I guess my question on this is: "Was the 'objectionable' portion of the video shown on the Big Brother website as part of the show or an extra?"
If I go to a TV stations website to view a show, I think it is reasonable to assume that what is going to be shown there is going to be the same as what is shown on the broadcast. I don't care if there's another link that shows unedited/adult cut of the same episode, but the main link should be what was broadcast.
So, if Ch10's website had the 'Broadcast' video and the 'Unedited' video - who cares. If however, CH10 offered the unedited cut as the only or the main video, then they need slapped personally, not more legislation.
Yeah we pay it back in the bulk ethanol tax though, 100% import tarrif on comercial grade ethanol. 'Gee, it's too expensive to import ethanol, and we don't grow enough corn to produce enough, guess we'll have to use gasoline.'
Me: thank you for calling $CO_HEADING_TO_C11 how can I help you today.
Her: I need you to help me get back online.
Me: OK, what seems the be the matter.
Her: The computer keeps saying that it can't find a dialtone.
Me: OK, have you checked that the phone line is plugged into the back of the computer and the wall.
Her: [angry]Of course it's plugged in. I caught my son viewing pornography last weekend so I superglued the end of the plug into the back of the computer, and cut off the cord so he can't connect by himself. So I know the jack is plugged in.
Me: OK, just to verify I understand the problem: You superglued the phone cord jack into the back of your computer and then cut off the cord. Now you want to connect to the internet and the phone cord jack is preventing you from putting in another cord.
Her: [even angrier]I don't have another cord. I just want to get on the internet, that's what I pay you for, so get me connected.
Me: Ma'am, I am confused. You have physically modified your computer in order to prevent your son from connecting to the internet, is that correct?
Her: [furious]I didn't change anything, I just glued the plug in and cut the cord. Now get me connected to the internet or I'm going to cancel my service.
Me: Ma'am, I cannot get you connected to the internet because you have damaged your computer. In order to get you connected to the internet, you will need to have someone replace the modem in the computer.
Her: [screaming]I didn't break anything, why won't you help me?!!
Hey, if you put them on lay-away, they can be remarkably cheap on a weekly basis. Of course you do have to wait a while to take them home, and occasionally some screw-up will sell them off the reserved shelf, but all in all not a bad way to go.
What you have to look out for are these rent-a-rep locations. Yeah, you get to use the senator right away, but you end up having to pay so much more for them after the fees and what-not.
Just last week I made my monthly bribery payment, and now you're telling me it's not even getting top rate corruption?! What the hell is this state coming to?
Besides this guy's confusion of data format versus application as others have mentioned, why does he think that all disabled people (and abled people for that matter) have $399USD kicking around for a copy of Microsoft Office? Bizarre.
Sigh, I was going to use the Bush Sr. & the grocery store ancecdote here but Snopes says it's not what it's cracked up to be.
Guess I'll have to fall back to the standard: Because he's a clueless pratt who just got a $30M 'donation' to the state education system by MS - so obviously creating any standard not MS's is bad.
As long as I can go into application X, and open application's Y documents, who freakin cares what document format is being used!
OK, I just saved a document in MS Word from my Windows 3.1 machine. I'll email it to you as soon as I get trumpet winsock to work again....
OK did you get it? Good, go ahead and try opening that in your spiffy Office 2003. Oh, it didn't work? Um, sorry that's alls I have to save it with besides notepad.
Face it MS products are not compatible with each other, let alone with anything else. The whole purpose of an open standard/format is that there is a freely available document standard that will allow anyone to create a program capable of reading that format. The ITD of MA was looking at the long term. Up until just a few years ago there was a single standard format for all Official Documents in MA... printed. If it was official, it was printed, documented, and filed - thereafter available to anyone who asked for it. Given the proliferation of e-documents, the ITD is attempting to create a single standard in which all relavant government documents are to be stored. They are fully aware that document formats change over time, suppliers go out of business, and suppliers stop supporting products.
If MS drops support for the Office 2003.doc format in 2015, where are you going to turn in 2025 to get a reader for the documents created with Office 2003 and whatever else that used that format? The whole point of the Open Document Format is that every part of it is documented and standardized. Anyone can get and impliment the standard without having to reverse engineer it. With a document in the.doc format, you are dependant on MS to provide you with a reader in perpetuity. With the ODF, you don't have to rely on anyone special to provide you with a reader, just as long as somebody faithfully carries out the standard, you're good.
