This seems, in some respects, similar to the DeCSS challenge on the MPAA / DVD-CCA's methods. 'Cept this approach has some $$ (if I could make a pound sign, I'd use that:) behind it.
The funny thing is, I'd bet dollars to DRAM that we won't see a suit over this, nor will anybody be dragged out of their house and questioned all day.
>So you get Spam -- now what? It's usually >difficult to trace All you have to do is visit www.spamcop.net
I know that this sounds silly, but I don't know them, and I don't trust them. Remember the service -- can anybody back this up with facts? -- that popped up about a year ago? Report spam, get a $10 gift certificate at CDNow? As it turned out, the company running this program was a huge marketer and spammer.
So now I'm wary of sites like SpamCop. Anybody know anthing about the history of it, or the person that runs it, Julian Haight?
To be honest, from what I've seen, it looks trustworthy. But you know: once bitten, twice shy.
Here in VA, I was excited when the anti-spam law passed here. But the problem here is the same as anywhere else: So you get Spam -- now what? It's usually difficult to trace, or, if you do trace it, it comes from some big spam-factory that, if you complain to, will just add you to all of their lists.
Since it's a crime in VA, do I just call the police? ("Hello, police? I'd like to report a drive-by spamming!") I don't think that I'd get far with that.
And, of course, spammers have no idea of where I'm physically located -- not that I have any sympathy for 'em -- so can't limit their spam based on geographic limitations.
It's neat that we're passing these laws. But, as best I can tell, they're pretty much worthless.
I'm a member of the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council, a group of tech business owners interested in making an impact on law and business methods in Central Virginia and Virginia as a whole. There's something like half a dozen other tech councils in the state.
You'd think that an organization like the VPTC would be all about fighting a law like UCITA. Lots of small companies, like mine, have no reason to be for UCITA. And the VPTC is made up primarily of small companies.
But, nope. The VPTC has made no moves to oppose UCITA and, in fact, I've been told that the tech council is in favour of it. But no official stance has been made.
Naturally, the other tech councils, from northern Virginia, are all for UCITA. (Their members include AOL & such.)
So, why isn't VPTC yelling like crazy? Because it's a social game. Why would VPTC oppose a law that, in their (our?) eyes, will almost certainly pass? Then they'd alienate the other tech councils, and be looked down upon by them. Also, VA's Secretary of Technology (the only position like it in the US) is all for UCITA, naturally, because he probably gets political donations for his party (read as: kickbacks), which primarily come from big companies like UUNet and AOL.
So, yeah, it'll pass. Because only the consumers are willing to make a big deal about this. But the people that we have to make a big deal at just aren't interested in hearing about it.
Yep, it's lame. And I intend to let the VPTC know about how I feel. (I'd be surprised if anybody on the board reads/.) But that's politics.
Man, I just installed YDL CS1.1...looks like I'll be getting LPPC2K! With the built-in Mac-On-Linux support (I'm having trouble with MOL on YDL), RH6.1, and the GUI installer, I'm wicked impressed.
When I did my AT hike in '96, I used a Motorola Montana and an array of laptops. (They kept breaking.) My best luck was using a Motorola Montana connected to a good-old-fashioned clunker of a Motorola flip-phone. I used a AA adaptor, but that shouldn't be necessary for you.
My favourite system was an Apple Newton with a keyboard. I don't believe that the Palm Pilot existed at the time. At least, not in a form as useful as its current one. As weight shouldn't be a problem for you -- unless you're one *hard-core* road-tripper -- any ol' laptop should do.
As for the national-dial-up, that didn't exist, save for shite like AOL and MSN, so I racked up some pretty serious long-distance.:)
Just plan on having a couple of days of beta testing. I hit the AT without having even used the finalised version of the system...took me about 100 miles to get it worked out. When it comes to connecting in hotels, it's always a gamble. I fried a modem like that. If possible, use a seperate line. I would just go down to the front desk, introduce myself, chat 'em up, and then ask if they had a line that I could plug my modem into. I was only turned down once. Frickin' Fontana Lake fascists...
