Imagine the additional cost in supporting this tiered model as well
These games all have a/played counter. Enhance that a bit, make it available on demand, and show it during log-in, log-out.
I can see, every month, thousands of phone calls by angry customers saying "I only played 10 1/2 hours this month. Why am I being billed at the 11-20 hour tier?".
I can see a few. I don't see thousands really bitching over a few bucks, especially if you give them a/played counter that shows the time played, and login history... with durations, and adds it all up so they can see they played 11.5 hrs.
Hell auto bill them the lower teir if they are only over by an hour, and you'll reduce the calls to a trickle.
There are two huge problems with this kind of subscription system: 1. How do would they charge you? - They could book the maximum possible amount ($15.95) up-front but that would result in constant booking on your CC - They could charge you every time you enter the next level in payment structure, but this would increase the payment overhead fivefold - They could charge after a period of playing but that would result in massive number of botters/farmers using fake CC details
They could do it the same as these automatic tiered cell phone plans do it. Record your usage, and then bill you the appropriate tier at the end of the month.
To address your final point, you prepay one month at the full rate upon joining.
2. This is exactly the kind of subscription model that APB had and was one of the main reasons for their failure. People don't like to be presented with options like: "will you be playing 1-10, 10-20 or 20+ hours this month?". MMO's are supposed to be entertainment for free time. Planning ahead "10-20" hours of entertainment will make it feel like work.
No. Make it AUTOMATIC based on what you did. My cell phone data plan is like this, it automatically bills me at the appropriate tier based on my usage.
It is much more fun to pay $15 and play as much as you like than to constantly worry if I'm going to loose money by playing too little or too much.
There is nothing "fun" about paying $15 a month, and realizing you've gone 2 months and have only logged in once.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of your profitable MMO games are Everquest clones. That's all I was saying. Anything else you got beyond that you read into yourself.
I -wish- they were everquest clones. Everquest was hard. Everquest rewarded team work. Everquest had its share of flaws (although some of what were considered its flaws I consider strengths)... but when you accomplished something in everquest it felt like an accomplishment.
Some people don't like monthly fees. Makes them feel like they have to play to get their money's worth. Silly perhaps but it is what it is.
Apparently the average gamer logs over 20 hrs per week.
So yeah, if you are playing 20 hours a week, and think you need to spend your remaining free time to get your money's worth, than yeah, that's silly.
I don't have a lot of free time. I'm lucky if I manage 20 hours of gaming a MONTH (in all games combined). Between work, wife, kids... time just flies by for me. When I am regularly going over a week without logging in then the subscription fee does start to weigh on my conscious as a waste of money, and yeah when I sit down to play through the next segment of Metroid Prime 3 and it occurs to me that I haven't logged into EQ2 in two weeks... I do genuinly feel some sense of... "well I better play EQ2, or I'm just throwing money away..." and at that point I cancel it.
What they need is some sort of scaling system...
Play more than 60hrs a month: full price $15.95 Play less than 60hrs a month: $12.95 Play less than 40hrs a month: $9.95 Play less than 20hrs a month: $5.95 Play less than 5hrs a month: $1.95
The average player plays 20 hrs a week, 80+ hrs a month and will solidly be in the full price range. While someone like me... if I hook up with friends we might bang out 25 hrs a 3 or 4 day marathon, and then I might play once or twice more that month... and hit the 9.95 mark. Another month I might log in a couple times to fool around and pay $5.95. Another month I might not log in at all, and wouldn't flinch at dropping 2 bucks on the game despite not playing it.
I'd easily still be running 2 or 3 subscriptions to different games on a system like this. I'd probably have my wife sub'd for a game too. (We enjoy playing together but she's even more casual than I am... if I manage to play something 3 or 4 times a month, she might join me for one of those... and a whole extra full price monthly subscription so we can play together once in a while.... not worth it.
Also, remember that in Canada, the people isn't sovereign, the Queen is. She is the root source of all authority and power of law.
She really isn't. She has no control over the courts - they operate in her name, but she has zero influence over them. She has no power to enact law unlaterally. Her assent is technically required to pass a law. But if the Queen decided to instruct the govenor general to withhold Royal assent to a law that had been passed by parliament and the senate -- in this day and age? We'd pretty much be in uncharted waters.
"uncharted waters" applies to pretty much any situation where the Queen's representatives don't do precisely what they are expected to do.
Microsoft isn't even on the list. But I found other sources suggesting they are ~100,000 employees
And that's just "IT". Many other companies on the list in fields including Banks, Financial Services, Aerospace, and Utilities also really *should* have substantial security budgets. So, maybe it is 'worthy of note' that Microsoft has spent more on training its staff and devs on security. (Assuming its true... I'm skeptical that there is a good source for that information in the first place... but perhaps there is?)
It doesn't tell Chuck Norris what to drink. Chuck Norris tells it what to drink...
