Has anyone considered, that Circuit City has a plan to "settle" this issue, by presenting their own technology that tracks each copy per device?
Say Joe walks into CC with his copy of The Fifth Element, and wants to have it converted for his shiny new PMP/Video Ipod/Portable Video Gadget of the Week.... So Circuit City says "here's a list of devices that are compatible with our service, here's a list of operating systems a device must run to be compatible with our service," then requires the customer *brings in the device*, so they can record the devices unique ID/serial #, whatever... (basically fingerprint the device).
Then they'll dupe/reencode a copy of Joe's DVD, while recording that fact that Joe did have a valid copy made for XYZ device. Maybe compatible devices will have have DRM, and the file CC creates will be encrypted/embedded with the devices "fingerprint" so Joe can only play the copy on that device.
This scenario is where I think Circuit City is heading after the legal battle. They just needed to break the ice, get the word out, and get it in court. The end result being, every copy made will have a built in kickback to the MPAA/RIAA, and Circuit City will be the first and only source for a long while, to lawfully copy/convert DVD's.
Your thoughts?
... goin around about iris scanning/authentication? There's so much to respond to, this could almost be a rant, but lets try to stick to facts..
First off, ISA (iris scanning authentication) is just a piece of the security puzzle. Like any other authentication tool, alone it is insufficient. Swipe cards without keying in a passcode, WPA without MAC filtering,..etc
Usually, there are multiple layers of security, and for the right environment, iris scanning has its benefits.
Second, someone mentioned it is "slow".. having to stand and position for a camera, whereas a swipe card is faster. This is not true of well designed systems. Like any other, if it is designed properly, it works well, and swiftly.
I use iris scanning authentication on a daily basis at home. For many years I've been logging into my systems with an inexpensive Panasonic Authenticam. You can see it on my desk between the monitors here: http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1332/desk2ss.jp g
Sure, it's bypassable with a high resolution photo of my face, which might break the camera, but as I mentioned, layers of security.
The real reasons I use it are twofold, A) it saves keystrokes. Blame it on lazyness or carpal tunnel.. but I don't have to type in a username or password each time I sit down at my workstations. and B) Convenience. I can walk into the room, glance at the camera for a moment, and my systems wake up and run their happy little routines. One of which is a voice authentication application that so far hasn't been fooled by any form of recording we've tried.
Just as a note, the iris scanning is not slow at all when performing authentication, and higher end systems are even faster.
Now for the issue of positioning yourself to allow the iris image to be captured... for the newest of the high end systems, it's a non-issue. Technology exists to track and capture an image of the iris as a person is walking across a room. With multiple camera angles down a hallway, one or more layers of security may have already performed authentication. (facial recognition and other biometrics in addition to the iris scanning and perhaps magnetic/rf(id?) id cards sitting in a wallet.
So with these methods, it becomes even less of an effort than swiping a keycard.
Next, the issue of reliability.. since I did mention that the particular low-end iris scanner I use can be defeated by a carefully photographed high reolution image of my face and iris.
High end ISA systems perform more than just an imaging of the eyes. They may also match points on the face, detect body temperature, natural movement and reaction of the eye/iris, detect the blood flowing through the veins in the eye, and many other actions to confirm that the iris being examined is not a fake, or photo.
Now, I know I had some other points to make, but breakfast calls. So I'll leave you with this last one.. before bashing a useful technology with ignorant statements, learn about it. Then at least try bashing it with learned commentary.
And no, I'm not in the iris scanning business at all. I just like how cool it is to look at my "webcam" for a second and then watch all my hardware come to life.
..because all Google has to claim is that they take click fraud into account in their pricing.
If the customer is already benefitting from reduced rates to compensate for a known issue, I don't see how a court could fairly award the complaintant.
If googles customers want to pursue this, they will just force advertising rates higher, screwing no one but themselves. Especially, since google is under no onus of having to provide the same rates to all customers. They can impliment a "variable fee" for the perceived threat of potential litigation from their customers, on a per customer basis.
Irregardless of "fairness", this is justifiable.
