These kinds of users would probably be fooled by a phish which duplicates the look & feel of their store.
I think that eventually people will end up only doing banking and (to a lesser extent) shopping from "trusted platforms" : either the Apple-walled-garden-style ones, or from a live Linux distro booted from read-only media, set up for no data persistence. (Yes, I know neither of those is totally secure --- nothing is totally secure!)
Interesting that the only walled garden product that I can think of which Microsoft offers is its XBox gaming console. I wonder if people will start to use gaming consoles for this, and if banks will eventually start to offer "banking interface programs" which run on gaming consoles (I can just imagine someone saying "I'm tired of killing cops in GTA --- Time to hit Citibank and go to sleep.". Even funnier is the image of some clueless gamer trying to get "God mode" in his banking application.)
Ah, yes, that was in 2004 --- but I dare say that the Israeli opinion seems much more bold in its emphasizing the good of society good vs. the rights of creators.
I have to wonder if, just maybe, the lawyers for the foreign soccer league somehow pissed off the Israeli judge and she decided in that way knowing that (1) it'd piss off the soccer league, (2) she'd get her 15 minutes of fame, and (3) it would probably be overruled on appeal anyway.
After a little research, it seems to me that Israel is the first (and only) nation in the world where "fair use" is possibly a "right" (see the section titled ' New User "Rights" ').
This is since Sept. 2009. My impression is that the decision has been appealed but hasn't been heard yet. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's administration wouldn't have a few (unofficial) things to say to the Israeli government when the appeal comes up in the Israeli courts.
You are arguing about a topic which is the basis for a terrific amount of frustration for many people. Including me. The AC "NERD RAGE" comment was, actually, dead on target, amusingly.
> YOU constantly say things,
Yes, it is hard to have a dialog otherwise.;-)
> attribute them to me,
Yes, you are seeing how I interpret what you have said. I do this because I don't believe you have the ability to magically know how I interpret what you have said. So I have to tell you.
You replied to gdshaw's comment (about the standard of proof, criminal vs. civil, etc.) by flaming him (in that the entire content of your comment merely dismisses him as ignorant, without adding any value to the discussion). I now see that you may have done this because you confused him with me (since you later accuse him of "stalking" you and as far as I can see this is the first time he's replied to you in the recent past). If you think I'm "stalking" you, you are wrong. First of all, IMO you can't "stalk" someone based on behavior in one Slashdot topic --- stalking would require for me to continue to monitor your Slashdot posts for an extended period.
In this particular discussion, after reading one of your posts, I classified you as (1) having a very different opinion about the topic than I have, and (2) being someone who claims to know what "reality" is while dismissing what others think, on a topic which includes a lot of matter requiring subjective judgment. I therefore decided that it would be worthwhile for me to review your other comments to see what you say in them, and possibly reply to them to prevent you from "drowning out" my point of view (well, that's not actually being totally honest --- I admit that you also made me angry and evoked an irrational emotional reaction). If this is your definition of "stalking", then you are correct. So be it.
As for the posts I made, none of which you actually understood, for which I apologize: the point of the post where I dissed you for flaming gdshaw was to try to point out to you that it's ridiculous for you to present yourself as being an expert on the legal situation here since the real legal "reality" won't become clear before the Supreme Court rules (or denies certiorari) on this topic. BTW, to me it wasn't at all clear that you were understanding gdshaw's post in the very narrow way in which I now think you saw it --- that he was proposing that all of tort law be thrown out, returning us to the era of debtor's prisons --- because I interpreted his post as meaning to say that the concept of "exemplary damages" is stupid/immoral/bad/... (and many other nation's legal systems seem to agree with him). My reply to your reply, in which I (to you) seemingly pull out the "proof of greater malfeasance" out of thin air, is due to having interpreted gdshaw's comment differently from you --- the "proof of greater malfeasance" line being a paraphrase of what I thought gdshaw meant, in more technically correct legal terminology (if I was lucky --- I have no legal training). I did this because I thought you were flaming him for framing his post in incorrect terminology --- as I explained to you in that post.