Seriously though, I wonder if the triple sales is simply novelty. People are using it just to see what it will suggest... that sort of thing. After the novelty wears off, will sales return to normal?
You mean except for all of the actual executable code being Oracle's?
Except for it being opensource so its not, and it was managed by Sun which is not Oracle. Oracle bought Sun, rebranded OpenOffice from Sun to Oracle (as should be expected) and that's about it.
Switching to LibreOffice should be the same as the original Sun OpenOffice except rebranded by the Document Foundation, and they are patching in enhancement by RedHat and Go-OOo that were never accepted by Sun.
To ignore any of these points regarding the consumer is just painting a big red failure sign on the barn.
Its physically located under the battery, and its covered by a sticker with a warning on it. The sticker on the one I saw you had to cut through to actually insert a card, there was a prominent warning on it, and it mentioned voiding your warranty.)
Its not like there its on the side of the phone wide open and ready to receive media.
You are right that there will be some JoeBlow out there with just enough tech-savvy to find and recognize the card slot, and enough recklessness to cut through the sticker and jam the first thing he can find that will fit into it...
That's NOT going to be your average user. That's going to that same class of idiot that randomly sticks ram modules into their motherboards without regard to whether the motherboard will accept that particular speed or configuration. The kind who tries sharing his printer by plugging it into the usb port on his PVR, the kind who has his entire living room plugged into a bar plugged into a power bar plugged into a power bar. The kind who have their cable modem plugged into a LAN port on their router, the kind who plug their TV into their PVR using an HDMI to DVI adapter and wonder why their is no sound only to then plug in a set of composite cables and watch everything on the composite input "in HD".
I know people like that. There's one at the office... he was excited to find an old motorola 9-pin serial to RJ-45 adapter used to program certain 2-way radios. Why was this a big deal? He also had a USB-serial device used for old blackberrys. He figured he'd be able to use his ipod as a network attached storage. The missing link... a male-male usb adapter. Luckily... he had a USB hub he wasn't using. Game-set-match! (True story.)
Since when do we at slashdot really concern ourselves about the fate of these people?
This information alone means that I'll avoid ever getting a Windows phone, even if it should have tremendous advantages otherwise.
Why? Because of a hyperbole laden/. thread? That's a terrible reason to decide anything.
There is a warning on the phone. There is clear documentation that this will happen. The slot is not designed for convenient insertion/removal. It is not intended to be used as a portable storage.
It is intended to be a permanent expansion module for the phone, not removal SD storage.
Let me ask you this: Suppose they didn't use an SD card slot. Suppose they had instead developed a proprietary connector instead and sold the expansion as proprietary modules that had to be installed at a service center. Would that trigger the same sort of averse reaction from you?
I'm curious, because if you wanted to upgrade your 16GB iPhone to 32GB that's essentially the process assuming you could even get it done... do you avoid iPhones because of that?
MS is using the SD form factor for this because it meets their needs, and using an existing form factor reduces engineering and manufacturing costs. Don't think of it as 'SD removal storage' and think of it as an upgrade kit that just happens use the SD form factor. Honestly, most consumers will likely never even use the functionality at all. And for those few that do decide to expand their phone this way, it requires very specific SD cards, and its well documented that its a permanent upgrade using SD form factor and not plug/play removal storage.
Then insist upon encryption, not making it illegal.
Why one and not the other?
I'm not arguing people don't need encryption, or that we shouldn't encrypt.
But a lot of people here are arguing that if it isn't locked down tight it should be completely legal to help themselves.
Making interception of Wifi traffic illegal does *nothing* to protect you from the government - only encryption (verifiable encryption with no backdoors) can do that.
Its illegal to enter your home.
The governement of course still does it under a variety of circumstances, so the law does "nothing" to protect you right? Of course not; if it were legal to walk into your home the flunkie behind the desk where you register your pets would be empowred to show up and inspect your home with impunity.
The law making it illegal goes a long way to keeping them out of your house. There would be a constant train of inspectors and god-knows-what else tramping through your house if it were legal to do so.
Similarly, if its legal to sift through your data, then they WILL do it with impunity. If its illegal, then yeah, like entering your home, they'll still do it but it raises the bar considerably, and if they do it improperly it can't be used as evidence against you, etc, etc.
Your right that good Encryption will provide you with actual protection. Just as a good lock helps keep people out of your house. And I'm not suggesting we don't need them.
But arguing that you should use encryption isn't really a valid argument against making collecting data from personal wifi illegal.
The Crown Prosecution Service might get the hint that it was "not in the public interest" in the first place, and come to that correct conclusion in the future. That at least would be progress.
Our ears are a type listening technology. Our mouths and vocal chords make up the human speaker system. Our eyes are but cameras capturing data and relaying it on to our brains.
