The music distribution industry would like to make their merchandise as widely available as possible in as many formats as possible. Ideally they want each format to only play on one device and have the customer buy a separate copy for each device that they want to listen to the track on. As an added bonus the music industry will make sure that they can sell the whole album/collection if possible. They want this to be legally enforceable and they want someone else, preferably the government, to be the bad guy for doing it to the consumer.
What happens when I'm running a whitelist with the associated trust that is implied and my mom's computer gets zombied, emailing everyone in the address book? Whitelists simply don't address this issue.
There is a project to try and do this.
From the website: LOAF is a simple extension to email that lets you append your entire address book to outgoing mail message without compromising your privacy. Correspondents can use this information to prioritize their mail, and learn more about their social networks. The LOAF home page is at http://loaf.cantbedone.org.
i find this kind of proposed legislation amusing, particularly since i don't think the movie and record companies really understand what kind of curricula could result from a mandate like this.
I don't find it amusing in the least. Too many members of our current lawmaking bodies are funded by organizations that have a vested interest in presenting one side of this discussion. They might accidently pass this sort of thing into law.
These same organizations will gladly supply the needed materials to the school boards, who have neither the time nor the inclination to create the content for themselves. If it isn't on the SATs, the teachers and students just want to get through it as fast as possible and be done with it.
The only difference is that some Windows users love making random hidey-holes for their files instead of putting them under "/Documents and Settings/[Username]" in the appropriate Documents or Images or Whatever folders... (and a MacPort of them would do exactly the same stupid shit).
Under Mac OS X the user doesn't have write/update authority to directories that are not under his user space unless she is an administrator on the box. Even then the OS asks for the admin password to remind you that what you are doing is beyond normal user access levels.
Another problem that I've always had with these systems is the proof issue. If the RIAA tries to prosecute you for having watermarked files, they have to demonstrate the watermark. I can't imagine how they could show that without revealing exactly how the watermark is detected -- and once they do that, you should be off to the races.
This is exactly what
"zero knowledge" proofs are supposed to be able to do. Using such a protocol allows me to prove to anyone interested that I know something without revealing what that something is. the proof does not impart any new knowledge to the person/entity that is receiving it about the information. In this context it would mean that the RIAA would be able to prove that the files had been watermarked using their private mark and were thus their copyrighted material without revealing any information about how that watermarking was done. The proof would not rely on revealing the method. Graph isomorphism is a commonly used example.
I don't know if anyone has incorporated a practical application of this into any sort of watermarking scheme, but it could be used for this purpose.
Nah, just send Verizon notice that, starting tomorrow, google results from Verizon IP blocks are $0.05 each. At the first of each month, send Verizon a bill.
Now if only they'd throw in support for GPG signing and/or encrypting in GMail(yes I know it'd kill their compression ratios)
From a business perspective I don't see this happening anytime soon. The key idea behind Google Mail is the ability to parse your email and data mine it for relevant advertising data. The ability to target advertising accordingly is their revenue stream. Implementing a feature that directly cuts into that would seem like a really bad direction to go.
You can do this yourself of course using POP3 and a plugin for your mail client or use cut/paste for the message content in a standalone PGP/GPG application.
Definitely go Sennheiser. The sound reproduction is excellent. Personally I use and recommend the PXC250s. They are noise cancelling but they won't interfere with your ability to hear people talking to you. They just cancel out steady noise like the heating units or a power supply fan. The difference there will surprise you though. They work very well on airplanes and come with a several connectors for that purpose. They also come in a decent carrying case.
So instead of just being on our food packages. It'll be in our food.
I can just hear the conversation now:
"Sir, we are tracking the suspect but he appears to be using the sewers to move about the city. We suspect he is planning to escape by boat since he is heading towards the sea."
A brute force approach for google analytics is to add the following to your hosts file:
# [Google Inc]
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
If you are using firefox, then there is an
extension to customize your interaction with
google. One of the preference sections is privacy settings. Options include anonymizing your user ID and never sending cookie data to google analytics.
labnol.blogspot.com has an
article that discusses both of these options and also discusses how to add the hosts entry on a windows box.
But is it that someone would have to be within 10 feet of you for 2 hours to break it, or is it 10 feet to get the data and 2 hours at any distance to break it at leisure?
According to one of the
followup articles,
The attacker must first be within 10 meters of the passport while it is in active use. This means standing fairly close to the customs counter. The attacker intercepts the communications, then can take that information offline and brute force the key. YMMV on the distance estimate since it is a radio intercept.
One would hope that a person sitting in the waiting area with a laptop connected to a pringles can that is aimed at the customs desk would draw some sort of attention, but with what is passing for security these days...
This new software selects which communications are of interest to the intelligence community using an undisclosed algorithm. This algorithm "cannot" be reverse engineered. We just have to take the government's word for it that the selection criteria are correct and are unrelated to anyone's personal or political agendas. This will somehow "may ease some of these privacy concerns by making the tracking of terrorist communications over the Internet more efficient, and more targeted, than ever before."? I don't know about you, but it doesn't ease my concerns in the slightest. Just the opposite in fact.
I'm probably wrong, but at this point haven't we deviated from BS the ISP, which does not have CC status, and BS the telco, which probably does and would be in serious trouble?
