"Asking what someone votes for politically is close to a serious faux pa."
It's unpolite which is quite different of being illegal. But it is illegal to force someone to tell you where his vote went or trying to guess it by other covered means. What do you exactly see strange here?
"In fact some people I know have absolutely no idea how their parents or even partners vote."
And what that exactly has to be with the legal system? That only means that they have a culture where the political inclination of somebody is so deep into the privacy camp they better give it alone -and I see it as quite a sane position. Exactly the same kind of culture bias, only on a different field: do you know what your parents' little sexual perversions are? is it illegal for me to ask? still, how do you feel about my little inocent question?
"you can go and check tax returns for anyone in Sweden"
And do you see that as a bad thing exactly why? Taxes are a public affair that affect all public stakeholders by its very nature. Probably you won't have so many billionaires paying by not such quite clear maneouvres not so much if their taxes were to be publicly accesible. Since taxes are "the common pocket of all us citizens" how can that be a bad thing? Give it Caesar that of Caesar's...
"On the other hand, religion is another area that you very much leave alone and don't ask about."
Religion *is* a private matter. Compound it with the fact that people, in the millions, have been killed because other people knowing their religious filation, not so far of Sweeden, not so much time ago and I think you'll get a decent picture of the situation.
"So If I run a web server in Sweden, all my apache logs are now illegal?"
No. That means that if you run a web server in Sweden (and most all Europe for that matter) then you are collecting private personal data so you better follow the laws about private data management.
"Better block all my nationals."
Sweden is a free market economy. Surely there's nobody forcing you to make bussiness there. Only that if you want to make bussiness in Sweden, you'd better follow the rules.
"It's not legal to store an ip address since according to this ruling an ip address can be used to identify a person. In Sweden you can't store any information that can identify a person according to PUL (personuppgiftslagen, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUL) without Datainspektionens (the data inspection) permission."
And that's *exactly* the point and the one (almost) everyone here on Slashdot seems to be missing.
It is *not* illegal to retain IP address info. It is illegal to retain IP address info *disregarding* the protections stablished by law about private personal data management.
And that's the case all througth Europe: all countries have similar "private personal data" protection laws that basically read the same: if you are managing personal private data (and IP address are considered as such) you better follow the rules we stablish for such a case (which more or less you can resume like this: make the affected person know you are collecting such data and his lawful rights on the case -like his ability to access what private data a company is collecting about him, to correct it and delete/nullify if there's no legal obligation to retain it -you can't ask a company to delete your financial data if the company is under the obligation to declare it for tax purpouses, for instance; don't use it for any other purpouses than those you said when collecting it; let the proper public organims know you are collecting private data, so they know there's a fair need to collect it; delete the data as soon as the alleged purpouse is vanished and protect the data proportionally to its sensibility as the law defines it -not much more than plain common sense).
"Not quite. My Postal address is personal information too. But I give it to you whenever I want to have a response by mail. An IP address is like that"
Exactly. That's why laws all throught Europe will treat your postal address as private data, unless you decide to make it public, and protect it under quite strong barriers too.
No: telling your postal address to someone doesn't allow him to abuse it on ways you didn't allow him too.
The bad thing about this statement is that AFAIK one of the main defense points against the MAFIAA tactics "is/was that an IP cannot be deffinitely linked to an individual... how does this decision affect that?"
"May", which is enough to get into consideration when we are talking about fundamental rights as is the one about privacy, versus "for sure" which is what the MAFIAAs around the world want governments to believe.
A city council will mark as "non potable" any water spring that is not under scrutiny. Would that mean it is certainly "poisonous"?
"This is pretty much the way things are, and have been, in Norway now for many years."
Yes, I'm sure they are. They point is "and the news are?". I know IP address being consired private data subjected to privacy laws in Spain for about ten years and I bet that's the case all around Europe too.
"But bazillions of what ?.. and what good are bazillions, if anything can be had ?"
Not everything. You can't have access to whatever will be created tomorrow and the duplication machine won't cope with that: "exclusivity of tomorrow" would be the most solicited resource, and it will be scarce too, so you have the basis for an economy there.
"It is also "natural" for the strong to take from the weak."
Yes it is, and that's what gives real property its very meaning: whatever you can hold by your own strengh.
"That doesn't make it right or moral."
