And I can't believe people are up in arms over a violation to her privacy at all. The current administration flagrantly disregarded the privacy of American citizens through the use of warrantless wiretapping, yet those criminals aren't being prosecuted. In fact, those same criminals are pushing for immunity for the telecom companies from the lawsuits brought about by their illegal actions.
Funny how we'll cry foul when her privacy is violated and demand the book be thrown at the offender, yet members of Palin's own party feel they are above accountability for the exact same violations.
Yes, I *do* have free speech. EVERYWHERE. Not just in "free speech zones". But on government-taxed paper too. Using the air you might have breathed. And yes, using your server, which CHOSE to accept my messages.
The assumption that a server accepting your message constitutes some form of approval on behalf of the recipient is an idiotic claim on your part. A server is not capable of making an independent, conscious decision and can only act within the parameters that have been given it. My email server routinely accepts a multitude of spam emails because it's doing what it's supposed to do. In this regard, the spam filter on my email server is also doing what it's supposed to do by preventing delivery of those spam emails to the intended recipient. Without the spam filter, the server would dutifully flood my users with spam because that's what it's been programmed to do. Likewise, the server itself could not accept any messages at all without being configured to run an email service. There is no sentient capacity in a server to make choices, either for itself or on behalf of a person.
I'm curious as to why the RIAA believes Mr. Beckerman's blog is responsible for "embarrassing the plaintiffs". Throughout their litigation blitzkrieg, the RIAA has shown repeatedly that they are more than capable of embarrassing themselves. I don't think Mr. Beckerman's blog (or anyone else's for that matter) have any bearing on the already low opinion the general public has of the RIAA.
It's good to know the $2500 I had to shell out in support contract fees for two host nodes and VIC is funding such outstanding QA testing./sarcasm off.
I remember PC Chips doing something similar. They manufactured motherboards with fake L2 cache, from the old 486 into early Pentium 1 era. Do you think I jest? They glued fake plastic chips onto motherboards and then simply programmed the BIOS to report the cache enabled, even though there was none to begin with.
I concur with allcar on this. While I don't discount the importance of identity theft and security awareness, this whitepaper seems to be little more than 105 pages of FUD designed to push Symantec's bloatware products. It's probably a clever marketing strategy if your target demographic is the suckers who handed out their bank account information to rescue millions of dollars for a foreign nobility. Anyone who exercises a little common sense while traversing the net won't find it hard to read between the lines, though.
Given this definition of the word "spam", I'm not seeing how a legitimate entity using a legal and ethical means of mass email distribution for the purposes of promoting a legitimate product, service, or cause is lumped into the same category with all the porn and pill pushers out there.
In the past two days alone the anti-spam filter on my Exchange server has dropped nearly 14,000 spam messages. None of those messages are from any political, religious, or community group. Furthermore, none of them are from any businesses offering any legitimate product or service. It's all porn, pills, software piracy, and shady mortgage offers coming from spoofed addresses, fake domains, and foreign SMTP servers. None of it is of any relevance or use to my company.
Take a moment to think about what would happen if spamming was protected under the First Amendment. What do you think would happen to software development companies that produce and/or integrate spam filtering? Subsequently, what would happen to companies that employ spam filtering technologies on their email servers? I believe that we are most certainly going in the right direction when spam is denied coverage under the First Amendment. People should not have the right to free speech when that right is used with the intent to harm, defraud, or endanger someone else. The protections granted under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not intended to give license to any individual or entity to infringe upon someone else's rights.
Ultimately, I wouldn't take my computer to Circuit City, Best Buy, Fry's, or any other big box retail store for repair in the first place. It's akin to taking your car to McDonald's for an oil change.
That being said, I think it's wrong that Circuit City went through his files, regardless of content. One could have easily written any file to DVD, or popped a DVD in and see if it played back. Yes, possession of child pornography should garner him a lengthy sentence in jail. However, this sort of thing sets a precedence for anyone that takes their computer in to these big box retail stores for repair, making otherwise legal personal information (finances, bank accounting, etc) open to whoever logs in.
Basically, if a Circuit City tech sniffed through this guy's hard drive and found questionable pornography, what would prevent that same tech from rifling through another computer brought in for repair and stealing private information from that machine?
Unfortunate that in this day and age, stupidity is recognized as a form of diversity that subsequently demands tolerance from the rest of us while people speak their minds without actually USING them first.
