They accidentally collected this data? Yeah right.
Lets assume the quality control for code vital for a project costing many millions was slack enough to let this kind of feature slip by test.
Would they have failed to notice them filling dozens of HDDs a week when they should've only needed a small number for a country?
When they went home and looked over the data, you think they didn't notice that they were capturing significant amounts of data alongside SSID, IP and location information?
They knew all about this and did nothing to stop it. Heck they probably saw it as a bonus (must've kept doing it for a reason, the data storage would eat up valuable budget money)
Not drawing the curtains is not permission to set up a camera with a good zoom lens to record someone changing every night.
Wearing a skirt and panties is not permission for someone to point a camera upwards underneath.
Typing in your PIN publically at an ATM does not give someone permission to put up a camera to record it.
Privacy laws are based around how much you expect privacy in situations and how much someone realises they're seeing or recording something that the victim really doesn't want made shared (with public interest exceptions).
Lib Dems are big on civil liberties, Conservatives will want to both undermine Labour and show themselves to be strong.
Blocking the extradition would give both leaders brownie points with their own MPs. They'll want to stifle any murmurs of discontent from MPs who weren't to happy at their leaders 'selling out' their core values to get in power.
The point of 'fancy formatting options' isn't so that everyone spends all their time making things look pretty and not doing actual work. It's so that one person can spend a bit of extra time on a document and make it clearer and easier to work with for hundreds or thousands of other people who'll be handling it.
Just because a document uses advanced formatting, it doesn't mean the people using it need to worry about how it works. With proper use of templates all they need to know is where to type what and which styles to use for different bits of text.
Feel free to start a business where 1000 employees all struggle with clunky, ugly, unprofessional documents rather than having 1 of those 1000 employees making life easier for the other 999 and making their documents better presented for clients.
Their only communications regarding this are through legal documents. They've not released any statements thus, they're not getting into a war of words. As time goes on, the only extra information coming out is details of the crime.
It's possible a public trial will force them to start publically laying into the people involved though.
I disagree. I think it's very important that the baseline of what it acceptable, ethical journalism is made clear.
Today it's a prototype phone left on a barstool, sold to a tech blog, tommorrow it's Lindsay Lohan's pickpocketed Cellphone sold to TMZ so they can rifle through her text messages and voicemail.
Likewise the concept of 'finders keepers' needs to be constantly debunked as theivery. (Car analogy alert). If someone finds my car keys, I don't want them to drive it around for a week before returning it to me (after I go to a fair amount of effort to track it down)
You don't need to know many languages to develop a good webapp! It only takes HTML, CSS, Javascript, SQL, PHP and a bit of Linux knowledge to put together a simple app!
Even if they do violate the GPL and distribute the program, you do not have any right to release the code against your employer's wishes (only a judge has the ability to force the release of code). If you do so, you will be sued or possibly charged under trade secret laws.
Everything you've coded is your employer's property and although the GPL may supersede their ownership rights, there is still a hierarchy of rights of which you are not a part of.
I can walk in with a handful of paper and rig in an election. I can pour a bottle of ink into a box and spoil all the ballots inside. Paper ballots offer countless ways of affecting votes.
Hardware based attacks that rely on invasive access are stupid in terms of demonstrating 'how vulnerable' an e-voting system is. The assumptions you have to make are stupid; You assume no one will notice someone taking 10 minutes to vote , that they're carrying tools, that they get down on their knees to open the case, that they're oddly noisy for someone voting.
Even assuming you have such incredibly incompetent officials monitoring the voting, you should still prevent this by putting tamper proof seals on the machine's casing.
The whole issue of fair use has been warped quite a bit by people believing they've a good knowledge of related laws because of reading tech sites and places like Digg, Reddit and Slashdot.
Too many people look at cases that are right at the legal limit of fair use and had to be argued heavily in court and be well justified. Rather than looking that at the point where fair use ends, they see that as a new baseline and then step over the mark whilst thinking the law is on their side.
It's not too hard to code a page to store things typed in despite not sending anything through post or get. How many people would notice heavily obfuscated javascript like that?
There seems to be a common perception by a lot of people that the GPL isn't just another licence agreement and that it's the same as public domain.
It's somewhat amusing looking at some code sharing sites which allow you to specify the licence. There are scores of GPL'ed ~5 line code snippets for generic algorithms the use of which would easily be excused under fair use laws making their GPL status moot.