And now you are either understanding better, or really more totally confused, but for me it doesn't really matter. I've spent several hours framing this reply so you might understand better, and choose to end my side of the discussion here. Accept my apologies if you were hurt by my argumentative nature during the duration of our dialog.
> Doesn't piratebay use other people's work to make a profit, though?
So do manpower agencies, no? And Google, no? And so do you, or the business you work for (think of all those slaving Edison employees who enabled you to use electricity and electric lighting).
Ah, you weren't talking about the work of the people who post the torrents there?
The real question you have to ask is how culpable is the supplier of a facility, for economic damages caused by other people using that facility. The answer, as far as I can see, to that question is, well, "it depends".
Ah, so tort law has been revised when I wasn't looking and now punitive damages don't require proof of a greater malfeasance than compensatory damages?
I understand that the poster you replied to didn't use the proper terminology, but that didn't mean you needed to flame him. Especially without any explanation whatsoever.
Of course, I fully understand you. All of us anarchistic freaks who don't care about the letter of the law, and just do what we feel is morally correct, really rub you the wrong way. No?
You do understand that this outcome will practically certainly be appealed based on constitutional grounds, right? Since you are such an expert?
What we are seeing is precedent in the making. There really isn't any yet in this area (what to do in the case where a party is claimed to be significantly damaged economically by the actions of a vast multitude of individuals who cooperate using the net, while each individual actually causes very minimal damage by himself).
Please show us where all this was clearly foreseen by the Founding Fathers. Righhhht.
> I would even bet that more illegal file sharers have won a million > dollars in the lottery than have lost a million dollars in court.
It would be a sucker bet, since none of the defendants up to now has had a million dollars to lose. The worst that can happen to you is bankruptcy, which, judging from the reports of some Slashdotters, isn't really all that bad an experience, especially if you are young.
Now that I think of it, maybe the others just committed suicide and I get that impression because of reporting bias?
> the only thing the MAFIAA is interested in is the precedent.
And they haven't gotten that yet. They've only showed that what Charles Nesson claimed in his amicus brief to the court was absolutely correct --- it is well-nigh impossible that a jury will return a reasonable damage amount when it is instructed solely what the minimum and maximum damages are, as stated in the law.
I haven't been impressed by anything Nesson has done in these cases before, but I have to admit that filing that amicus brief was pretty savvy. Either the outcome of the case says "I told you so" to the court system, or the defendant gets a reasonable damage amount from the jury. A nice move.
You can be 99% sure this will now be appealed based on the constitutional right to due process being violated by the excessive amount.
That was a pretty quick spoiler. I guess you young'uns just don't understand how it is when yer brain gets all fuzzy and slow.
(I didn't even notice the comment title. I am embarrassed to admit that I actually remember that book being one of the last dead-tree science fiction books I bought, but I have never gotten around to reading it, and am not sure if I could even still find it, because my life suddenly mutated in unexpected ways quite soon after the purchase. A good excuse, I suppose, to go looking for it now.)
you might be like Estonia - every citizen gets an ID card with a proper PGP-ish electronic signature in it and he can vote on a web site using that signature either in a voting booth or at home and later verify his vote with a hash on a tally.
And therefore it is obvious that the Estonian voting system violates two security requirements for a US election:
Your vote must be anonymous --- the government, or any other third party, should not be able to discover how you voted, except under very unusual circumstances (like an totally unanimous vote of a large number of people).
Your vote must be plausibly deniable --- a third party T should not be able to coerce you to vote in a specific way by requiring you to verify that you voted in that way. This requirement also means that it is not viable to buy votes.
The main problem with evoting isn't technical. It's that Joe Sixpack is incapable of understanding the requirements themselves (try explaining "plausible deniability" to someone in a bar), never mind the contortions necessary to satisfy them (advanced cryptography).
you might be like Estonia - every citizen gets an ID card with a proper PGP-ish electronic signature in it and he can vote on a web site using that signature either in a voting booth or at home and later verify his vote with a hash on a tally.