Libby, Alycia Wednesday, January 26, 2000 3:22 PM "Waldo L. Jaquith" RE: Privacy Statement
Thank you for contacting DoubleClick with your concerns. Protecting the privacy of consumers is of paramount importance to DoubleClick. We are founding members of several organizations (NetCoalition.com and Network Advertising Initiative) that are currently creating standards that protect online consumer privacy, and belong to the Online Privacy Alliance. First and foremost, we want to make sure that you understand exactly what we do, and to clear up any misperceptions that exist in the media or marketplace.
First, it is important to understand that Web advertising is critical to ensuring that consumers like yourself can continue to access Web sites at no cost. . Effective Web advertising assures that the Web's information, content, and resources remain free for everyone.
Second, we would like to clear up a huge misconception in the marketplace that companies such as DoubleClick have the ability to "track" what an Internet user is doing throughout the Web without their knowledge or consent. The fact is that the only time DoubleClick knows when a user visits a Web site is if DoubleClick is serving an ad to that particular Web site. Even then, the information that is collected by DoubleClick is used only for advertising and reporting purposes, so that our customers can gauge the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns.
DoubleClick does not know the identity of any user to whom DoubleClick delivers an ad until and unless that user has been provided notice about and consented to having his or her identity used in connection with serving advertising and other online marketing services.
You should also know that DoubleClick does not sell any information collected from cookies to third parties. DoubleClick has an explanation of what a "cookie" is and how it is used on its Web site that we invite you to read at http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/.
Simply put, cookies are small text files that are sent to a user's hard drive in order to facilitate surfing on the Internet. They are commonly used by Web sites to maintain a customized environment for each user and to make it easier for customers to purchase goods and services. DoubleClick also uses cookies to limit the number of times a customer sees an ad, which our customers have told us is important to them. We also use them to measure ad effectiveness on behalf of advertisers and Web sites with which DoubleClick does business.
However, please be assured that until, and unless, a person chooses to provide personally identifiable information to a Web site, DoubleClick has no way to know their identity. All DoubleClick knows is that a computer's browser is visiting the site.
Finally, we want you to know that DoubleClick does create profiles about consumers solely in an attempt to deliver ads that the user may be interested in viewing. Again, DoubleClick does not create a profile about any user unless that consumer has received notice and the opportunity to opt out from such profiling. Moreover, DoubleClick does not create profiles that contain sensitive information such as a consumer's medical information. Consumers can absolutely choose not to accept DoubleClick cookies or to receive ads tailored to their personal information by opting out at DoubleClick's Web site at http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/privac y.htm.
We hope that you will take a minute to read the complete discussion of what information DoubleClick does collect and how it's used. Please visit our privacy policy on our Web site at http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/. The page also provides you with the opportunity to opt out from DoubleClick's cookies.
If you need more information about DoubleClick please feel free to contact us at 212-683-0001.
Again, thank you for contacting us with your concerns. We hope that this letter has helped to clear them up and that you will contact us if you need more information.
Sincerely, DoubleClick, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCLK) http://www.doubleclick.net
In the course of delivering an ad to you, DoubleClick does not collect any personally-identifiable information about you, such as your name, address, phone number or email address.
This, as we now know, is untrue. Granted, they collect it from another server, and not from you, but they still collect it when they send you an ad.
I am in posession of the css-auth code, the supposedly-illegal DVD decrypting programming code. I hereby turn myself in.
Respectfully, Waldo L. Jaquith
"You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar." - Arlo Guthrie
Signal 11, with all due respect, I'm not sure that I agree with you.
I guess the first order of business is to say "the Computer Geek ticket." But since computer geekdom is what brings most of us to Slashdot, I think the computer part was a given.
