I'm almost positive that the RIAA will ignore this fact and still tell the public and the government that P2P is killing them, when in fact it is their own stupidity of not using the internet in a way to help themselves. I'll give Sony a little credit by saying that at least they are trying with the Connect service, but the reason they aren't successful is the reason that a lot of their ventures aren't successful; they have to do it their own way to try to protect their products instead of using the tried and true method that has been shown to them by the likes of iTunes and Napster 2.0. When will these guys catch on that the internet is the direction they need to move toward, and start letting go of their antiquated methods and offering their music at more reasonable prices.
It sounds like something they'd wanna do, but given their antitrust history, they'd be damn stupid to pull something like adding the feature and then intentionally break competing OS'es. Honestly, I don't see why MS would add this feature. Not saying that it's bad, especially if it works well, but MS has never been a big fan of sportsmanship (even though they constantly claim they are), so I'm trying to find the reasoning behind adding this. The only thing I can think of off-hand is that it would allow multiple instances of Windows on one machine, but then again, they already allow you to boot different versions of Windows on one machine. So now I'm back at square one.
There are already laws to compensate people for losing their info, if those people actually suffer any damages. Otherwise, if no one is actually harmed by the information leak, why should anyone have to pay?
They should have to pay to stress the importance of security. Citibank knows that security is important, it's one of their selling points. They were very early adopters of pictures on credit cards, one time credit card numbers for safe internet transactions and much more, but yet they half assed this information transfer and they need to realize that this isn't the correct way to transfer said sensitive information.
Personally I'm not outraged because it just doesn't matter. If I wanted some information to be kept strictly confidential, I wouldn't tell Citibank in the first place. It's just a bunch of numbers, after all.
That "bunch of numbers" just happens to be social security numbers, account history, and loan information, of not only current, but former customers, and they just happen to be included with those customer's names. You might as well just mail your personal information to the identity theives. If not outrage, as customers, there should at least be call for more stringent rules. In this era you barely have control over your own personal information, which means that provisions of protection need to be made so that the people who do have your info, take much more care of it. Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I doubt you'd feel so lenient towards these places if you had to deal with having your identity stolen from underneath you.
Which company do you hold responsible here? Citigroup Financial? Or UPS? While UPS is guilty of losing the package in transit, perhaps CF should have used a more secure transport method. I dunno, what is more secure than UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, etc...? Armored car driving to and fro between cities?
So what is your solution? (Hint: YMFL, (Yet More Federal Legislation), will not prevent accidental loss of freight packages).
I believe you hold Citibank responsible for using an inferior carrier as opposed to using an armored carrier or an in-house carrier and at the least encrypting this valuable info (as stated by other people in this thread).
BTW - I write this as someone who has a mortgage with Citigroup so my data could be at risk here. However, my knee is not jerking violently, (yet).
I don't believe this is a kneejerk reaction, I believe it's a totally valid reaction, Choicepoint, BofA, and Citibank are huge companies and all seem to be frivolous with their clients information, and are all held mostly unaccountable. So I believe the correct response would be to insist that something be done to discourage these types of activities. With identity theft getting easier to pull of, the information should be held much more secure than it currently is. Remember, Choicepoint didn't even get their info from the customers whose records they held, yet they let that info get out. As consumers and possible victims, we all need to pressure these corpirations to take the correct actions. I say having a laidback attitude towards these events is the absolute wrong reaction to have and if my own reaction is, in fact, kneejerk, I still feel it's the correct one.
I really doubt they'd be fined per person.. that'd be a 10 billion dollar fine.
then maybe they shouldn't have treated 3.9 million people's information so carelessly! (although, I seriously doubt they'll even get the minimum fine.)
This incident may have been an accident and I understand that, but this is highly sensitive data and precautions should've been taken that placed more value on this shipment. There have been too many occurances of loss of customer information. Sooner or later they're gonna have to make an example of someone. As far as databases of personal info are concerned, they're not going anywhere, so something has to go into place that places more protection upon them and punishment for letting that info get out without permission, because this shit is getting out of hand.
In the Google ads in the sidebar next to this story they have a listing for "Jobs at UPS". Extremely fitting for this situation as there has to be a few employment spots opening up at 'brown' after this incident.
These companies are treating this information far too trivially. Laws need to be passed that will make this type of carelessness illegal and/or compensate these customers for losing their info. I think the lack of trust from customers would be incentive enough, but obviously it isn't, so more needs to be done to prevent these fiascos. And on another note, why aren't more consumers, in this day of rampant identity theft, completely outraged by these events. What is this the fourth incident in the past few months (and I'm probably lowballing the number)? This is simply unacceptable.
But I doubt this is in that unenforcable range. This is information held on their servers with info that you've put on there willingly under a TOS agreement that you agreed to. I don't see in this instance how it'd be unenforcable.
But aren't they also helping Open Source by increasing it's popularity? They are huge companies that carry a lot of weight, and they can get people to adopt it who wouldn't have thought to before. Which can bring in more developers through increased recognition of the movement.