And therefore it is obvious that the Estonian voting system violates two security requirements for a US election:
Your vote must be anonymous --- the government, or any other third party, should not be able to discover how you voted, except under very unusual circumstances (like an totally unanimous vote of a large number of people).
Your vote must be plausibly deniable --- a third party T should not be able to coerce you to vote in a specific way by requiring you to verify that you voted in that way. This requirement also means that it is not viable to buy votes.
The main problem with evoting isn't technical. It's that Joe Sixpack is incapable of understanding the requirements themselves (try explaining "plausible deniability" to someone in a bar), never mind the contortions necessary to satisfy them (for remote voting, we're talking about advanced cryptography).
Sorry, I missed something? The article reiterates the tobacco money story, but where in that article does it say he apologized? The closest I saw was that his office "declined to comment on lawmakers' concerns about his ties to lobbyists"?
> Someone who publishes a web page does it for the sole purpose of broadcasting its content.
You lack imagination. The publisher could very easily intend only to publish for a small set of viewers. On the face of it, that was exactly the intent for the intercepted email (it presumably wasn't narcissistic messages people sent to themselves).
> ENCRYPT OR ELSE YOUR BANKING INFO IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE
You also seem to lack a basic understanding of computer security. If accessing your on-line banking using an unencrypted WiFi connection reveals your banking info, that merely means that your bank has no freaking clue about computer security, because it should be using end-to-end encryption and possibly some kind of token-based authentication. (And in that case, your unencrypted router is probably the least of your worries, since the link just before the bank itself is a much better place for criminals to siphon off this information --- albeit, they'd need quite a bit heftier equipment to make use of the greater concentration.)
Of course, the absolutely most likely way Joe Clueless's banking info is revealed is that he's been rooted.
Of course they got the code, they just didn't get it exclusively. Something which is obvious with FOSS.
The exclusive thing which they did get, is the ability to relicense the code as they see fit. They just don't seem to be using that ability because (I guess) they don't seem to think this has any value.
I think the poster you replied to did not mean "iPhone" literally and unequivocally, I believe he meant it merely as a possible example. His argument is similar to a scenario which I envisioned, which is that current eBook readers become quaint old technology and the new readers, somehow, cannot support the old DRM format because the consortium which was licensing the technology has ceased to function. Oh, and the publishers, of course, don't agree to convert the books you've bought from them to the new DRM format for you, without taking extra money.
Asimov did this long ago, while panning "The Double Helix" at the same time. And now for some meta-humor, I post a link to a DRMed eBook edition of that short story.
(Hint: don't buy it in that format. Find a used copy of "Opus 100" instead. After that you might feel morally justified in downloading it. Or not --- a chacun son gout.)
Legally? Who knows. Why don't you go and hire a $200/hr lawyer to do some research about it. BTW, even if he says "yes", that doesn't mean that Amazon's lawyers won't someday decide "no". In fact, my guess is that it's probably unlikely that the Kindle book distribution service will outlive a healthy teenager of today. The most likely scenario is that suddenly one day those books will just disappear.
OTOH, you probably could probably just as easily put your Kindle on/under your scanner/camera and just scan your books, page by page. Or even, *gasp*, download the books illegally from a public WiFi connection (they're *books*, no one is going to notice the bandwidth if you download them one at a time), or if you're uncomfortable with that, ask a friend who knows how to do this to do it for you and send you the books by email.
Don't you feel any indignation at all that copyright has been twisted so much you have to go into intellectual contortions to think about how you might be able to pass on your books to your children after you die? And some of the best methods to do this are illegal?
It's possible to test, using these models of evolution, whether the more advanced behaviors we see, like posting to Slashdot, could eventually be attained by these computer models.
Actually there was recently a headline about some kind of relatively advanced behavior which was evolved in this way (not using that particular program). Sorry, I don't remember what it was. Have a vague hunch I heard about from the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast.
I suppose it's supposed to add extra evidence to help convert the evolution-nay-sayers, but frankly, they're preaching to a (relatively) deaf choir, in that case.
Any chance you will (or already have) posted instructions or a description of this invention?