Second, you're right, geeks are not limited to computers. But it is those computers that, by and large, bind us. As a large part of our lives, they can, at times, become a cause. (ie, etoy, encryption rights, privacy, etc.) So we choose to focus on that afor the purpose of this discussion.
Thirdly, you're right, geeks do have a wide range of political tastes. But it seems that most of the geeks that I know are Democrats, frequently with Liberatarian leanings. And the more that I've thought about this, the more that it seems logical to me.
We [computer] geeks are all about rules. Every language, standard, RFC and protocol is a set of rules by which we abide. Thanks to things like the RFC system, these rules can be changed. But we recognise the importance of a core set of standards by which further standards can be devloped.
This, IMHO, is quite similar to our US system involving the Constitution, with amendments and, of course, thousands upon thousands of laws within the scope of that Constitution. A rule set that can be modified, with subrules that must fit within the intitial standard.
To many of us, this is extremely logical. It fits into all of our programming knowledge neatly. So the Libertarian Party, whose core value is upholding the Constitution, is an extremely logical party to identify with. Further, Democrats, for the most part, tend to be more in line with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Not always, of course, but more so than Republicans.)
So, we have a political leaning. And we have causes based on our desire to have the freedom to live the way that we like to. To export strong encryption, to use strong excryption, to be free from government monitoring, to be free from censorship, and to be free to engage in the computing practices that we see fit on our own systems, from disassembly to peaceable protest.
In conclusion: Yes, Signal 11, I think that there is a Geek Ticket. The candidate that best matches our common ideals to have the freedoms to take part in the open sourced, copylefted, quasi-socialist ventures that so many of us live for and love so much. We don't need to form a new party or anything, but I do think that it would be helpful for us to determine which candidate best meets our common ideals.
And that's why I think this is a great story with great threads.:)
Frankly, the more I think about the alternatives, the more strongly I support Nader for President. He might not win, but fsckit, the idea is to vote for the (wo)man you want to be President, not necessarily for the winner.
That, Sir, is an excellent point. I lose sight of that core idea all too often, as I know that others do, too. Thank you.
You know, I've never really given Nader much thought. Small potatoes, wasted vote, could never win, etc.
But I sure as hell ain't voting for Bush, and I'm less and less certain of Gore.
So I took the Presidential Candidate Selector. And, much to my surprise, I found that nobody even came close to my beliefs, save for good ol' Ralph Nader. (Though, to my fright, Orrin Hatch showed up, though way down on the list.:)
Nader really seems to be right up there on the geek ticket, if my results and those of several fellow geeks are any indicator. Anybody know his beliefs on copyrights, patents, etc?
It's clear that he doesn't think much of Microsoft. That's a hell of a start.:)
"Since CERT has posted their advisory this afternoon, it does appear to be something real. I still haven't been able to find any further internal information, but when I do, I will pass it along.
Remember, we have a policy of not discussing unannounced updates. Once I find out any further information, I will tell you what I can.
For one thing, it smells like a hoax to me. First, there is already a product called "OT Tuner" from a third-party company (Sustainable Softworks), so we would be extremely unlikely to use this name. Second, we would never supply any kind of "patch" software to an outside party without making them sign a non-disclosure agreement. Third, most of the engineers were on holiday at the end of last week, and it is very unlikely a patch could have been developed and tested in such a short time without information going out internally within Apple (which hasn't happened).
I'm not saying it is indeed a hoax, I'm just saying don't put a lot of validity to it until we know more.
John Phelps Forum Leader - Apple Support Discussions"
This ruling is really interesting in that it exposes the huge problem of how international law is affected by the Internet.
Obviously, there's no simple solution for problems like this. Sweden (as always:) is clearly in the right on this, and the decision appears to have been a wise one.
But it won't be long until the tables are turned against us with similar rulings. (Violations of copyleft or something.) The only method of fixing this, or so it appears, is establishing firmer international copyright laws and forming governmental forces that extend beyond the borders of any one country.