-sigh-
In this context your eyes are not technology. They did not come about through the application of knowledge or invention. They are not tools as they were not crafted. They are not technology, by the simple definition of technology.
They are natural.
The things that they can see naturally are the things in plain sight. Its really that simple.
Why is it that when I sense it with a microphone I'm all of the sudden a criminal?
Its not that you sensed it with a mic, its that you couldn't sense it with your ears. That is a subtle but important difference. Mics can go places ears can't go. Mics can sense things ears can't.
Perhaps this argument needs another point: intent.
I agree. Intent should always be considered.
I think that the idea of "invasion of privacy" is very self explanatory, "invasion" being the key word. Google driving around and, by happenstance, collecting your data on their antennas is not an "invasion of privacy."
They decoded the information, and recorded it. That's not "happenstance". Its not involuntary like overhearing a conversation at the next table.
I think that the idea of "invasion of privacy" is very self explanatory, "invasion" being the key word
Gotcha. So sitting in the tree across the street with a parabolic or laser mic recording your conversations isn't an invasion of your privacy?
Really?
Find their malicious intent and outlaw that.
Malicious intent makes it worse. But that doesn't mean innocent intent is a get out of jail free card. If I trespass into your home to feed your goldfish without your permission, its STILL illegal trespassing.
Yes, it should be, because if it's not, the bad guys will still do it and still capture the data. All that would be accomplished by making it illegal would be to prevent the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your data.
By that logic we should legalize people breaking car windows and stealing car stereos because its pretty easy, and the only thing we accomplish by making it illegal is that it prevents the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your car stereo.
That is ridiculous.
Furthermore, if its illegal, only -criminals- will do it from the shadows. That's still significant improvement over multinational corporations doing it with impunity in broad daylight.
If there's some false assumption that no one will intercept my wireless data because it's "illegal", then there will be no demand from consumers for manufacturers to encrypt that data.
The technology exists to listen to conversations through walls. At some point we just need to say that its illegal to use that to invade people's privacy. Or do you plan to require that people encrypt their conversations.
Enforcing security by making it illegal to listen is worse than security through obscurity. At least obscurity does make it harder to see the data - - making it illegal does no such thing.
Depends what you are trying to address. I'm honestly not all that worried about criminals at this point. The threat right now is coming from government and major corporations. And making it illegal does effectively curb their behavior.
Personally I doubt anyone thinks you are right, including you.
Unless you claim that I can write "A b Tire" and have it mean "a flat tire" because ascii doesn't have a the musical "flat" so I had no possibility of clarity...
If you wrote Ab to mean A-flat, that would be fine. You're example is just absurd.
In the case of c-sharp, they named it c-sharp to play on the fact that a C-sharp is a step above C. They are explicitly referencing the musical semantics. And then they wrote C#; within the constraints of ASCII.
I do not see that as anything approaching the absurd example you tried to constrive involving flat tires.
but can you come up with an example that doesn't involve entering private property to install a camera in one of the most private rooms of a house?
Actually, in my head writing it I was envisioning a public washroom; with the flush monitoring being set up by the maintenance engineers.
Google received unencrypted data from radio waves, so your example would better be someone installing a camera in their car and driving down streets taking photos of every house, even though it was just to count the number of houses.
The key difference I see there is 'taking photos from the street' is recording something in plain view. You don't need a camera to see the outside of someone's home. Nothing is being exposed that wasn't plainly visible.
A suitable example would involve recording/decoding/exposing a signal that is not 'plainly visible'.
A trivial example is that it is illegal in most places to use a radio scanner to record cordless phone conversations. (Even though analog and cheap/early digital cordless phones were not encrypted.)
If Google were interested in the number of cordless phones in use, it would still not be legal to drive around with a radio scanner recording conversations to analyze later.
Another good example might be constructed involving the use of a laser microphone. Laser mics measure vibrations on a membrane -- such as a pane of glass... and can be used to record conversations at distance and on the other side of that window by reconstructing those vibration measurements back into sound.
See, I knew we agreed. It always comes down to a question of semantics.
In that we disagree on the definition of 'plain view', yes, that seems to be the contention.
This is why the distinction between "signals that leave your home unencrypted" and "signals that are encrypted/don't leave your home" is a farther reaching definition here.
It is, I think, a VERY poor place to put the distinction.
It won't be long before someone releases a "firesheep" tool to get people's credit card numbers or naughty emails just by sitting in range of their wifi. Then would you consider it plain view?
No. I would not.
Being easy to expose it via technology doesn't change the fact that you are making a deliberate effort to use that technology to expose it.
Consider:
You are envisioning a firesheep to capture unencrypted wifi, and suggesting we call that "plain sight".
What happens when a firesheep comes out that can capture/intercept/decode the em from a wireless keyboard from outside one's home? That technology already exists. Should using a wireless keyboard be carteblanch for people to record your activities? I think not.