If banks can get away with it on loans, by "examining the history and circumstances" of businesses and individuals they do business with, then so can google.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone considered, that Circuit City has a plan to "settle" this issue, by presenting their own technology that tracks each copy per device? Say Joe walks into CC with his copy of The Fifth Element, and wants to have it converted for his shiny new PMP/Video Ipod/Portable Video Gadget of the Week.... So Circuit City says "here's a list of devices that are compatible with our service, here's a list of operating systems a device must run to be compatible with our service," then requires the customer *brings in the device*, so they can record the devices unique ID/serial #, whatever... (basically fingerprint the device). Then they'll dupe/reencode a copy of Joe's DVD, while recording that fact that Joe did have a valid copy made for XYZ device. Maybe compatible devices will have have DRM, and the file CC creates will be encrypted/embedded with the devices "fingerprint" so Joe can only play the copy on that device. This scenario is where I think Circuit City is heading after the legal battle. They just needed to break the ice, get the word out, and get it in court. The end result being, every copy made will have a built in kickback to the MPAA/RIAA, and Circuit City will be the first and only source for a long while, to lawfully copy/convert DVD's. Your thoughts?
... goin around about iris scanning/authentication? There's so much to respond to, this could almost be a rant, but lets try to stick to facts..
..etc
p g
First off, ISA (iris scanning authentication) is just a piece of the security puzzle. Like any other authentication tool, alone it is insufficient. Swipe cards without keying in a passcode, WPA without MAC filtering,
Usually, there are multiple layers of security, and for the right environment, iris scanning has its benefits.
Second, someone mentioned it is "slow".. having to stand and position for a camera, whereas a swipe card is faster. This is not true of well designed systems. Like any other, if it is designed properly, it works well, and swiftly.
I use iris scanning authentication on a daily basis at home. For many years I've been logging into my systems with an inexpensive Panasonic Authenticam. You can see it on my desk between the monitors here: http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1332/desk2ss.j
Sure, it's bypassable with a high resolution photo of my face, which might break the camera, but as I mentioned, layers of security.
The real reasons I use it are twofold, A) it saves keystrokes. Blame it on lazyness or carpal tunnel.. but I don't have to type in a username or password each time I sit down at my workstations. and B) Convenience. I can walk into the room, glance at the camera for a moment, and my systems wake up and run their happy little routines. One of which is a voice authentication application that so far hasn't been fooled by any form of recording we've tried.
Just as a note, the iris scanning is not slow at all when performing authentication, and higher end systems are even faster.
Now for the issue of positioning yourself to allow the iris image to be captured... for the newest of the high end systems, it's a non-issue. Technology exists to track and capture an image of the iris as a person is walking across a room. With multiple camera angles down a hallway, one or more layers of security may have already performed authentication. (facial recognition and other biometrics in addition to the iris scanning and perhaps magnetic/rf(id?) id cards sitting in a wallet.
So with these methods, it becomes even less of an effort than swiping a keycard.
Next, the issue of reliability.. since I did mention that the particular low-end iris scanner I use can be defeated by a carefully photographed high reolution image of my face and iris.
High end ISA systems perform more than just an imaging of the eyes. They may also match points on the face, detect body temperature, natural movement and reaction of the eye/iris, detect the blood flowing through the veins in the eye, and many other actions to confirm that the iris being examined is not a fake, or photo.
Now, I know I had some other points to make, but breakfast calls. So I'll leave you with this last one.. before bashing a useful technology with ignorant statements, learn about it. Then at least try bashing it with learned commentary.
And no, I'm not in the iris scanning business at all. I just like how cool it is to look at my "webcam" for a second and then watch all my hardware come to life.
If the customer is already benefitting from reduced rates to compensate for a known issue, I don't see how a court could fairly award the complaintant.
If googles customers want to pursue this, they will just force advertising rates higher, screwing no one but themselves. Especially, since google is under no onus of having to provide the same rates to all customers. They can impliment a "variable fee" for the perceived threat of potential litigation from their customers, on a per customer basis.
Irregardless of "fairness", this is justifiable.
If banks can get away with it on loans, by "examining the history and circumstances" of businesses and individuals they do business with, then so can google.