It's funny that US lawmakers seem to think that they can tax goods purchased over the Internet. That would involve all of them agreeing on a given method and value of tax, along with figuring out what state(s) get the revenue.
If they can't agree on this, how will we ever get 180+ countries to agree on copyright law?
This is pretty standard for CNN, unfortunately. Most everything in their "Insurgency on the Internet" is fluff.
This looks very much as if they just sat down with eToys and wrote down everything that eToys said to write down. Further, RTMark doesn't really do much to make a case against eToys. (Though, to be fair, they may have tried, and CNN simply failed to insert that part.)
I guess this is symptomatic of the larger problem in media, in which nobody's willing to present a story with more than one side. The easiest side for CNN is to make eToys look like the good guys, and the evil hackers to be the bad guys.
I'm not sure that this can be turned around, at least not through CNN. Surely, though, we can get other news sources (Wired, of course) to do fair coverage of this. But CNN is part of a large group of media outlets that just aren't going to be representing the interests of a small political-arts-action group when their opponent is a large e-commerce business that advertises on their networks.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems, in some respects, similar to the DeCSS challenge on the MPAA / DVD-CCA's methods. 'Cept this approach has some $$ (if I could make a pound sign, I'd use that :) behind it.
The funny thing is, I'd bet dollars to DRAM that we won't see a suit over this, nor will anybody be dragged out of their house and questioned all day.
Way to go, Tesco!
>So you get Spam -- now what? It's usually
>difficult to trace
All you have to do is visit www.spamcop.net
I know that this sounds silly, but I don't know them, and I don't trust them. Remember the service -- can anybody back this up with facts? -- that popped up about a year ago? Report spam, get a $10 gift certificate at CDNow? As it turned out, the company running this program was a huge marketer and spammer.
So now I'm wary of sites like SpamCop. Anybody know anthing about the history of it, or the person that runs it, Julian Haight?
To be honest, from what I've seen, it looks trustworthy. But you know: once bitten, twice shy.
Here in VA, I was excited when the anti-spam law passed here. But the problem here is the same as anywhere else: So you get Spam -- now what? It's usually difficult to trace, or, if you do trace it, it comes from some big spam-factory that, if you complain to, will just add you to all of their lists.
Since it's a crime in VA, do I just call the police? ("Hello, police? I'd like to report a drive-by spamming!") I don't think that I'd get far with that.
And, of course, spammers have no idea of where I'm physically located -- not that I have any sympathy for 'em -- so can't limit their spam based on geographic limitations.
It's neat that we're passing these laws. But, as best I can tell, they're pretty much worthless.
I'm a member of the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council, a group of tech business owners interested in making an impact on law and business methods in Central Virginia and Virginia as a whole. There's something like half a dozen other tech councils in the state.
/.) But that's politics.
You'd think that an organization like the VPTC would be all about fighting a law like UCITA. Lots of small companies, like mine, have no reason to be for UCITA. And the VPTC is made up primarily of small companies.
But, nope. The VPTC has made no moves to oppose UCITA and, in fact, I've been told that the tech council is in favour of it. But no official stance has been made.
Naturally, the other tech councils, from northern Virginia, are all for UCITA. (Their members include AOL & such.)
So, why isn't VPTC yelling like crazy? Because it's a social game. Why would VPTC oppose a law that, in their (our?) eyes, will almost certainly pass? Then they'd alienate the other tech councils, and be looked down upon by them. Also, VA's Secretary of Technology (the only position like it in the US) is all for UCITA, naturally, because he probably gets political donations for his party (read as: kickbacks), which primarily come from big companies like UUNet and AOL.
So, yeah, it'll pass. Because only the consumers are willing to make a big deal about this. But the people that we have to make a big deal at just aren't interested in hearing about it.