Orthogonal. Something being public *is* public; it's just stating a fact, nothing about rights or morals. Re-read my previous post: it was not about morality but about the absurdity of claiming rights on the unholdable.
"Since they manage their own IT infrastructure, they only have to install firefox / opera... on each machine and use standard compliant website"
Since they manage their own IT infrastructure, they give a damn about standards compliancy: they only need to standardize on they themselves. That means that they get whatever is in the intersection between managerial bright-coloured brochures and cheap labour knowledge... it was Sun for quite a lot companies by the dot.com era as it was IE6 and ActiveX for quite a lot others. An intelligent movement on the long run? Who cares on the long run beyond quarterly results?
"So in the absence of the IT department, are the software/hardware updates, amongst everything else they maintain, going to be just done by magic?"
Working ON, that doesn't mean you'll reach the goal. But then, what the heck were you going to upgrade if the software were bugfree and the hardware properly dimensioned for the workload *unless* environment changes? But in order to cope with environment changes you'd better have a project team than a department (IT or elsewere).
"Is your customer satisfied because you did a good job? Or because the last company they had to deal with was "their communications provider who basically said "You don't owe that money? Well, we say you do. Pay up.""
Is there any difference. I mean, really, is there *any* difference?
"I frequently find that the idiot IT guy who gets people back up and running after a major worm infection, enabled by said IT guy's lack of security patching, gets much higher kudos than the one that did all the preventive maintenance beforehand, and didn't get their users infected in the first place."
If he manages to do it in its proper (for him) way, the better for him. Customer satisfaction (either internal or external) means *all* as it can be directly converted in hard cash (either a repeating and gossiping client or an internal promotion). Isn't it told that client is always right? Well, that means he is right even when being moronic.
On the back of your idiot IT guy there is an idiot IT manager (or else he would fire him) on an idiotically managed company (or else they would fire their idotic IT manager). Your idiot IT guy is just respecting his company's "culture": no wonder he gets higher kudos.
"Right... but in this entire conversation you are not sitting with them and telling them what they need."
As already stated, first there's the point that it's better for all stakeholders that they learn. They were under a mental state (IT is for free & I know better what it takes to do this) such as if you counter with a cost sheet they'll still think they are right and you are wrong and even worse, trying to scape. On the other hand, for this kind of strategy to work, you can't just take a number out of your ass or you will be reinforcing their own point of view (you are unprofessional, not worthing and really a lazy ass trying to scape through a Chebwacca deffense -or so they'd thougth if they knew what was that). On the other hand, the proper numbers ain't gonna be calculated themselves: it will take a time you already are scarce of that you'd better spend on something useful instead of just to make a point.
Only if and when they show up in a constructive mood you can help. Till then, well, if planning (at their own level and within their abilities) is a nuisance that doesn't worth his time, it surely doesn't worth my and company's time either.
ABS *is* meant to stop you faster as well as allowing to steer the vehicle as you stop. Static friction coefficient is much higher than dynamic which means that rolling wheels get much more braking power than sliding ones. Why do you exactly think you can't steer a car while wheels are locked?
While theoretically an expert driver can brake on slightly shorter distances than a modern ABS by pushing brakes just above the locking point I still have to see that happenning in anywhere near real out-circuit conditions.
"I'm guessing you've never actually had a family to make such a statement, have you?"
You certainly didn't pay attention at how many families manage to live that way, do you?
"Wow so you can net a grand total of around 16k on those splendid McDonalds jobs."
You used to have a Spaniard on service. Did you pay her 16K a year? I bet not. Still she was able to sustain herself, her son and send money to Mexico for her parents.
"In this case, the man was 32 years. Well within reproductive range, even in a primitive ages."
In primitive ages he wouldn't be "within reproductive range" but more on his end live expectancy. In primitive ages best reproductive range would be much more between 16 to 21 year-old than 32(and even that is "considering inflation": real ages probably would be between 15 to 20).
"If it is in the genes, it means individuals with a tendency to suicide does actually tend to generate more surviving offspring than others."
Bullshit. It means at least so much surviving offspring as competing genotypes. Given that he suicided past 30 year old all his expected offspring was already beyond that point.
"why would anybody, even rich men, pay for art just so you (or anybody else) can get it for free? "
I never said I want it for free. Please re-read the thread and point to me where did I say so.
What I say, and repeat, is that once something is made public is damn public.
"you just don't want to pay for music - fucking admit that already"
Oh, my god, You got me! (Nice trick... who could resist anything if said in bolds?).