What about a "firesheep" that can capture/intercept/decode the em from a WIRED keyboard? The technology has already been demonstrated too... and in high density housing, you can easily get within a few feet of a victim (computer on a desk adjacent to a common wall between two suites separated by a bit of drywal and insulation. And you are never more than 5-6 feet from the suite above or below you either.
And what about using laser microphones on windows, or walls, to measure vibration, and recreate the inaudible sound on the other side? Another unencrypted signal leaving my home... how am I supposed to talk "encrypted"?
What about the em emitting from my computer screen? The tech exists to recreate the images on a monitor using the em emissions?
What about the light emitting from my computer screen? If it hits the curtains, and someone devises a way to re-combine the scattered light patterns into the the image on my screen... should they be allowed to point those devices at my home and watch and record what's on my screen?
"Unencrypted signals that leave your home" is simply far too wide open.
"plain view" makes a lot more sense defined as viewable without technological assistance, in my opinon.
No shit. It's like claiming that my ISP is collecting data about my traffic because as a side-effect of how their routers work, some of the data is left in their memory for a period of time after they've routed the packet.
Except you've expressly giving your ISP permission to do that. And as you observed its an essential part of providing YOU the service YOU are paying them to provide you.
Google driving around collecting that information is entirely different.
As I understand it, Google was collecting information about WiFi signals, particularly their names and locations. It chose to do so in a way that just logged everything their antennas picked up, so that they could then sift out the useful information later. Maybe their idea was that doing the sifting later avoided them missing something important, due to a software bug or something.
How exactly is that a defense of what they did? If I want to know how many times people flush the toilet I could add a flush sensor to the toilet, and capture the number of triggers. But hey there might be a bug and I might miss something... so instead I installed a camera to monitor the toilet, record everything, and then analyze the footage later; I just happened to record a bunch of people going to the washroom.
Guess what. That's still illegal. And I should have thought harder about the consequences of what I was doing.
Hell, when I walk down a street, the WiFi signals hitting my body probably leave some kind of signature in my molecules, perhaps moving them a bit, or changing their temperature slightly. Perhaps there's some way of extracting that information and OMG determining the data that was being transmitted as I walked past. Am I violating their privacy too?
Nope. Perhaps there is some way of decoding the data... but you didn't. If the wifi signals had simply hit googles antenna and were ignored it would be exactly that.
They recorded AND decoded those signals.
The question is whether I actually tried to extract said data.
Google recorded AND decoded it. They not only tried to extract said data, they succeeded. The fact that it wasn't the data they were looking for isn't relevant.
If I install a camera in a bathroom to track how many times the toilet is flushed, the fact remains that I'm recording people go to the bathroom. It doesn't really matter that it isn't the specific data I claimed I was interested in.
Google both decoded and recorded the signals. Those are both positive actions.
A better comparison is overhearing a conversation in a language you know.
Only if you "overheard" it using a radio scanner, and then recorded it, and then surprise, surprise it would be illegal for you to do that.
There is a fundamental difference between overhearing a conversation at the next table, and "overhearing" it via a radio scanner and recording it.
It's like you walked out in the street and announced everything you're doing
It is nothing like that at all. You might feel its the "technological equivalent" but the fact that its technological makes it different.
The need to use technology to expose it, is precisely what makes it not "plain view".
Its not in "plain view".
"Technological plain view" is an oxymoron.
If you're going to walk around naked all day, close your goddamned windows. Just because you're doing it in your house doesn't mean people can't see you.
Suppose he does close his curtains. The use of curtains removes him from plain view, right. Just as the use of clothes removes nakedness from plain view.
Suppose we develop a camera that can see right through curtains or clothes as if they weren't even there. Using that camera on people and their homes would be a violation of their privacy.
The fact that that you can use technology to expose what **isn't** in plain view, doesn't give you any right to. The fact that they aren't wearing lead pants and living in faraday cages doesn't give you the right to decode and expose the NOT IN PLAIN VIEW information leaking from their homes.
Slashdot Mirror
You speak of Everquest in past tense. It's still ongoing, isn't it?
Its not the same game it once was, and hasn't been for years. Some of the changes have been much needed improvements. Others... have cost it its soul.
F2P is MORE expensive.
I don't disagree. Microtransactions are a scam.
MMO prices haven't gone up in two decades, but costs sure as hell have.
Odd, I remember paying 9.99 each for EQ1, and Asheron's Call back in the day. Current subscription MMOs are around 50% more than that...including EQ1
Imagine the additional cost in supporting this tiered model as well
These games all have a /played counter. Enhance that a bit, make it available on demand, and show it during log-in, log-out.
I can see, every month, thousands of phone calls by angry customers saying "I only played 10 1/2 hours this month. Why am I being billed at the 11-20 hour tier?".
I can see a few. I don't see thousands really bitching over a few bucks, especially if you give them a /played counter that shows the time played, and login history... with durations, and adds it all up so they can see they played 11.5 hrs.