I was kind of hoping that by the time my dog will need it, there'd be an affordable exoskeleton available for this problem; on the other hand, given my dog's temperament, he'd be afraid of his own exoskeleton.
Slashdot Mirror
These kinds of users would probably be fooled by a phish which duplicates the look & feel of their store.
I think that eventually people will end up only doing banking and (to a lesser extent) shopping from "trusted platforms" : either the Apple-walled-garden-style ones, or from a live Linux distro booted from read-only media, set up for no data persistence. (Yes, I know neither of those is totally secure --- nothing is totally secure!)
Interesting that the only walled garden product that I can think of which Microsoft offers is its XBox gaming console. I wonder if people will start to use gaming consoles for this, and if banks will eventually start to offer "banking interface programs" which run on gaming consoles (I can just imagine someone saying "I'm tired of killing cops in GTA --- Time to hit Citibank and go to sleep.". Even funnier is the image of some clueless gamer trying to get "God mode" in his banking application.)
Ah, yes, that was in 2004 --- but I dare say that the Israeli opinion seems much more bold in its emphasizing the good of society good vs. the rights of creators.
I have to wonder if, just maybe, the lawyers for the foreign soccer league somehow pissed off the Israeli judge and she decided in that way knowing that (1) it'd piss off the soccer league, (2) she'd get her 15 minutes of fame, and (3) it would probably be overruled on appeal anyway.
After a little research, it seems to me that Israel is the first (and only) nation in the world where "fair use" is possibly a "right" (see the section titled ' New User "Rights" ').
This is since Sept. 2009. My impression is that the decision has been appealed but hasn't been heard yet. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's administration wouldn't have a few (unofficial) things to say to the Israeli government when the appeal comes up in the Israeli courts.
> Why are you so angry and argumentative.
You are arguing about a topic which is the basis for a terrific amount of frustration for many people. Including me. The AC "NERD RAGE" comment was, actually, dead on target, amusingly.
> YOU constantly say things,
Yes, it is hard to have a dialog otherwise. ;-)
> attribute them to me,
Yes, you are seeing how I interpret what you have said. I do this because I don't believe you have the ability to magically know how I interpret what you have said. So I have to tell you.
You replied to gdshaw's comment (about the standard of proof, criminal vs. civil, etc.) by flaming him (in that the entire content of your comment merely dismisses him as ignorant, without adding any value to the discussion). I now see that you may have done this because you confused him with me (since you later accuse him of "stalking" you and as far as I can see this is the first time he's replied to you in the recent past). If you think I'm "stalking" you, you are wrong. First of all, IMO you can't "stalk" someone based on behavior in one Slashdot topic --- stalking would require for me to continue to monitor your Slashdot posts for an extended period.
In this particular discussion, after reading one of your posts, I classified you as (1) having a very different opinion about the topic than I have, and (2) being someone who claims to know what "reality" is while dismissing what others think, on a topic which includes a lot of matter requiring subjective judgment. I therefore decided that it would be worthwhile for me to review your other comments to see what you say in them, and possibly reply to them to prevent you from "drowning out" my point of view (well, that's not actually being totally honest --- I admit that you also made me angry and evoked an irrational emotional reaction). If this is your definition of "stalking", then you are correct. So be it.
As for the posts I made, none of which you actually understood, for which I apologize: the point of the post where I dissed you for flaming gdshaw was to try to point out to you that it's ridiculous for you to present yourself as being an expert on the legal situation here since the real legal "reality" won't become clear before the Supreme Court rules (or denies certiorari) on this topic. BTW, to me it wasn't at all clear that you were understanding gdshaw's post in the very narrow way in which I now think you saw it --- that he was proposing that all of tort law be thrown out, returning us to the era of debtor's prisons --- because I interpreted his post as meaning to say that the concept of "exemplary damages" is stupid/immoral/bad/... (and many other nation's legal systems seem to agree with him). My reply to your reply, in which I (to you) seemingly pull out the "proof of greater malfeasance" out of thin air, is due to having interpreted gdshaw's comment differently from you --- the "proof of greater malfeasance" line being a paraphrase of what I thought gdshaw meant, in more technically correct legal terminology (if I was lucky --- I have no legal training). I did this because I thought you were flaming him for framing his post in incorrect terminology --- as I explained to you in that post.