If you really need a common standard, saving everything to PDF for goodness sakes!
You know that was concidered for text documents don't you? How about a spreadsheet attached to a report?
As for the cries that it doesn't support the needs of the disabled, I call bullshit.
Visually Impared: what does MS.doc format offer? um nothing, MS Windows offers a screen magnifier, that's usable by any program because all it does is blow up the window to a specified magnification. I don't see how this changes when I change to the ODF.
Blind: OK so magnification isn't enough you need it read. Which is easier for a text-speach company to create, a program that converts 20 proprietary document formats to speach, or one that converts a single, standardized, fully documented format to speach?
Deaf/Hard of hearing: Um, don't think ODF covers audio recordings, and I'm not aware of any speach -> text software that's capable of good accuracy without training to the speaker.
Physically Disabled: These are issues with hardware not a document format.
Let's add to this whole mix that if MS is claiming that only Office is capable of providing these features, then if they want to play in the MA govt, all they have to do is grab the spec and use it. This is not about excluding MS from the game, it's about making MA goverment documents available on a level playing field. If I need to read it using Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or Windows I should be able to.
Moving to the tin hat area, the encryption supposedly available on the documents for the 2007 release of Office will trigger the DCMA when you try to reverse engineer the format. Oops, didn't think of that did you. Not an issue with an Open Standard.
How many more reasons would you like, as to why a single Open Standard is better than multiple Closed formats with reguards to public documents?
That said, the MA politician in the article is a first-class tool, so I wouldn't count on ever educating his type, except through large wads of cash. I wouldn't be surprised to find he's getting some sort of kickback from Redmond at some level, or has a personal grudge against the IT office, or is hoping to make this into some bit of a power play. I doubt very much he gives two squirts of piss about the actual issue; it's just "an issue" to him.
2 or 3 weeks ago MS declared they were giving $30M of equipment to the states education dept. Guess it bought them a nice report.
Actually from what we could read in the IBM experts declaration in support of this motion, NONE of the claims actually met the degree of specification required - FVL (File, Version, Line) for origin (SCO product) and destination (Linux). IBM just let the 101 claims slide because they didn't care so much - either they could identify the source for the SCO product as being outside of SCO's control, or they could prove where the code that was in Linux originated.
The one example I remember is SCO claimed that IBM gave Linux the SCO code to interface with certain Intel MBs. In the motion, IBM referenced an Intel developers guide as having the exact code that's in both Unix V5 & Linux kernel 2.4. A lot of these things are like that. One I like is that SCO is claiming that the JFSv2 code in Linux - developed by IBM for first AIX, then seperately from the ground up as JFSv2 for OS/2 & backported into AIX to replace JFSv1, and for which IBM has a couple of patents - was not IBM's to place into Linux because it was originally developed for AIX. Remember, this is the same company that says that the GPL is a viral liscense.
I also like some of the few claims that did make it through, they are claims on negative-know-how. Yep, they have not only made claims of proprietary methods and concepts in materials they admit to having no trade secrets, they also claim that they own the knowledge of what won't work as a method or concept - of everything that ever touched UNIX.
Here there is a blog that quotes a couple of people saying that the NSA data mining is doing more harm - in the sense of overwhelming the FBI with bad leads - than good - in the sense of finding terrorists.
I guess I have to question this in terms of traditional press personals. At no time or place does a newspaper require that you present proof of age prior to or durring the posting of personal adds. They don't even inquire if the add is yours or if your pulling a prank on someone else.
If a newspaper is not responsible for the usage of it's personals, how can MySpace be responsible for the use of it's services. Worse, there are policies in place to restrict access between people claiming to be adults & those claiming to be children. There are also procedures in place to remove accounts determined to be/reported to be used by people of the wrong age-group.
Where does this end, I would think that the log files for a day's worth of MySpace traffic would be substantial in terms of storage requirements. From the artical, they want 2 at least years for ISP's. That's going to be a huge storage amount. Who pays for keeping it? It serves no useful purpose for an ISP or site after about a week or so (time enough to verify a claim of acct hijacking) so this is just a waste of time and money for them. What does it give the police... nothing significant. By the time they can track down a name & account to attach to it, they've already identified enough to find someone in more traditional ways - 2 or 3 year old data is going to be worthless.