Slashdot Mirror
And I can't believe people are up in arms over a violation to her privacy at all. The current administration flagrantly disregarded the privacy of American citizens through the use of warrantless wiretapping, yet those criminals aren't being prosecuted. In fact, those same criminals are pushing for immunity for the telecom companies from the lawsuits brought about by their illegal actions. Funny how we'll cry foul when her privacy is violated and demand the book be thrown at the offender, yet members of Palin's own party feel they are above accountability for the exact same violations.
Yes, I *do* have free speech. EVERYWHERE. Not just in "free speech zones". But on government-taxed paper too. Using the air you might have breathed. And yes, using your server, which CHOSE to accept my messages.
The assumption that a server accepting your message constitutes some form of approval on behalf of the recipient is an idiotic claim on your part. A server is not capable of making an independent, conscious decision and can only act within the parameters that have been given it. My email server routinely accepts a multitude of spam emails because it's doing what it's supposed to do. In this regard, the spam filter on my email server is also doing what it's supposed to do by preventing delivery of those spam emails to the intended recipient. Without the spam filter, the server would dutifully flood my users with spam because that's what it's been programmed to do. Likewise, the server itself could not accept any messages at all without being configured to run an email service. There is no sentient capacity in a server to make choices, either for itself or on behalf of a person.
I'm curious as to why the RIAA believes Mr. Beckerman's blog is responsible for "embarrassing the plaintiffs". Throughout their litigation blitzkrieg, the RIAA has shown repeatedly that they are more than capable of embarrassing themselves. I don't think Mr. Beckerman's blog (or anyone else's for that matter) have any bearing on the already low opinion the general public has of the RIAA.
It's good to know the $2500 I had to shell out in support contract fees for two host nodes and VIC is funding such outstanding QA testing. /sarcasm off.
I remember PC Chips doing something similar. They manufactured motherboards with fake L2 cache, from the old 486 into early Pentium 1 era. Do you think I jest? They glued fake plastic chips onto motherboards and then simply programmed the BIOS to report the cache enabled, even though there was none to begin with.
I concur with allcar on this. While I don't discount the importance of identity theft and security awareness, this whitepaper seems to be little more than 105 pages of FUD designed to push Symantec's bloatware products. It's probably a clever marketing strategy if your target demographic is the suckers who handed out their bank account information to rescue millions of dollars for a foreign nobility. Anyone who exercises a little common sense while traversing the net won't find it hard to read between the lines, though.
"Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)
Given this definition of the word "spam", I'm not seeing how a legitimate entity using a legal and ethical means of mass email distribution for the purposes of promoting a legitimate product, service, or cause is lumped into the same category with all the porn and pill pushers out there.
In the past two days alone the anti-spam filter on my Exchange server has dropped nearly 14,000 spam messages. None of those messages are from any political, religious, or community group. Furthermore, none of them are from any businesses offering any legitimate product or service. It's all porn, pills, software piracy, and shady mortgage offers coming from spoofed addresses, fake domains, and foreign SMTP servers. None of it is of any relevance or use to my company.
Take a moment to think about what would happen if spamming was protected under the First Amendment. What do you think would happen to software development companies that produce and/or integrate spam filtering? Subsequently, what would happen to companies that employ spam filtering technologies on their email servers? I believe that we are most certainly going in the right direction when spam is denied coverage under the First Amendment. People should not have the right to free speech when that right is used with the intent to harm, defraud, or endanger someone else. The protections granted under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not intended to give license to any individual or entity to infringe upon someone else's rights.
Ultimately, I wouldn't take my computer to Circuit City, Best Buy, Fry's, or any other big box retail store for repair in the first place. It's akin to taking your car to McDonald's for an oil change. That being said, I think it's wrong that Circuit City went through his files, regardless of content. One could have easily written any file to DVD, or popped a DVD in and see if it played back. Yes, possession of child pornography should garner him a lengthy sentence in jail. However, this sort of thing sets a precedence for anyone that takes their computer in to these big box retail stores for repair, making otherwise legal personal information (finances, bank accounting, etc) open to whoever logs in. Basically, if a Circuit City tech sniffed through this guy's hard drive and found questionable pornography, what would prevent that same tech from rifling through another computer brought in for repair and stealing private information from that machine?
Unfortunate that in this day and age, stupidity is recognized as a form of diversity that subsequently demands tolerance from the rest of us while people speak their minds without actually USING them first.