And now you are either understanding better, or really more totally confused, but for me it doesn't really matter. I've spent several hours framing this reply so you might understand better, and choose to end my side of the discussion here. Accept my apologies if you were hurt by my argumentative nature during the duration of our dialog.
> Doesn't piratebay use other people's work to make a profit, though?
So do manpower agencies, no? And Google, no? And so do you, or the business you work for (think of all those slaving Edison employees who enabled you to use electricity and electric lighting).
Ah, you weren't talking about the work of the people who post the torrents there?
The real question you have to ask is how culpable is the supplier of a facility, for economic damages caused by other people using that facility. The answer, as far as I can see, to that question is, well, "it depends".
Ah, so tort law has been revised when I wasn't looking and now punitive damages don't require proof of a greater malfeasance than compensatory damages?
I understand that the poster you replied to didn't use the proper terminology, but that didn't mean you needed to flame him. Especially without any explanation whatsoever.
Of course, I fully understand you. All of us anarchistic freaks who don't care about the letter of the law, and just do what we feel is morally correct, really rub you the wrong way. No?
You do understand that this outcome will practically certainly be appealed based on constitutional grounds, right? Since you are such an expert?
What we are seeing is precedent in the making. There really isn't any yet in this area (what to do in the case where a party is claimed to be significantly damaged economically by the actions of a vast multitude of individuals who cooperate using the net, while each individual actually causes very minimal damage by himself).
Please show us where all this was clearly foreseen by the Founding Fathers. Righhhht.
> I would even bet that more illegal file sharers have won a million
> dollars in the lottery than have lost a million dollars in court.
It would be a sucker bet, since none of the defendants up to now has had a million dollars to lose. The worst that can happen to you is bankruptcy, which, judging from the reports of some Slashdotters, isn't really all that bad an experience, especially if you are young.
Now that I think of it, maybe the others just committed suicide and I get that impression because of reporting bias?
> the only thing the MAFIAA is interested in is the precedent.
And they haven't gotten that yet. They've only showed that what Charles Nesson claimed in his amicus brief to the court was absolutely correct --- it is well-nigh impossible that a jury will return a reasonable damage amount when it is instructed solely what the minimum and maximum damages are, as stated in the law.
I haven't been impressed by anything Nesson has done in these cases before, but I have to admit that filing that amicus brief was pretty savvy. Either the outcome of the case says "I told you so" to the court system, or the defendant gets a reasonable damage amount from the jury. A nice move.
You can be 99% sure this will now be appealed based on the constitutional right to due process being violated by the excessive amount.
That was a pretty quick spoiler. I guess you young'uns just don't understand how it is when yer brain gets all fuzzy and slow.
(I didn't even notice the comment title. I am embarrassed to admit that I actually remember that book being one of the last dead-tree science fiction books I bought, but I have never gotten around to reading it, and am not sure if I could even still find it, because my life suddenly mutated in unexpected ways quite soon after the purchase. A good excuse, I suppose, to go looking for it now.)
Hey, weren't you the one who first explained that you have to make it so painful they'll never do it again?
Both your comment and commodore64_love's were ridiculous, just in the opposite directions.
Hm, it doesn't have a "+1 Thanks for the conundrum" moderation, either. Oh, well. :-)
And therefore it is obvious that the Estonian voting system violates two security requirements for a US election:
The main problem with evoting isn't technical. It's that Joe Sixpack is incapable of understanding the requirements themselves (try explaining "plausible deniability" to someone in a bar), never mind the contortions necessary to satisfy them (advanced cryptography).
And therefore it is obvious that the Estonian voting system violates two security requirements for a US election:
The main problem with evoting isn't technical. It's that Joe Sixpack is incapable of understanding the requirements themselves (try explaining "plausible deniability" to someone in a bar), never mind the contortions necessary to satisfy them (for remote voting, we're talking about advanced cryptography).