"so how about a game like Civilisation that costs millions."
So what about contracting ten thousand people to dig wholes by day and covering them by night? It surely would cost millions too.
In a different world you would get a different output, what a surprise!
"And if that games is so shit, why is it so popular on torrent sites?"
I won't enter on discussing its quality, I don't give a damn about that. The point is that this game is already publicly released: it won't go anyway no matter what.
"Why do you have the right to use the fruits of my mind for free?"
I have no right on it: it's only the natural way of things. Once you release them to the public, they are in the public, just that. Your question makes as much sense as asking why do I have the right to get air on my face when the wind is blowing.
Why don't you ask me to forget that I already know that 2+2=4? It was the fruit of somebody else's mind after all! The point is that it is not a right knowing what I already know: it's a fact. There has been from the early days of Humankind a proper way for somebody to avoid someone else to "use the fruits of his mind for free" and it is called "keep it secret".
Indeed it's the contrary question the one that has to be asked: why do you have the right to preclude others from using what you already made public? You need a whole civilization for the very basics of such idea to be enforceable. At the most basic level I can protect my physical property with my bare fists and teeth; there's no way I can protect my "intelectual property" by myself: once I use my voice, it flights away with the wind and I can't recover it; all the weight of a government is needed to enforce such unnatural stanza.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sweden has some strange privacy norms."
Not that I know about.
"Asking what someone votes for politically is close to a serious faux pa."
It's unpolite which is quite different of being illegal. But it is illegal to force someone to tell you where his vote went or trying to guess it by other covered means. What do you exactly see strange here?
"In fact some people I know have absolutely no idea how their parents or even partners vote."
And what that exactly has to be with the legal system? That only means that they have a culture where the political inclination of somebody is so deep into the privacy camp they better give it alone -and I see it as quite a sane position. Exactly the same kind of culture bias, only on a different field: do you know what your parents' little sexual perversions are? is it illegal for me to ask? still, how do you feel about my little inocent question?
"you can go and check tax returns for anyone in Sweden"
And do you see that as a bad thing exactly why? Taxes are a public affair that affect all public stakeholders by its very nature. Probably you won't have so many billionaires paying by not such quite clear maneouvres not so much if their taxes were to be publicly accesible. Since taxes are "the common pocket of all us citizens" how can that be a bad thing? Give it Caesar that of Caesar's...
"On the other hand, religion is another area that you very much leave alone and don't ask about."
Religion *is* a private matter. Compound it with the fact that people, in the millions, have been killed because other people knowing their religious filation, not so far of Sweeden, not so much time ago and I think you'll get a decent picture of the situation.
"Isn't the whole point of a publicly routable address to trace to a specific host or gateway? "
Yes. And since the "whole point" is "to trace to a specific host or gateway" that means it has "no point" being used "to trace to a specific person".
"So If I run a web server in Sweden, all my apache logs are now illegal?"
No. That means that if you run a web server in Sweden (and most all Europe for that matter) then you are collecting private personal data so you better follow the laws about private data management.
"Better block all my nationals."
Sweden is a free market economy. Surely there's nobody forcing you to make bussiness there. Only that if you want to make bussiness in Sweden, you'd better follow the rules.
"It's not legal to store an ip address since according to this ruling an ip address can be used to identify a person. In Sweden you can't store any information that can identify a person according to PUL (personuppgiftslagen, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUL) without Datainspektionens (the data inspection) permission."
And that's *exactly* the point and the one (almost) everyone here on Slashdot seems to be missing.
It is *not* illegal to retain IP address info. It is illegal to retain IP address info *disregarding* the protections stablished by law about private personal data management.
And that's the case all througth Europe: all countries have similar "private personal data" protection laws that basically read the same: if you are managing personal private data (and IP address are considered as such) you better follow the rules we stablish for such a case (which more or less you can resume like this: make the affected person know you are collecting such data and his lawful rights on the case -like his ability to access what private data a company is collecting about him, to correct it and delete/nullify if there's no legal obligation to retain it -you can't ask a company to delete your financial data if the company is under the obligation to declare it for tax purpouses, for instance; don't use it for any other purpouses than those you said when collecting it; let the proper public organims know you are collecting private data, so they know there's a fair need to collect it; delete the data as soon as the alleged purpouse is vanished and protect the data proportionally to its sensibility as the law defines it -not much more than plain common sense).