Hell auto bill them the lower teir if they are only over by an hour, and you'll reduce the calls to a trickle.
There are two huge problems with this kind of subscription system:
1. How do would they charge you?
- They could book the maximum possible amount ($15.95) up-front but that would result in constant booking on your CC
- They could charge you every time you enter the next level in payment structure, but this would increase the payment overhead fivefold
- They could charge after a period of playing but that would result in massive number of botters/farmers using fake CC details
They could do it the same as these automatic tiered cell phone plans do it. Record your usage, and then bill you the appropriate tier at the end of the month.
To address your final point, you prepay one month at the full rate upon joining.
2. This is exactly the kind of subscription model that APB had and was one of the main reasons for their failure.
People don't like to be presented with options like: "will you be playing 1-10, 10-20 or 20+ hours this month?". MMO's are supposed to be entertainment for free time. Planning ahead "10-20" hours of entertainment will make it feel like work.
No. Make it AUTOMATIC based on what you did. My cell phone data plan is like this, it automatically bills me at the appropriate tier based on my usage.
It is much more fun to pay $15 and play as much as you like than to constantly worry if I'm going to loose money by playing too little or too much.
There is nothing "fun" about paying $15 a month, and realizing you've gone 2 months and have only logged in once.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of your profitable MMO games are Everquest clones. That's all I was saying. Anything else you got beyond that you read into yourself.
I -wish- they were everquest clones. Everquest was hard. Everquest rewarded team work. Everquest had its share of flaws (although some of what were considered its flaws I consider strengths)... but when you accomplished something in everquest it felt like an accomplishment.
Some people don't like monthly fees. Makes them feel like they have to play to get their money's worth. Silly perhaps but it is what it is.
Apparently the average gamer logs over 20 hrs per week.
So yeah, if you are playing 20 hours a week, and think you need to spend your remaining free time to get your money's worth, than yeah, that's silly.
I don't have a lot of free time. I'm lucky if I manage 20 hours of gaming a MONTH (in all games combined). Between work, wife, kids... time just flies by for me. When I am regularly going over a week without logging in then the subscription fee does start to weigh on my conscious as a waste of money, and yeah when I sit down to play through the next segment of Metroid Prime 3 and it occurs to me that I haven't logged into EQ2 in two weeks... I do genuinly feel some sense of ... "well I better play EQ2, or I'm just throwing money away..." and at that point I cancel it.
What they need is some sort of scaling system...
Play more than 60hrs a month: full price $15.95
Play less than 60hrs a month: $12.95
Play less than 40hrs a month: $9.95
Play less than 20hrs a month: $5.95
Play less than 5hrs a month: $1.95
The average player plays 20 hrs a week, 80+ hrs a month and will solidly be in the full price range. While someone like me... if I hook up with friends we might bang out 25 hrs a 3 or 4 day marathon, and then I might play once or twice more that month... and hit the 9.95 mark. Another month I might log in a couple times to fool around and pay $5.95. Another month I might not log in at all, and wouldn't flinch at dropping 2 bucks on the game despite not playing it.
I'd easily still be running 2 or 3 subscriptions to different games on a system like this. I'd probably have my wife sub'd for a game too. (We enjoy playing together but she's even more casual than I am... if I manage to play something 3 or 4 times a month, she might join me for one of those... and a whole extra full price monthly subscription so we can play together once in a while. ... not worth it.
If you didn't vote Republican in 2008, you asked for this.
I've found that...
If you voted you asked for this.
If you didn't vote you are responsible for letting it happen.
is true of about 2/3rds of what the governement does... if not more.
Also, remember that in Canada, the people isn't sovereign, the Queen is. She is the root source of all authority and power of law.
She really isn't. She has no control over the courts - they operate in her name, but she has zero influence over them. She has no power to enact law unlaterally. Her assent is technically required to pass a law. But if the Queen decided to instruct the govenor general to withhold Royal assent to a law that had been passed by parliament and the senate -- in this day and age? We'd pretty much be in uncharted waters.
"uncharted waters" applies to pretty much any situation where the Queen's representatives don't do precisely what they are expected to do.
According to this...
IBM has around ~380,000 employees
Hewlett Packard ~320,000 employees
Oracle ~200,000 employees
http://hubpages.com/hub/Worlds-Largest-Companies-Worlds-Largest-Companies-by-Employees-And-Blue-Chip-Largest-Company-List
Microsoft isn't even on the list. But I found other sources suggesting they are ~100,000 employees
And that's just "IT". Many other companies on the list in fields including Banks, Financial Services, Aerospace, and Utilities also really *should* have substantial security budgets. So, maybe it is 'worthy of note' that Microsoft has spent more on training its staff and devs on security. (Assuming its true... I'm skeptical that there is a good source for that information in the first place... but perhaps there is?)