Yep, it's lame. And I intend to let the VPTC know about how I feel. (I'd be surprised if anybody on the board reads
Ugly, huh?
Damned fine advice. I tend to get caught up in the heat of the moment, switching OSs at the drop of a hat. :) Thank you, sir.
Man, I just installed YDL CS1.1...looks like I'll be getting LPPC2K! With the built-in Mac-On-Linux support (I'm having trouble with MOL on YDL), RH6.1, and the GUI installer, I'm wicked impressed.
When I did my AT hike in '96, I used a Motorola Montana and an array of laptops. (They kept breaking.) My best luck was using a Motorola Montana connected to a good-old-fashioned clunker of a Motorola flip-phone. I used a AA adaptor, but that shouldn't be necessary for you.
:)
My favourite system was an Apple Newton with a keyboard. I don't believe that the Palm Pilot existed at the time. At least, not in a form as useful as its current one. As weight shouldn't be a problem for you -- unless you're one *hard-core* road-tripper -- any ol' laptop should do.
As for the national-dial-up, that didn't exist, save for shite like AOL and MSN, so I racked up some pretty serious long-distance.
Just plan on having a couple of days of beta testing. I hit the AT without having even used the finalised version of the system...took me about 100 miles to get it worked out. When it comes to connecting in hotels, it's always a gamble. I fried a modem like that. If possible, use a seperate line. I would just go down to the front desk, introduce myself, chat 'em up, and then ask if they had a line that I could plug my modem into. I was only turned down once. Frickin' Fontana Lake fascists...
Anyhow, have fun.
-Waldo
I wanted to use this opportunity to express my deep love for everybody that runs the LDP and that has ever written a HOWOT, FAQ or mini HOWTO.
;)
I'll send y'all valentines cards or something. But no chocolates this year; money's tight.
-Waldo
Wow, if your servers ever poop out on you, there ain't *no* excuse good enough! :)
Here's the bill, HR1572 .
Libby, Alycia
c y.htm.
Wednesday, January 26, 2000 3:22 PM
"Waldo L. Jaquith"
RE: Privacy Statement
Thank you for contacting DoubleClick with your concerns. Protecting the
privacy of consumers is of paramount importance to DoubleClick. We are
founding members of several organizations (NetCoalition.com and Network
Advertising Initiative) that are currently creating standards that protect
online consumer privacy, and belong to the Online Privacy Alliance. First
and foremost, we want to make sure that you understand exactly what we do,
and to clear up any misperceptions that exist in the media or marketplace.
First, it is important to understand that Web advertising is critical to
ensuring that consumers like yourself can continue to access Web sites at no
cost. . Effective Web advertising assures that the Web's information,
content, and resources remain free for everyone.
Second, we would like to clear up a huge misconception in the marketplace
that companies such as DoubleClick have the ability to "track" what an
Internet user is doing throughout the Web without their knowledge or
consent. The fact is that the only time DoubleClick knows when a user
visits a Web site is if DoubleClick is serving an ad to that particular Web
site. Even then, the information that is collected by DoubleClick is used
only for advertising and reporting purposes, so that our customers can gauge
the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns.
DoubleClick does not know the identity of any user to whom DoubleClick
delivers an ad until and unless that user has been provided notice about and
consented to having his or her identity used in connection with serving
advertising and other online marketing services.
You should also know that DoubleClick does not sell any information
collected from cookies to third parties. DoubleClick has an explanation of
what a "cookie" is and how it is used on its Web site that we invite you to
read at http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/.
Simply put, cookies are small text files that are sent to a user's hard
drive in order to facilitate surfing on the Internet. They are commonly
used by Web sites to maintain a customized environment for each user and to
make it easier for customers to purchase goods and services. DoubleClick
also uses cookies to limit the number of times a customer sees an ad, which
our customers have told us is important to them. We also use them to
measure ad effectiveness on behalf of advertisers and Web sites with which
DoubleClick does business.