Slashdot Mirror
The music distribution industry would like to make their merchandise as widely available as possible in as many formats as possible. Ideally they want each format to only play on one device and have the customer buy a separate copy for each device that they want to listen to the track on. As an added bonus the music industry will make sure that they can sell the whole album/collection if possible. They want this to be legally enforceable and they want someone else, preferably the government, to be the bad guy for doing it to the consumer.
What happens when I'm running a whitelist with the associated trust that is implied and my mom's computer gets zombied, emailing everyone in the address book?
Whitelists simply don't address this issue.
There is a project to try and do this.
From the website:
LOAF is a simple extension to email that lets you append your entire address book to outgoing mail message without compromising your privacy. Correspondents can use this information to prioritize their mail, and learn more about their social networks. The LOAF home page is at http://loaf.cantbedone.org.
I don't find it amusing in the least. Too many members of our current lawmaking bodies are funded by organizations that have a vested interest in presenting one side of this discussion. They might accidently pass this sort of thing into law.
These same organizations will gladly supply the needed materials to the school boards, who have neither the time nor the inclination to create the content for themselves. If it isn't on the SATs, the teachers and students just want to get through it as fast as possible and be done with it.
You mean any more than the "M" rating already should?
This can also be set in the preferences panel on the privacy pane by selecting the cache tab and then specifying the value you want in MB.
(and a MacPort of them would do exactly the same stupid shit).
Under Mac OS X the user doesn't have write/update authority to directories that are not under his user space unless she is an administrator on the box. Even then the OS asks for the admin password to remind you that what you are doing is beyond normal user access levels.
If you want google search functionality internal to your enterprise, consider purchasing a google search appliance for inside your organization.
This is exactly what "zero knowledge" proofs are supposed to be able to do. Using such a protocol allows me to prove to anyone interested that I know something without revealing what that something is. the proof does not impart any new knowledge to the person/entity that is receiving it about the information. In this context it would mean that the RIAA would be able to prove that the files had been watermarked using their private mark and were thus their copyrighted material without revealing any information about how that watermarking was done. The proof would not rely on revealing the method. Graph isomorphism is a commonly used example.
I don't know if anyone has incorporated a practical application of this into any sort of watermarking scheme, but it could be used for this purpose.
Probably at least a year before Vista comes out.
Nah, just send Verizon notice that, starting tomorrow, google results from Verizon IP blocks are $0.05 each. At the first of each month, send Verizon a bill.
I wonder if they have done anything to address the display scratching issue that many nano owners have complained about?
Now if only they'd throw in support for GPG signing and/or encrypting in GMail(yes I know it'd kill their compression ratios)
From a business perspective I don't see this happening anytime soon. The key idea behind Google Mail is the ability to parse your email and data mine it for relevant advertising data. The ability to target advertising accordingly is their revenue stream. Implementing a feature that directly cuts into that would seem like a really bad direction to go.
You can do this yourself of course using POP3 and a plugin for your mail client or use cut/paste for the message content in a standalone PGP/GPG application.
Definitely go Sennheiser. The sound reproduction is excellent. Personally I use and recommend the PXC250s. They are noise cancelling but they won't interfere with your ability to hear people talking to you. They just cancel out steady noise like the heating units or a power supply fan. The difference there will surprise you though. They work very well on airplanes and come with a several connectors for that purpose. They also come in a decent carrying case.
I can just hear the conversation now:
"Sir, we are tracking the suspect but he appears to be using the sewers to move about the city. We suspect he is planning to escape by boat since he is heading towards the sea."
Yes.
You can remember when google indexed the web just like it was.
Now they just publish "Google Information for Webmasters" and delist anyone who doesn't abide by their guidelines. The times they are a changing.
# [Google Inc]
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
If you are using firefox, then there is an extension to customize your interaction with google. One of the preference sections is privacy settings. Options include anonymizing your user ID and never sending cookie data to google analytics.
labnol.blogspot.com has an article that discusses both of these options and also discusses how to add the hosts entry on a windows box.
What?? What did he say?
According to one of the followup articles, The attacker must first be within 10 meters of the passport while it is in active use. This means standing fairly close to the customs counter. The attacker intercepts the communications, then can take that information offline and brute force the key. YMMV on the distance estimate since it is a radio intercept.
One would hope that a person sitting in the waiting area with a laptop connected to a pringles can that is aimed at the customs desk would draw some sort of attention, but with what is passing for security these days...
This new software selects which communications are of interest to the intelligence community using an undisclosed algorithm. This algorithm "cannot" be reverse engineered. We just have to take the government's word for it that the selection criteria are correct and are unrelated to anyone's personal or political agendas. This will somehow "may ease some of these privacy concerns by making the tracking of terrorist communications over the Internet more efficient, and more targeted, than ever before."? I don't know about you, but it doesn't ease my concerns in the slightest. Just the opposite in fact.
It could be worse. You could have just voted a new tax levy in your district last fall only to have it spent on this...
In summary, Gibson made a claim that was sure to draw media attention, someone called bull$hit, and now he has to backpedal and eat crow.
I'm probably wrong, but at this point haven't we deviated from BS the ISP, which does not have CC status, and BS the telco, which probably does and would be in serious trouble?