If that statement were true of my girlfriend, I'd trade her in for a functional model. Same with my phone.
Some slots are designed for insertion. Some aren't. True of your girlfriend. True of your phone.
It doesn't tell Chuck Norris what to drink. Chuck Norris tells it what to drink...
Seriously though, I wonder if the triple sales is simply novelty. People are using it just to see what it will suggest... that sort of thing. After the novelty wears off, will sales return to normal?
There are still laptops with DB9 ports?
Yep. Panasonic Toughbook 74 still sports a serial interface, for example.
Nice examples, but there's no reason that audio won't work over DVI equally well as over HDMI.
I don't claim to be an expert, but to my knowledge the DVI spec doesn't include audio.
However, yes, its becoming common for PC video cards to provide it anyway. I'm not aware of anything else that can do it "natively".
Normally you need something like this...
http://www.gefen.com/kvm/include/prod_html/closeup/dviaudhdmiclose.shtml
Which takes separate dvi+spdif and outputs hdmi.
You mean except for all of the actual executable code being Oracle's?
Except for it being opensource so its not, and it was managed by Sun which is not Oracle. Oracle bought Sun, rebranded OpenOffice from Sun to Oracle (as should be expected) and that's about it.
Switching to LibreOffice should be the same as the original Sun OpenOffice except rebranded by the Document Foundation, and they are patching in enhancement by RedHat and Go-OOo that were never accepted by Sun.
To ignore any of these points regarding the consumer is just painting a big red failure sign on the barn.
Its physically located under the battery, and its covered by a sticker with a warning on it. The sticker on the one I saw you had to cut through to actually insert a card, there was a prominent warning on it, and it mentioned voiding your warranty.)
Its not like there its on the side of the phone wide open and ready to receive media.
You are right that there will be some JoeBlow out there with just enough tech-savvy to find and recognize the card slot, and enough recklessness to cut through the sticker and jam the first thing he can find that will fit into it...
That's NOT going to be your average user. That's going to that same class of idiot that randomly sticks ram modules into their motherboards without regard to whether the motherboard will accept that particular speed or configuration. The kind who tries sharing his printer by plugging it into the usb port on his PVR, the kind who has his entire living room plugged into a bar plugged into a power bar plugged into a power bar. The kind who have their cable modem plugged into a LAN port on their router, the kind who plug their TV into their PVR using an HDMI to DVI adapter and wonder why their is no sound only to then plug in a set of composite cables and watch everything on the composite input "in HD".
I know people like that. There's one at the office... he was excited to find an old motorola 9-pin serial to RJ-45 adapter used to program certain 2-way radios. Why was this a big deal? He also had a USB-serial device used for old blackberrys. He figured he'd be able to use his ipod as a network attached storage. The missing link... a male-male usb adapter. Luckily... he had a USB hub he wasn't using. Game-set-match! (True story.)
Since when do we at slashdot really concern ourselves about the fate of these people?
This information alone means that I'll avoid ever getting a Windows phone, even if it should have tremendous advantages otherwise.
Why? Because of a hyperbole laden /. thread? That's a terrible reason to decide anything.
There is a warning on the phone. There is clear documentation that this will happen. The slot is not designed for convenient insertion/removal. It is not intended to be used as a portable storage.
It is intended to be a permanent expansion module for the phone, not removal SD storage.
Let me ask you this: Suppose they didn't use an SD card slot. Suppose they had instead developed a proprietary connector instead and sold the expansion as proprietary modules that had to be installed at a service center. Would that trigger the same sort of averse reaction from you?
I'm curious, because if you wanted to upgrade your 16GB iPhone to 32GB that's essentially the process assuming you could even get it done... do you avoid iPhones because of that?
MS is using the SD form factor for this because it meets their needs, and using an existing form factor reduces engineering and manufacturing costs. Don't think of it as 'SD removal storage' and think of it as an upgrade kit that just happens use the SD form factor. Honestly, most consumers will likely never even use the functionality at all. And for those few that do decide to expand their phone this way, it requires very specific SD cards, and its well documented that its a permanent upgrade using SD form factor and not plug/play removal storage.
Then insist upon encryption, not making it illegal.
Why one and not the other?
I'm not arguing people don't need encryption, or that we shouldn't encrypt.
But a lot of people here are arguing that if it isn't locked down tight it should be completely legal to help themselves.
Making interception of Wifi traffic illegal does *nothing* to protect you from the government - only encryption (verifiable encryption with no backdoors) can do that.
Its illegal to enter your home.
The governement of course still does it under a variety of circumstances, so the law does "nothing" to protect you right? Of course not; if it were legal to walk into your home the flunkie behind the desk where you register your pets would be empowred to show up and inspect your home with impunity.
The law making it illegal goes a long way to keeping them out of your house. There would be a constant train of inspectors and god-knows-what else tramping through your house if it were legal to do so.