However, please be assured that until, and unless, a person chooses to
provide personally identifiable information to a Web site, DoubleClick has
no way to know their identity. All DoubleClick knows is that a computer's
browser is visiting the site.
Finally, we want you to know that DoubleClick does create profiles about
consumers solely in an attempt to deliver ads that the user may be
interested in viewing. Again, DoubleClick does not create a profile about
any user unless that consumer has received notice and the opportunity to opt
out from such profiling. Moreover, DoubleClick does not create profiles that
contain sensitive information such as a consumer's medical information.
Consumers can absolutely choose not to accept DoubleClick cookies or to
receive ads tailored to their personal information by opting out at
DoubleClick's Web site at
http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/priva
We hope that you will take a minute to read the complete discussion of what
information DoubleClick does collect and how it's used. Please visit our
privacy policy on our Web site at
http://www.doubleclick.net/privacy_policy/. The page also provides you
with the opportunity to opt out from DoubleClick's cookies.
If you need more information about DoubleClick please feel free to contact
us at 212-683-0001.
Again, thank you for contacting us with your concerns. We hope that this
letter has helped to clear them up and that you will contact us if you need
more information.
Sincerely,
DoubleClick, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCLK)
http://www.doubleclick.net
Their privacy statement says:
In the course of delivering an ad to you, DoubleClick does not collect any personally-identifiable information about you, such as your name, address, phone number or email address.
This, as we now know, is untrue. Granted, they collect it from another server, and not from you, but they still collect it when they send you an ad.
Liars.
-Waldo
Although it would be best if we didn't all confess in my name. Once should be enough for me. :)
-Waldo
Wouldn't it be neat if we e-mailed the MPAA, their attorneys, and our representatives in The Senate and The House with the following?:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am in posession of the css-auth code, the supposedly-illegal DVD decrypting programming code. I hereby turn myself in.
Respectfully,
Waldo L. Jaquith
"You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar." - Arlo Guthrie
Hmmm...the toilet on Slashdot Man's site looks surprisingly like the toilet by Alexey Soloviev.
I don't think that it's CmdrTaco that needs the restraining order. Alexey, on the other hand...
Signal 11, with all due respect, I'm not sure that I agree with you.
:)
I guess the first order of business is to say "the Computer Geek ticket." But since computer geekdom is what brings most of us to Slashdot, I think the computer part was a given.
Second, you're right, geeks are not limited to computers. But it is those computers that, by and large, bind us. As a large part of our lives, they can, at times, become a cause. (ie, etoy, encryption rights, privacy, etc.) So we choose to focus on that afor the purpose of this discussion.
Thirdly, you're right, geeks do have a wide range of political tastes. But it seems that most of the geeks that I know are Democrats, frequently with Liberatarian leanings. And the more that I've thought about this, the more that it seems logical to me.
We [computer] geeks are all about rules. Every language, standard, RFC and protocol is a set of rules by which we abide. Thanks to things like the RFC system, these rules can be changed. But we recognise the importance of a core set of standards by which further standards can be devloped.
This, IMHO, is quite similar to our US system involving the Constitution, with amendments and, of course, thousands upon thousands of laws within the scope of that Constitution. A rule set that can be modified, with subrules that must fit within the intitial standard.
To many of us, this is extremely logical. It fits into all of our programming knowledge neatly. So the Libertarian Party, whose core value is upholding the Constitution, is an extremely logical party to identify with. Further, Democrats, for the most part, tend to be more in line with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Not always, of course, but more so than Republicans.)
So, we have a political leaning. And we have causes based on our desire to have the freedom to live the way that we like to. To export strong encryption, to use strong excryption, to be free from government monitoring, to be free from censorship, and to be free to engage in the computing practices that we see fit on our own systems, from disassembly to peaceable protest.