The subtitles are the only aspect of it that was a parody. The rest of the video is unaltered. You would be laughed out of court if you used this example.
To highlight why this isn't protected: I could do joke subs to say, Iron Man 2 and then legally copy the entire film and the film studio wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Parodies require a certain amount of original content to be protected.
The director likes them so that makes it fine and dandy.
The producers , the actors, the financial backers, the distributors and the hundreds of other people who were involved in the making of this film, who cares about what they think?
Not saying the rest of the production team approve or disapprove but to say that because one person involved in making the film (who probably has minimal legal rights to it anyway) says it's ok, you should have permission is also rather stupid.
Sorry, that's a poor argument that Gizmodo are using to justify unethical reporting. If he hadn't been fired by the time the story had broke. He wasn't going to be fired.
How were Gizmodo in anyway classy about this? "LOL this guy got drunk on German beer and lost an incredibly valuable prototype!!! Look at his facebook!!!"
The guy probably got chewed out by his boss, got a written warning and now, a few days later he has to deal with this intense public humiliation.
When he does get a job in the future, a search for his name will reveal this story to potential employers. Unless someone with the same name does something more noteworthy, this story will haunt him for life.
It's a fundamental aspect of ethical reporting. You do not identify low level employees who made high profile mistakes. It adds nothing to the story whilst at the same time potentially ruins that person's life.
Apple will have full control over what HTML5 is able to do on the iphone they could limit performance or functionality in a way that would make it pretty difficult to make advanced apps.
Also, pushing HTML5 with the iphone lets then shape the specification more than perhaps they otherwise would have been able to.
Lastly, HTML5 is still years away from mainstream adoption.
Slashdot Mirror
They accidentally collected this data? Yeah right.
Lets assume the quality control for code vital for a project costing many millions was slack enough to let this kind of feature slip by test.
Would they have failed to notice them filling dozens of HDDs a week when they should've only needed a small number for a country?
When they went home and looked over the data, you think they didn't notice that they were capturing significant amounts of data alongside SSID, IP and location information?
They knew all about this and did nothing to stop it. Heck they probably saw it as a bonus (must've kept doing it for a reason, the data storage would eat up valuable budget money)
An unlocked door is not permission to enter
Not drawing the curtains is not permission to set up a camera with a good zoom lens to record someone changing every night.
Wearing a skirt and panties is not permission for someone to point a camera upwards underneath.
Typing in your PIN publically at an ATM does not give someone permission to put up a camera to record it.
Privacy laws are based around how much you expect privacy in situations and how much someone realises they're seeing or recording something that the victim really doesn't want made shared (with public interest exceptions).
Lib Dems are big on civil liberties, Conservatives will want to both undermine Labour and show themselves to be strong.
Blocking the extradition would give both leaders brownie points with their own MPs. They'll want to stifle any murmurs of discontent from MPs who weren't to happy at their leaders 'selling out' their core values to get in power.
The point of 'fancy formatting options' isn't so that everyone spends all their time making things look pretty and not doing actual work. It's so that one person can spend a bit of extra time on a document and make it clearer and easier to work with for hundreds or thousands of other people who'll be handling it.
Just because a document uses advanced formatting, it doesn't mean the people using it need to worry about how it works. With proper use of templates all they need to know is where to type what and which styles to use for different bits of text.
Feel free to start a business where 1000 employees all struggle with clunky, ugly, unprofessional documents rather than having 1 of those 1000 employees making life easier for the other 999 and making their documents better presented for clients.
Apple are doing quite well so far.
Their only communications regarding this are through legal documents. They've not released any statements thus, they're not getting into a war of words. As time goes on, the only extra information coming out is details of the crime.
It's possible a public trial will force them to start publically laying into the people involved though.
Unfortunately, all the people who send out press passes to industry events or who send them expensive review/preview items will also know about this.
It's not unthinkable they'll be blackballed. Even by Apple's rivals.
I disagree. I think it's very important that the baseline of what it acceptable, ethical journalism is made clear.
Today it's a prototype phone left on a barstool, sold to a tech blog, tommorrow it's Lindsay Lohan's pickpocketed Cellphone sold to TMZ so they can rifle through her text messages and voicemail.
Likewise the concept of 'finders keepers' needs to be constantly debunked as theivery. (Car analogy alert). If someone finds my car keys, I don't want them to drive it around for a week before returning it to me (after I go to a fair amount of effort to track it down)
You don't need to know many languages to develop a good webapp! It only takes HTML, CSS, Javascript, SQL, PHP and a bit of Linux knowledge to put together a simple app!