Similarly, if its legal to sift through your data, then they WILL do it with impunity. If its illegal, then yeah, like entering your home, they'll still do it but it raises the bar considerably, and if they do it improperly it can't be used as evidence against you, etc, etc.
Your right that good Encryption will provide you with actual protection. Just as a good lock helps keep people out of your house. And I'm not suggesting we don't need them.
But arguing that you should use encryption isn't really a valid argument against making collecting data from personal wifi illegal.
The Crown Prosecution Service might get the hint that it was "not in the public interest" in the first place, and come to that correct conclusion in the future. That at least would be progress.
Our ears are a type listening technology. Our mouths and vocal chords make up the human speaker system. Our eyes are but cameras capturing data and relaying it on to our brains.
-sigh-
In this context your eyes are not technology. They did not come about through the application of knowledge or invention. They are not tools as they were not crafted. They are not technology, by the simple definition of technology.
They are natural.
The things that they can see naturally are the things in plain sight. Its really that simple.
Why is it that when I sense it with a microphone I'm all of the sudden a criminal?
Its not that you sensed it with a mic, its that you couldn't sense it with your ears. That is a subtle but important difference. Mics can go places ears can't go. Mics can sense things ears can't.
Perhaps this argument needs another point: intent.
I agree. Intent should always be considered.
I think that the idea of "invasion of privacy" is very self explanatory, "invasion" being the key word. Google driving around and, by happenstance, collecting your data on their antennas is not an "invasion of privacy."
They decoded the information, and recorded it. That's not "happenstance". Its not involuntary like overhearing a conversation at the next table.
I think that the idea of "invasion of privacy" is very self explanatory, "invasion" being the key word
Gotcha. So sitting in the tree across the street with a parabolic or laser mic recording your conversations isn't an invasion of your privacy?
Really?
Find their malicious intent and outlaw that.
Malicious intent makes it worse. But that doesn't mean innocent intent is a get out of jail free card. If I trespass into your home to feed your goldfish without your permission, its STILL illegal trespassing.
Yes, it should be, because if it's not, the bad guys will still do it and still capture the data. All that would be accomplished by making it illegal would be to prevent the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your data.
By that logic we should legalize people breaking car windows and stealing car stereos because its pretty easy, and the only thing we accomplish by making it illegal is that it prevents the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your car stereo.
That is ridiculous.
Furthermore, if its illegal, only -criminals- will do it from the shadows. That's still significant improvement over multinational corporations doing it with impunity in broad daylight.
If there's some false assumption that no one will intercept my wireless data because it's "illegal", then there will be no demand from consumers for manufacturers to encrypt that data.
The technology exists to listen to conversations through walls. At some point we just need to say that its illegal to use that to invade people's privacy. Or do you plan to require that people encrypt their conversations.
Enforcing security by making it illegal to listen is worse than security through obscurity. At least obscurity does make it harder to see the data - - making it illegal does no such thing.
Depends what you are trying to address. I'm honestly not all that worried about criminals at this point. The threat right now is coming from government and major corporations. And making it illegal does effectively curb their behavior.
We both know I am right.
Personally I doubt anyone thinks you are right, including you.
Unless you claim that I can write "A b Tire" and have it mean "a flat tire" because ascii doesn't have a the musical "flat" so I had no possibility of clarity...
If you wrote Ab to mean A-flat, that would be fine. You're example is just absurd.
In the case of c-sharp, they named it c-sharp to play on the fact that a C-sharp is a step above C. They are explicitly referencing the musical semantics. And then they wrote C#; within the constraints of ASCII.
I do not see that as anything approaching the absurd example you tried to constrive involving flat tires.
but can you come up with an example that doesn't involve entering private property to install a camera in one of the most private rooms of a house?
Actually, in my head writing it I was envisioning a public washroom; with the flush monitoring being set up by the maintenance engineers.
Google received unencrypted data from radio waves, so your example would better be someone installing a camera in their car and driving down streets taking photos of every house, even though it was just to count the number of houses.
The key difference I see there is 'taking photos from the street' is recording something in plain view. You don't need a camera to see the outside of someone's home. Nothing is being exposed that wasn't plainly visible.
A suitable example would involve recording/decoding/exposing a signal that is not 'plainly visible'.
A trivial example is that it is illegal in most places to use a radio scanner to record cordless phone conversations. (Even though analog and cheap/early digital cordless phones were not encrypted.)
If Google were interested in the number of cordless phones in use, it would still not be legal to drive around with a radio scanner recording conversations to analyze later.
Another good example might be constructed involving the use of a laser microphone. Laser mics measure vibrations on a membrane -- such as a pane of glass... and can be used to record conversations at distance and on the other side of that window by reconstructing those vibration measurements back into sound.
See, I knew we agreed. It always comes down to a question of semantics.