Sorry, I missed something? The article reiterates the tobacco money story, but where in that article does it say he apologized? The closest I saw was that his office "declined to comment on lawmakers' concerns about his ties to lobbyists"?
"Scholars Say ACTA Needs Senate Approval" : Wise men say it needs Senate disapproval.
> Someone who publishes a web page does it for the sole purpose of broadcasting its content.
You lack imagination. The publisher could very easily intend only to publish for a small set of viewers. On the face of it, that was exactly the intent for the intercepted email (it presumably wasn't narcissistic messages people sent to themselves).
> ENCRYPT OR ELSE YOUR BANKING INFO IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE
You also seem to lack a basic understanding of computer security. If accessing your on-line banking using an unencrypted WiFi connection reveals your banking info, that merely means that your bank has no freaking clue about computer security, because it should be using end-to-end encryption and possibly some kind of token-based authentication. (And in that case, your unencrypted router is probably the least of your worries, since the link just before the bank itself is a much better place for criminals to siphon off this information --- albeit, they'd need quite a bit heftier equipment to make use of the greater concentration.)
Of course, the absolutely most likely way Joe Clueless's banking info is revealed is that he's been rooted.
> and if they don't get the code either
Of course they got the code, they just didn't get it exclusively. Something which is obvious with FOSS.
The exclusive thing which they did get, is the ability to relicense the code as they see fit. They just don't seem to be using that ability because (I guess) they don't seem to think this has any value.
Yes, they were selling WMA files, to be exact.
> The iPhone is definitely not the same market ...
I think the poster you replied to did not mean "iPhone" literally and unequivocally, I believe he meant it merely as a possible example. His argument is similar to a scenario which I envisioned, which is that current eBook readers become quaint old technology and the new readers, somehow, cannot support the old DRM format because the consortium which was licensing the technology has ceased to function. Oh, and the publishers, of course, don't agree to convert the books you've bought from them to the new DRM format for you, without taking extra money.
Asimov did this long ago, while panning "The Double Helix" at the same time. And now for some meta-humor, I post a link to a DRMed eBook edition of that short story.
http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook3062.htm.
(Hint: don't buy it in that format. Find a used copy of "Opus 100" instead. After that you might feel morally justified in downloading it. Or not --- a chacun son gout.)
> Do you think one can do this?
Legally? Who knows. Why don't you go and hire a $200/hr lawyer to do some research about it. BTW, even if he says "yes", that doesn't mean that Amazon's lawyers won't someday decide "no". In fact, my guess is that it's probably unlikely that the Kindle book distribution service will outlive a healthy teenager of today. The most likely scenario is that suddenly one day those books will just disappear.
OTOH, you probably could probably just as easily put your Kindle on/under your scanner/camera and just scan your books, page by page. Or even, *gasp*, download the books illegally from a public WiFi connection (they're *books*, no one is going to notice the bandwidth if you download them one at a time), or if you're uncomfortable with that, ask a friend who knows how to do this to do it for you and send you the books by email.
Don't you feel any indignation at all that copyright has been twisted so much you have to go into intellectual contortions to think about how you might be able to pass on your books to your children after you die? And some of the best methods to do this are illegal?
It's possible to test, using these models of evolution, whether the more advanced behaviors we see, like posting to Slashdot, could eventually be attained by these computer models.
Actually there was recently a headline about some kind of relatively advanced behavior which was evolved in this way (not using that particular program). Sorry, I don't remember what it was. Have a vague hunch I heard about from the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast.
I suppose it's supposed to add extra evidence to help convert the evolution-nay-sayers, but frankly, they're preaching to a (relatively) deaf choir, in that case.
Why? There isn't added pathos from mixing MIB with SNL?
> and uses a DIY robo-wheel-chair for walks now
Any chance you will (or already have) posted instructions or a description of this invention?
I was kind of hoping that by the time my dog will need it, there'd be an affordable exoskeleton available for this problem; on the other hand, given my dog's temperament, he'd be afraid of his own exoskeleton.