your lawn, but I'm going to force you to also have one that says "I LOVE HILARY"... because free speech.
Then they attacked the paymemt processors for gab and gab is no more.
Again, private companies or individuals refusing to promote your speech isn't an erosion of free speech. Private companies and individuals also have the right to not be coerced to support things in which they disagree.
Censorship is NEVER the solution. It is PRECISELY the PROBLEM.
Except there's no censorship here. The creators of those videos are free to move them to another platform, or host them on their own servers, or share them via peer-peer, or whatever. Nobody is stopping them.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there is. Ever heard of accessory to a crime?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
E.g., if I give you the key to someone's house so you can murder them, I'm not innocent. This is such common sense it's hard to believe you are challenging it.
Saying the guy is a dick for revealing the exploit is like saying your neighbour is a dick for leaving a note on your door saying "Stop leaving your front door open, you will get robbed"
Uh no, it's not all like that. It's like your neighbor discovering your door is unlocked and putting a note on everyone door letting them know.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Realistically, they should be doing something to ensure that the wrong people don't find the bugs first. Or at least keep egg from their faces.
Sorry, are you suggesting Apple doesn't do anything to ensure their products don't have bugs or security holes?
As long as he is not DIRECTLY harming others, his disclosures still fall on the ethical side.
There is no legal or moral argument that supports that line of thinking.
Is it ethical for Apple or its customers to expect outsiders to spend hundreds or thousands of man hours finding bugs in their software for free?
Point me to the document / press release where Apple asks outsiders to spend thousands of many hours to find bugs.
It's NOT a requirement that companies offer bug bounties, just as it's not a requirement that people who find these exploits are required to report them to the company in question.
IKR. It's completely reasonable to compromise the security of hundreds of thousands of users because you didn't get your paycheck.
I think a fair compromise would have been to archive photos
Sure. But that'd cost them more money... to archive, and later restore the photos. I don't know what you mean by "cold storage"? Tapes or optical drives? Sure seems expensive to store and keep track of any physical media. Whatever the mechanism it has to be as fail-safe as whatever "warm" storage they use now.
And I suspect people would claim they are holding photos for ransom. Which they would be in a way.
You do realize that the same post had two sentences in it, and that I was responding exclusively and directly to the latter of the two?
Here's the entire OP, for your reference:
This will increase the migration speed from Flickr to Google Photos. I doubt many people will switch to the paid version.
Can you explain what part of that you were responding to that's not related to switching from Google to Flickr?
Umm what about when YouTube used that persons clip and didn't give them credit for it? Trying to pass it off like they made it.
I'd love to see if that is relevant to the topic. How about linking the story?
I didn't say that I jumped onto another boat, did I?
You realize you are responding to thread where the OP said:
This will increase the migration speed from Flickr to Google Photos. I doubt many people will switch to the paid version.
I mean aside from Lord Vader, is anyone else allowed to do this? Why do people stand for it?
The alternative being that they continue for a bit longer with money-losing ToS and shut down their service when they run out of money.
Do you think that any ToS you click "accept" on are bound to hold true until the end of time? ToS can be altered. You can refuse to accept them and stop using the service.
Exactly, what kind of moron uploads all their personal photos to the permanent record? A FUCKING moron, that's what kind. If it's all emojis and cat gifs then whatever but anything you upload is owned by them.
FUD much?
Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
https://www.lifewire.com/googl...
They have to have the right to "distribute" your photos, because it's a photo SHARING service. Could they technically steal your photos and share them under the TOS? Maybe, so let me know when there's a single case of that happening and I'll get outraged.
Aren't corporations supposed to possess personhood? Wasn't cannibalism of other persons supposed to be illegal? I'm confused.
You are thinking of people. Corporations possesses investors and the values thereof: profit, but may involve some other human-like qualities in small amounts where they do not conflict.
I jumped ship immediately when I got the announcement. I have no interest in lining new owners' pockets to justify their corporate cannibalism.
So you jumped ship from one big corporation to an even bigger one, that's gobbled up tens (hundreds?) of smaller companies?