In that we disagree on the definition of 'plain view', yes, that seems to be the contention.
This is why the distinction between "signals that leave your home unencrypted" and "signals that are encrypted/don't leave your home" is a farther reaching definition here.
It is, I think, a VERY poor place to put the distinction.
It won't be long before someone releases a "firesheep" tool to get people's credit card numbers or naughty emails just by sitting in range of their wifi. Then would you consider it plain view?
No. I would not.
Being easy to expose it via technology doesn't change the fact that you are making a deliberate effort to use that technology to expose it.
Consider:
You are envisioning a firesheep to capture unencrypted wifi, and suggesting we call that "plain sight".
What happens when a firesheep comes out that can capture/intercept/decode the em from a wireless keyboard from outside one's home? That technology already exists. Should using a wireless keyboard be carteblanch for people to record your activities? I think not.
What about a "firesheep" that can capture/intercept/decode the em from a WIRED keyboard? The technology has already been demonstrated too... and in high density housing, you can easily get within a few feet of a victim (computer on a desk adjacent to a common wall between two suites separated by a bit of drywal and insulation. And you are never more than 5-6 feet from the suite above or below you either.
And what about using laser microphones on windows, or walls, to measure vibration, and recreate the inaudible sound on the other side? Another unencrypted signal leaving my home... how am I supposed to talk "encrypted"?
What about the em emitting from my computer screen? The tech exists to recreate the images on a monitor using the em emissions?
What about the light emitting from my computer screen? If it hits the curtains, and someone devises a way to re-combine the scattered light patterns into the the image on my screen... should they be allowed to point those devices at my home and watch and record what's on my screen?
"Unencrypted signals that leave your home" is simply far too wide open.
"plain view" makes a lot more sense defined as viewable without technological assistance, in my opinon.
No shit. It's like claiming that my ISP is collecting data about my traffic because as a side-effect of how their routers work, some of the data is left in their memory for a period of time after they've routed the packet.
Except you've expressly giving your ISP permission to do that. And as you observed its an essential part of providing YOU the service YOU are paying them to provide you.
Google driving around collecting that information is entirely different.
As I understand it, Google was collecting information about WiFi signals, particularly their names and locations. It chose to do so in a way that just logged everything their antennas picked up, so that they could then sift out the useful information later. Maybe their idea was that doing the sifting later avoided them missing something important, due to a software bug or something.
How exactly is that a defense of what they did? If I want to know how many times people flush the toilet I could add a flush sensor to the toilet, and capture the number of triggers. But hey there might be a bug and I might miss something... so instead I installed a camera to monitor the toilet, record everything, and then analyze the footage later; I just happened to record a bunch of people going to the washroom.
Guess what. That's still illegal. And I should have thought harder about the consequences of what I was doing.
Hell, when I walk down a street, the WiFi signals hitting my body probably leave some kind of signature in my molecules, perhaps moving them a bit, or changing their temperature slightly. Perhaps there's some way of extracting that information and OMG determining the data that was being transmitted as I walked past. Am I violating their privacy too?
Nope. Perhaps there is some way of decoding the data... but you didn't. If the wifi signals had simply hit googles antenna and were ignored it would be exactly that.
They recorded AND decoded those signals.
The question is whether I actually tried to extract said data.
Google recorded AND decoded it. They not only tried to extract said data, they succeeded. The fact that it wasn't the data they were looking for isn't relevant.
If I install a camera in a bathroom to track how many times the toilet is flushed, the fact remains that I'm recording people go to the bathroom. It doesn't really matter that it isn't the specific data I claimed I was interested in.
They made no "positive action.
Google both decoded and recorded the signals. Those are both positive actions.
A better comparison is overhearing a conversation in a language you know.
Only if you "overheard" it using a radio scanner, and then recorded it, and then surprise, surprise it would be illegal for you to do that.
There is a fundamental difference between overhearing a conversation at the next table, and "overhearing" it via a radio scanner and recording it.
It's like you walked out in the street and announced everything you're doing
It is nothing like that at all. You might feel its the "technological equivalent" but the fact that its technological makes it different.
The need to use technology to expose it, is precisely what makes it not "plain view".
Its not in "plain view".
"Technological plain view" is an oxymoron.
If you're going to walk around naked all day, close your goddamned windows. Just because you're doing it in your house doesn't mean people can't see you.
Suppose he does close his curtains. The use of curtains removes him from plain view, right. Just as the use of clothes removes nakedness from plain view.
Suppose we develop a camera that can see right through curtains or clothes as if they weren't even there. Using that camera on people and their homes would be a violation of their privacy.
The fact that that you can use technology to expose what **isn't** in plain view, doesn't give you any right to. The fact that they aren't wearing lead pants and living in faraday cages doesn't give you the right to decode and expose the NOT IN PLAIN VIEW information leaking from their homes.