"Not quite. My Postal address is personal information too. But I give it to you whenever I want to have a response by mail. An IP address is like that"
Exactly. That's why laws all throught Europe will treat your postal address as private data, unless you decide to make it public, and protect it under quite strong barriers too.
No: telling your postal address to someone doesn't allow him to abuse it on ways you didn't allow him too.
The bad thing about this statement is that AFAIK one of the main defense points against the MAFIAA tactics "is/was that an IP cannot be deffinitely linked to an individual... how does this decision affect that?"
"May", which is enough to get into consideration when we are talking about fundamental rights as is the one about privacy, versus "for sure" which is what the MAFIAAs around the world want governments to believe.
A city council will mark as "non potable" any water spring that is not under scrutiny. Would that mean it is certainly "poisonous"?
"This is pretty much the way things are, and have been, in Norway now for many years."
Yes, I'm sure they are. They point is "and the news are?". I know IP address being consired private data subjected to privacy laws in Spain for about ten years and I bet that's the case all around Europe too.
"But bazillions of what ?.. and what good are bazillions, if anything can be had ?"
Not everything. You can't have access to whatever will be created tomorrow and the duplication machine won't cope with that: "exclusivity of tomorrow" would be the most solicited resource, and it will be scarce too, so you have the basis for an economy there.
"It is also "natural" for the strong to take from the weak."
Yes it is, and that's what gives real property its very meaning: whatever you can hold by your own strengh.
"That doesn't make it right or moral."
Orthogonal. Something being public *is* public; it's just stating a fact, nothing about rights or morals. Re-read my previous post: it was not about morality but about the absurdity of claiming rights on the unholdable.
"Since they manage their own IT infrastructure, they only have to install firefox / opera ... on each machine and use standard compliant website"
Since they manage their own IT infrastructure, they give a damn about standards compliancy: they only need to standardize on they themselves. That means that they get whatever is in the intersection between managerial bright-coloured brochures and cheap labour knowledge... it was Sun for quite a lot companies by the dot.com era as it was IE6 and ActiveX for quite a lot others. An intelligent movement on the long run? Who cares on the long run beyond quarterly results?
"So in the absence of the IT department, are the software/hardware updates, amongst everything else they maintain, going to be just done by magic?"
Working ON, that doesn't mean you'll reach the goal. But then, what the heck were you going to upgrade if the software were bugfree and the hardware properly dimensioned for the workload *unless* environment changes? But in order to cope with environment changes you'd better have a project team than a department (IT or elsewere).
"Is your customer satisfied because you did a good job? Or because the last company they had to deal with was "their communications provider who basically said "You don't owe that money? Well, we say you do. Pay up.""
Is there any difference. I mean, really, is there *any* difference?
"I frequently find that the idiot IT guy who gets people back up and running after a major worm infection, enabled by said IT guy's lack of security patching, gets much higher kudos than the one that did all the preventive maintenance beforehand, and didn't get their users infected in the first place."
If he manages to do it in its proper (for him) way, the better for him. Customer satisfaction (either internal or external) means *all* as it can be directly converted in hard cash (either a repeating and gossiping client or an internal promotion). Isn't it told that client is always right? Well, that means he is right even when being moronic.
On the back of your idiot IT guy there is an idiot IT manager (or else he would fire him) on an idiotically managed company (or else they would fire their idotic IT manager). Your idiot IT guy is just respecting his company's "culture": no wonder he gets higher kudos.
"Right... but in this entire conversation you are not sitting with them and telling them what they need."
As already stated, first there's the point that it's better for all stakeholders that they learn. They were under a mental state (IT is for free & I know better what it takes to do this) such as if you counter with a cost sheet they'll still think they are right and you are wrong and even worse, trying to scape. On the other hand, for this kind of strategy to work, you can't just take a number out of your ass or you will be reinforcing their own point of view (you are unprofessional, not worthing and really a lazy ass trying to scape through a Chebwacca deffense -or so they'd thougth if they knew what was that). On the other hand, the proper numbers ain't gonna be calculated themselves: it will take a time you already are scarce of that you'd better spend on something useful instead of just to make a point.
Only if and when they show up in a constructive mood you can help. Till then, well, if planning (at their own level and within their abilities) is a nuisance that doesn't worth his time, it surely doesn't worth my and company's time either.