It's a tough argument that Google's a better option. Flickr is a photography-focused business trying to make a profit. Seems like a photographers would want to support that, as opposed to a company that has a side business of photos for the purpose of driving traffic to ads.
This will increase the migration speed from Flickr to Google Photos. I doubt many people will switch to the paid version.
Google doesn't maintain originals, unless you pay or buy a Pixel device (then you get that free for 2? years).
You did read where he said his 3GB phone cost $200, right?
Right, and if you are so confident, post with your real name, and make some death threats against the president. You can even state that you love him and agree with his policy in the same post to rule out political motives.
You'd love to paint this as political, but threats against the president are always taken seriously.
You're not very bright, are you?
Probably not, but I can read.
The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When Kathy held up a Trump head, the right wing headed out to silence her and get her sacked. Fuck all care for free speech there.
Threatening to kill the president isn't covered by free speech. It's a felony under US law:
Threatening the President of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
The constitution and the supreme court tells me that.
As soon as I move my videos to some other platform, nobody will be able to find them anymore and it will be effectively memory holed.
I don't think you understand free speech. Free speech does not guarantee you an audience. It gives you the right to speak without fear of reprisal from the government, and legal protections against reprisal from private citizens. Nobody is going to buy you a megaphone and gather people in the town square to listen to you. That's not how it works.
Instead of generating revenue for me, it will start COSTING me revenue for all the bandwidth hosting fees, especially if it were to get popular.
Nowhere in the concept of free speech is the right to earn a profit from it.
The best way to optimize for profit is to hold people at gun point. Very few companies operate that way.
Sorry, let me correct myself then:
"The only thing it does is optimize for profit, within the laws of the countries in which it operates."
That's a working capitalistic system: corporations maximizing profit but being kept in check by laws and regulations.
What keeps people watching the longest are videos which invoke emotions and confrontations, which is what the conspiracy and false facts videos do.
You have a good point. What I should have said was Youtube does what results in the most advertiser dollars. Those videos may get eyeballs, but they can't sell ads for them so it's just a drain on their resources.
Of course, almost nothing actually gets banned from Youtube, it's just demonetized. The creators are free to garner funds from Patreon, or whatever other source they want.
Not everything in the world is economics.
In the world of corporations, it is. Youtube exists to sell ads to Coke, Honda, Marriott and the like. Those companies aren't keen on having their ads shown inline with any sort of controversial content. They just want happy people buying their products. They don't want headlines "COKE SUPPORTS RACIST CONTENT" because they paid to have an ad shown inline with it.
That's the whole ad-apocalypse on Youtube. Advertisers woke up to the fact that Youtube was showing their ads with racy content, and they told Youtube to stop it or they'd spend their billions somewhere else. Youtube stopped it.
This is just the wheels of capitalism grinding away.
If they are excluding content, it's because the people making the decision to do so want it done for reasons that are completely aside from profit or loss.
Corporations have boards of directors elected by stockholders to ensure this is not the case.
Comrade, extra Vodka ration for you tonight for trolling job well done.
Monopolies are stopping them. When you will reach a tenth of the public or less by sharing it on a different platform, the value of sharing it is reduced to a tenth or less. Your can say then it is not censorship, not entirely, it is only 90%+ censorship.
You do not understand what free speech means. It doesn't mean equal access to private resources to promote your speech. It means you have the right to speak within your own means to do so without fear of reprisal.
Sounds like you are suggesting a world where every crackpot is guaranteed equal distribution of their ideas. One where private companies and individuals are coerced by law to promote all theories equally. For example, you have a "MAGA" sign on your lawn, but I'm going to force you to also have one that says "I LOVE HILARY"... because free speech.
Then they attacked the paymemt processors for gab and gab is no more.
Again, private companies or individuals refusing to promote your speech isn't an erosion of free speech. Private companies and individuals also have the right to not be coerced to support things in which they disagree.
Censorship is NEVER the solution. It is PRECISELY the PROBLEM.
Except there's no censorship here. The creators of those videos are free to move them to another platform, or host them on their own servers, or share them via peer-peer, or whatever. Nobody is stopping them.