I think that when you are doing such a grand amount of homework, it's hard to retain a lot of it, which defeats the purpose of assigning it and I think that the more you pile on the more that gets forgotten. I do hope that more teachers learn from this study and start assigning a useful amount instead of overloading kids, which combined with other teachers loads, just start cancelling out each other's lessons.
Re:I do not think it means what you think it means
on
Sony's New DRM Technique
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Here's the thing. I agree with everyone who's replied to me so far, I'm just trying to explain why Sony would do such a thing. They believe they're being robbed, they believe that copyright infringers are thieves, and this gives them the beliefs that they have the rights to protect their "homes" any way possible and they're not moving. I believe that I won't be playing devil's advocate anymore.
Well you have to understand that Sony has no plans of moving, they feel they're in the right and they're justified. They don't think they're putting out crap, low quality music (or at least they don't admit it). They feel they're being stolen from, so they just keep adding more locks. They're the ornery old man who refuses to change.
If only the record industry would realize that such actions are futile, and could just give up. Most people aren't evil pirates, I just want to be able to play back music that I pay money for on whatever medium I want to.
I hate to play devil's advocate here, but I'll do it. Just know that I really don't agree with Sony here. BUT...
If someone broke into your house and was stealing from you, wouldn't you put a new lock on your doors. Then if they broke that lock, wouldn't you buy a new one. If this kept happening, would you just let them come in and steal whatever they can, whenever they want or would you keep trying to secure your home. (don't take the easy way out and say you'd move, in this hypothetical, without this house you'd wither away and die).
From TFA: As for more basic CD player compatibility issues, Gilliat-Smith says the discs are compliant with Sony Philips CD specifications and should therefore play in all conventional CD players."
But I still don't trust it and even moreso, I don't like my CD's to be crippled in any way, even backups. What if I lose the original, and can't backup my backup. Ugh. My head hurts.
Simple math would've told you that they picked a bad projected date. They would've had at most, less than 12 months to get the robots out. Not a good timetable when you're dealing with a project of this magnitude.
For years I've been watching Honda pimp Asimo and you're telling me Toyota is the company to first bring us robots. Surprising. So where's Nissan in all this hubbub, or do they need not even apply.
A suggestion for the author of the article
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
I'm almost positive that the RIAA will ignore this fact and still tell the public and the government that P2P is killing them, when in fact it is their own stupidity of not using the internet in a way to help themselves. I'll give Sony a little credit by saying that at least they are trying with the Connect service, but the reason they aren't successful is the reason that a lot of their ventures aren't successful; they have to do it their own way to try to protect their products instead of using the tried and true method that has been shown to them by the likes of iTunes and Napster 2.0. When will these guys catch on that the internet is the direction they need to move toward, and start letting go of their antiquated methods and offering their music at more reasonable prices.
Microsoft cripple a competitor's software?
It sounds like something they'd wanna do, but given their antitrust history, they'd be damn stupid to pull something like adding the feature and then intentionally break competing OS'es. Honestly, I don't see why MS would add this feature. Not saying that it's bad, especially if it works well, but MS has never been a big fan of sportsmanship (even though they constantly claim they are), so I'm trying to find the reasoning behind adding this. The only thing I can think of off-hand is that it would allow multiple instances of Windows on one machine, but then again, they already allow you to boot different versions of Windows on one machine. So now I'm back at square one.
There are already laws to compensate people for losing their info, if those people actually suffer any damages. Otherwise, if no one is actually harmed by the information leak, why should anyone have to pay?
They should have to pay to stress the importance of security. Citibank knows that security is important, it's one of their selling points. They were very early adopters of pictures on credit cards, one time credit card numbers for safe internet transactions and much more, but yet they half assed this information transfer and they need to realize that this isn't the correct way to transfer said sensitive information.
Personally I'm not outraged because it just doesn't matter. If I wanted some information to be kept strictly confidential, I wouldn't tell Citibank in the first place. It's just a bunch of numbers, after all.
That "bunch of numbers" just happens to be social security numbers, account history, and loan information, of not only current, but former customers, and they just happen to be included with those customer's names. You might as well just mail your personal information to the identity theives. If not outrage, as customers, there should at least be call for more stringent rules. In this era you barely have control over your own personal information, which means that provisions of protection need to be made so that the people who do have your info, take much more care of it. Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I doubt you'd feel so lenient towards these places if you had to deal with having your identity stolen from underneath you.
Which company do you hold responsible here? Citigroup Financial? Or UPS? While UPS is guilty of losing the package in transit, perhaps CF should have used a more secure transport method. I dunno, what is more secure than UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, etc...? Armored car driving to and fro between cities? So what is your solution? (Hint: YMFL, (Yet More Federal Legislation), will not prevent accidental loss of freight packages).
I believe you hold Citibank responsible for using an inferior carrier as opposed to using an armored carrier or an in-house carrier and at the least encrypting this valuable info (as stated by other people in this thread).
BTW - I write this as someone who has a mortgage with Citigroup so my data could be at risk here. However, my knee is not jerking violently, (yet).