"Because if the wheels aren't turning, you're not going to go in that direction."
Because they are sliding so they are comparatively frictionless. No friction, no force against inertia. That's why.
"ABS is not meant to stop you faster."
ABS *is* meant to stop you faster as well as allowing to steer the vehicle as you stop. Static friction coefficient is much higher than dynamic which means that rolling wheels get much more braking power than sliding ones. Why do you exactly think you can't steer a car while wheels are locked?
While theoretically an expert driver can brake on slightly shorter distances than a modern ABS by pushing brakes just above the locking point I still have to see that happenning in anywhere near real out-circuit conditions.
"I'm guessing you've never actually had a family to make such a statement, have you?"
You certainly didn't pay attention at how many families manage to live that way, do you?
"Wow so you can net a grand total of around 16k on those splendid McDonalds jobs."
You used to have a Spaniard on service. Did you pay her 16K a year? I bet not. Still she was able to sustain herself, her son and send money to Mexico for her parents.
"A man in the middle of his mid-life crisis, quits his hated job and gets a job in McDonalds"
Quite an interesting movement.
"he also gets a boner about his teenage daughter's friend, but lets be honest, this is Mena Suvari (at her prime!)"
But, but, your honor, it was Mena Suvari at her prime, you surely understand!
(Yes, it surely makes sense)
"I can empathize with his feelings and the situation he's in."
Surely, if you are a derrotist paedophyle as he was. You might pardon others that might think otherwise.
"Because a web host has the time and money to spend auditing every single line of code of every software they use?"
Well... they still had the time and money to bill it as they would, didn't they?
"Some 50 percent of Vaserv's customers signed up for unmanaged service, which doesn't include data backup...
Why? Why!?"
Because those that signed the backup plan lost all their data just the same, only they paid more for the privilege.
"More likely, the depressed individual will reach for any sort of escape (sex, drugs, alcohol, other) to alleviate said depression. "
So you don't think there's any difference between looking for such a escape either on "sex, drugs and alcohol" or "suicide"?
"In this case, the man was 32 years. Well within reproductive range, even in a primitive ages."
In primitive ages he wouldn't be "within reproductive range" but more on his end live expectancy. In primitive ages best reproductive range would be much more between 16 to 21 year-old than 32(and even that is "considering inflation": real ages probably would be between 15 to 20).
"If it is in the genes, it means individuals with a tendency to suicide does actually tend to generate more surviving offspring than others."
Bullshit. It means at least so much surviving offspring as competing genotypes. Given that he suicided past 30 year old all his expected offspring was already beyond that point.
"Seriously, how many people use Usenet anymore?"
Might it be because it has been more and more dificult to find decent feeds?
"Sadly, I stopped using it when it became a huge pain to use."
OK: you already answered.
I never said I want it for free. Please re-read the thread and point to me where did I say so. What I say, and repeat, is that once something is made public is damn public.
Oh, my god, You got me! (Nice trick... who could resist anything if said in bolds?).
See? It must be true: I used bolds too.
OK, my try:
You, sir, are a damn fool!
See? It must be true too: I used bolds.
"so how about a game like Civilisation that costs millions."
So what about contracting ten thousand people to dig wholes by day and covering them by night? It surely would cost millions too.
In a different world you would get a different output, what a surprise!
"And if that games is so shit, why is it so popular on torrent sites?"
I won't enter on discussing its quality, I don't give a damn about that. The point is that this game is already publicly released: it won't go anyway no matter what.
"Why do you have the right to use the fruits of my mind for free?"
I have no right on it: it's only the natural way of things. Once you release them to the public, they are in the public, just that. Your question makes as much sense as asking why do I have the right to get air on my face when the wind is blowing.
Why don't you ask me to forget that I already know that 2+2=4? It was the fruit of somebody else's mind after all! The point is that it is not a right knowing what I already know: it's a fact. There has been from the early days of Humankind a proper way for somebody to avoid someone else to "use the fruits of his mind for free" and it is called "keep it secret".
Indeed it's the contrary question the one that has to be asked: why do you have the right to preclude others from using what you already made public? You need a whole civilization for the very basics of such idea to be enforceable. At the most basic level I can protect my physical property with my bare fists and teeth; there's no way I can protect my "intelectual property" by myself: once I use my voice, it flights away with the wind and I can't recover it; all the weight of a government is needed to enforce such unnatural stanza.