I make £20,000 and I still lose my shirt. I really should organise my laundry better...
Even if they do violate the GPL and distribute the program, you do not have any right to release the code against your employer's wishes (only a judge has the ability to force the release of code). If you do so, you will be sued or possibly charged under trade secret laws.
Everything you've coded is your employer's property and although the GPL may supersede their ownership rights, there is still a hierarchy of rights of which you are not a part of.
I can walk in with a handful of paper and rig in an election. I can pour a bottle of ink into a box and spoil all the ballots inside. Paper ballots offer countless ways of affecting votes.
Hardware based attacks that rely on invasive access are stupid in terms of demonstrating 'how vulnerable' an e-voting system is. The assumptions you have to make are stupid; You assume no one will notice someone taking 10 minutes to vote , that they're carrying tools, that they get down on their knees to open the case, that they're oddly noisy for someone voting.
Even assuming you have such incredibly incompetent officials monitoring the voting, you should still prevent this by putting tamper proof seals on the machine's casing.
Archos home Tablet 7 is released next month.
$200. 7" WVGA screen with a 600mhz ARM9 Cortex 160gb hdd.
There have been a handfull of $600-ish Atom based tablets but they generally suffer from a 2.5 hour battery life.
These Protocols are crazy!
The whole issue of fair use has been warped quite a bit by people believing they've a good knowledge of related laws because of reading tech sites and places like Digg, Reddit and Slashdot.
Too many people look at cases that are right at the legal limit of fair use and had to be argued heavily in court and be well justified. Rather than looking that at the point where fair use ends, they see that as a new baseline and then step over the mark whilst thinking the law is on their side.
It's not too hard to code a page to store things typed in despite not sending anything through post or get. How many people would notice heavily obfuscated javascript like that?
There seems to be a common perception by a lot of people that the GPL isn't just another licence agreement and that it's the same as public domain.
It's somewhat amusing looking at some code sharing sites which allow you to specify the licence. There are scores of GPL'ed ~5 line code snippets for generic algorithms the use of which would easily be excused under fair use laws making their GPL status moot.
The subtitles are the only aspect of it that was a parody. The rest of the video is unaltered. You would be laughed out of court if you used this example.
To highlight why this isn't protected: I could do joke subs to say, Iron Man 2 and then legally copy the entire film and the film studio wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Parodies require a certain amount of original content to be protected.
The director likes them so that makes it fine and dandy.
The producers , the actors, the financial backers, the distributors and the hundreds of other people who were involved in the making of this film, who cares about what they think?
Not saying the rest of the production team approve or disapprove but to say that because one person involved in making the film (who probably has minimal legal rights to it anyway) says it's ok, you should have permission is also rather stupid.
Thank god they protected the person trafficking stolen goods rather than the person he stole from!
Sorry, that's a poor argument that Gizmodo are using to justify unethical reporting. If he hadn't been fired by the time the story had broke. He wasn't going to be fired.
How were Gizmodo in anyway classy about this? "LOL this guy got drunk on German beer and lost an incredibly valuable prototype!!! Look at his facebook!!!"
The guy probably got chewed out by his boss, got a written warning and now, a few days later he has to deal with this intense public humiliation.
When he does get a job in the future, a search for his name will reveal this story to potential employers. Unless someone with the same name does something more noteworthy, this story will haunt him for life.
It's a fundamental aspect of ethical reporting. You do not identify low level employees who made high profile mistakes. It adds nothing to the story whilst at the same time potentially ruins that person's life.
If a site is capable of executing user submitted content it's hardly immune from attacks.
Will we see what happens when a Wasp is struck by lightning?
Apple will have full control over what HTML5 is able to do on the iphone they could limit performance or functionality in a way that would make it pretty difficult to make advanced apps.
Also, pushing HTML5 with the iphone lets then shape the specification more than perhaps they otherwise would have been able to.
Lastly, HTML5 is still years away from mainstream adoption.
25% of the smartphone market
99% of the mobile app store market (as of 2009. Android has probably clawed a bit of market share since then)
You can have a closed platform but you are not allowed to prevent competitors from operating on it whilst allowing everyone else.
You have to be fair and create a level playing field for all companies that wish to produce software for it.