I don't believe this is a kneejerk reaction, I believe it's a totally valid reaction, Choicepoint, BofA, and Citibank are huge companies and all seem to be frivolous with their clients information, and are all held mostly unaccountable. So I believe the correct response would be to insist that something be done to discourage these types of activities. With identity theft getting easier to pull of, the information should be held much more secure than it currently is. Remember, Choicepoint didn't even get their info from the customers whose records they held, yet they let that info get out. As consumers and possible victims, we all need to pressure these corpirations to take the correct actions. I say having a laidback attitude towards these events is the absolute wrong reaction to have and if my own reaction is, in fact, kneejerk, I still feel it's the correct one.
I really doubt they'd be fined per person.. that'd be a 10 billion dollar fine.
then maybe they shouldn't have treated 3.9 million people's information so carelessly! (although, I seriously doubt they'll even get the minimum fine.)
This incident may have been an accident and I understand that, but this is highly sensitive data and precautions should've been taken that placed more value on this shipment. There have been too many occurances of loss of customer information. Sooner or later they're gonna have to make an example of someone. As far as databases of personal info are concerned, they're not going anywhere, so something has to go into place that places more protection upon them and punishment for letting that info get out without permission, because this shit is getting out of hand.
In the Google ads in the sidebar next to this story they have a listing for "Jobs at UPS". Extremely fitting for this situation as there has to be a few employment spots opening up at 'brown' after this incident.
These companies are treating this information far too trivially. Laws need to be passed that will make this type of carelessness illegal and/or compensate these customers for losing their info. I think the lack of trust from customers would be incentive enough, but obviously it isn't, so more needs to be done to prevent these fiascos. And on another note, why aren't more consumers, in this day of rampant identity theft, completely outraged by these events. What is this the fourth incident in the past few months (and I'm probably lowballing the number)? This is simply unacceptable.
100GB, that's only 10-20 full DVD rips. Which sometimes I prefer for the extra features.
I always think of noise cancelling when I think of portable Bose.
Tera is the correct prefix, but I think Mega was used more for effect. "WOW! 25 Million! That's amazing!"
But I doubt this is in that unenforcable range. This is information held on their servers with info that you've put on there willingly under a TOS agreement that you agreed to. I don't see in this instance how it'd be unenforcable.
It's just WiFi why would they hate this any more or less than any other WiFi networks?
And it'll be our fault. Fuck it, I think I'll still be allowed to go outside and have fun. But that will probably all be fenced off too.
Nope! Because I just patented fencing off areas...I've also patented outside...and fun too!
No, you'll just have one company making 50 incarnations of the same goddamn game, and no motivation to change that.
But aren't they also helping Open Source by increasing it's popularity? They are huge companies that carry a lot of weight, and they can get people to adopt it who wouldn't have thought to before. Which can bring in more developers through increased recognition of the movement.
I think that when you are doing such a grand amount of homework, it's hard to retain a lot of it, which defeats the purpose of assigning it and I think that the more you pile on the more that gets forgotten. I do hope that more teachers learn from this study and start assigning a useful amount instead of overloading kids, which combined with other teachers loads, just start cancelling out each other's lessons.
Here's the thing. I agree with everyone who's replied to me so far, I'm just trying to explain why Sony would do such a thing. They believe they're being robbed, they believe that copyright infringers are thieves, and this gives them the beliefs that they have the rights to protect their "homes" any way possible and they're not moving. I believe that I won't be playing devil's advocate anymore.
Well you have to understand that Sony has no plans of moving, they feel they're in the right and they're justified. They don't think they're putting out crap, low quality music (or at least they don't admit it). They feel they're being stolen from, so they just keep adding more locks. They're the ornery old man who refuses to change.
If only the record industry would realize that such actions are futile, and could just give up. Most people aren't evil pirates, I just want to be able to play back music that I pay money for on whatever medium I want to.
I hate to play devil's advocate here, but I'll do it. Just know that I really don't agree with Sony here. BUT...
If someone broke into your house and was stealing from you, wouldn't you put a new lock on your doors. Then if they broke that lock, wouldn't you buy a new one. If this kept happening, would you just let them come in and steal whatever they can, whenever they want or would you keep trying to secure your home. (don't take the easy way out and say you'd move, in this hypothetical, without this house you'd wither away and die).
From TFA: As for more basic CD player compatibility issues, Gilliat-Smith says the discs are compliant with Sony Philips CD specifications and should therefore play in all conventional CD players."
But I still don't trust it and even moreso, I don't like my CD's to be crippled in any way, even backups. What if I lose the original, and can't backup my backup. Ugh. My head hurts.
Simple math would've told you that they picked a bad projected date. They would've had at most, less than 12 months to get the robots out. Not a good timetable when you're dealing with a project of this magnitude.
I honestly do wonder if this could be the next stage of the automobile wars.
For years I've been watching Honda pimp Asimo and you're telling me Toyota is the company to first bring us robots. Surprising. So where's Nissan in all this hubbub, or do they need not even apply.
DECAF!