In conclusion: Yes, Signal 11, I think that there is a Geek Ticket. The candidate that best matches our common ideals to have the freedoms to take part in the open sourced, copylefted, quasi-socialist ventures that so many of us live for and love so much. We don't need to form a new party or anything, but I do think that it would be helpful for us to determine which candidate best meets our common ideals.
And that's why I think this is a great story with great threads.
It's at http://146.228.204.72:8080/.
Frankly, the more I think about the alternatives, the more strongly I support Nader for President. He might not win, but fsckit, the idea is to vote for the (wo)man you want to be President, not necessarily for the winner.
That, Sir, is an excellent point. I lose sight of that core idea all too often, as I know that others do, too. Thank you.
You know, I've never really given Nader much thought. Small potatoes, wasted vote, could never win, etc.
:)
:)
But I sure as hell ain't voting for Bush, and I'm less and less certain of Gore.
So I took the Presidential Candidate Selector. And, much to my surprise, I found that nobody even came close to my beliefs, save for good ol' Ralph Nader. (Though, to my fright, Orrin Hatch showed up, though way down on the list.
Nader really seems to be right up there on the geek ticket, if my results and those of several fellow geeks are any indicator. Anybody know his beliefs on copyrights, patents, etc?
It's clear that he doesn't think much of Microsoft. That's a hell of a start.
They've updated their statement:
"Since CERT has posted their advisory this afternoon, it does appear to be something real. I still haven't been able to find any further internal information, but when I do, I will pass it along.
John"
http://discuss.info.apple.com/boards/macos.nsf/424 f8fb007a848d1862564c60074f8f1/5B274CA6 954706958625685500635B28?OpenDocument
"We have no official comment at this time.
Remember, we have a policy of not discussing unannounced updates. Once I find out any further
information, I will tell you what I can.
For one thing, it smells like a hoax to me. First, there is already a product called "OT Tuner"
from a third-party company (Sustainable Softworks), so we would be extremely unlikely to use
this name. Second, we would never supply any kind of "patch" software to an outside party
without making them sign a non-disclosure agreement. Third, most of the engineers were on
holiday at the end of last week, and it is very unlikely a patch could have been developed and
tested in such a short time without information going out internally within Apple (which hasn't
happened).
I'm not saying it is indeed a hoax, I'm just saying don't put a lot of validity to it until we know
more.
John Phelps
Forum Leader - Apple Support Discussions"
I believe that this 3rd party patch may permit you to change your OT settings to prevent this.
This ruling is really interesting in that it exposes the huge problem of how international law is affected by the Internet.
:) is clearly in the right on this, and the decision appears to have been a wise one.
Obviously, there's no simple solution for problems like this. Sweden (as always
But it won't be long until the tables are turned against us with similar rulings. (Violations of copyleft or something.) The only method of fixing this, or so it appears, is establishing firmer international copyright laws and forming governmental forces that extend beyond the borders of any one country.
It's funny that US lawmakers seem to think that they can tax goods purchased over the Internet. That would involve all of them agreeing on a given method and value of tax, along with figuring out what state(s) get the revenue.
If they can't agree on this, how will we ever get 180+ countries to agree on copyright law?
Yeah, like I said. :)
This is pretty standard for CNN, unfortunately. Most everything in their "Insurgency on the Internet" is fluff.
This looks very much as if they just sat down with eToys and wrote down everything that eToys said to write down. Further, RTMark doesn't really do much to make a case against eToys. (Though, to be fair, they may have tried, and CNN simply failed to insert that part.)
I guess this is symptomatic of the larger problem in media, in which nobody's willing to present a story with more than one side. The easiest side for CNN is to make eToys look like the good guys, and the evil hackers to be the bad guys.
I'm not sure that this can be turned around, at least not through CNN. Surely, though, we can get other news sources (Wired, of course) to do fair coverage of this. But CNN is part of a large group of media outlets that just aren't going to be representing the interests of a small political-arts-action group when their opponent is a large e-commerce business that advertises on their networks.