Let's look at it from another angle. The 80GB tapes I use at work are about $125US each. What is going to be the cost to store every transaction record from every ISP and Social Networking site/BBS? I think we can easily say it's going to be in the millions. What benifit is it really going to provide? The FBI's own reports [sorry at work not going to google for FBI reports on the appropriate subject] estimate that full funding for these kinds of actions will cost around $400M/yr and help less than 1000 kids a year. Sorry, $400,000/child is not a good expenditure ratio - when you concider the same amount of money can be spent in other ways - Community centers, education, more/better trained police, runaway programs, and drug programs are the ones that come most immediately to mind - and help many, many, many more children for even less money. Call me a heartless, callus bastard, but I think that if the govt is going to spend money 'for the sake of the children' then they should have a program that is going to actually do something 'for the children'. When the proponents of it show it's horribly ineficient, it's time to drop it and come up with something else. Of course this is the same government that still thinks that telling kids 'abstinance is good' will stop teenage pregnancy.
except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication
It's going to be hard for the cops to get around the last part of that. If, as the artical says, the video/audio taping was announced with a plackard, then the cops had the duty to request it be terminated prior to continuing. Their failure to do so implies consent to be recorded. If the tape flows from before the cops came to the door until they left, and there is no request to terminate the recording, the Gannons' have every right to believe that the cops agree to the terms posted.
If the cops said stop recording, and Mr. Gannons said "I'm sorry, I won't - please leave & get a warrant if you want it that way", then again the cops agreed to Mr. Gannons terms by remaining.
Implied consent carries almost the same weight as explicit consent with the courts.
Actually, in some communities, with actual beat cops that know the people, it's not all that unusual for a cop to see an open door & knock on it just to check that something's not amiss.
That just screams massive user migration. ... to Vista, which is precisely what MS probably wants.
Except that Vista OEM production isn't going to be set until late fall - OEMs are still worried about Christmass sales dates, and off the shelf purchases for people with like-new PCs won't be ready until late January at best.
Let's face it, if OEMs arn't shipping Vista by late October, Vista is going to miss xmass this year. That means tax time before there's another major wave of purchasing. And if they impliment a shutdown, it's not going to force more purchases, just more keygen scripts and other hacks. - firewall hacks to redirect to another port with an auth responce?
Actually, if you were hacked, it would be a valid defense - presupposing you made a best reasonable effort to prevent said hacking.
If I loan my car to Bob & Bob runs over Alice, Alice can sue me as the car owner and probably win a settlement from the insurance company. If however I locked my car and Bob stole it - running over Alice in the process, she shouldn't be able to win the case. (not that she can't sue, and not that some jury won't feel sorry for her & give her something)
In short, you're not criminally responsible for the criminal activity of others if you took reasonable efforts to prevent them from using your possessions to do so.
Technically, showing that bits of a botnet program were left in your PC after it was cleaned up, should show that your PC was owned at some point and therefor it is reasonable to assume that the illegal access to your system was used to perform illegal actions. Ergo: the fact that your PC was illegally compromised creates, by it's existance, reasonable doubt that the owner of the PC performed an illegal act with the PC. Obviously this could be overcome with a preponderance of other evidence, but it's certainly damaging to any case.
Generaly, no, the nature of the internet is not P2P. The vast majority of the internet is client/server.
Every IRC network, FTP site, Web site, Mail server, Gopher hole, YUM/YAST repository, etc is all client/server.
Peer to Peer is based on a state of equality - peering. For the majority of protocols, you ask a main repository of the information for what you want and the repository provides it. Everything is routed through main servers which is an artifact of it's creation. As a DARPA and University construct, it was designed for redundency and to utalize the processing power of a limited number of mainframes. Even in '87, the serious programming & heavy lifting for scientific research at my school (SUNY Geneseo) was done on the mainframes. P2P is relatively new concept (even phone & finger routed through the mainframe from/to essentially dumb terminals). In fact beyond P2P file transfer, I can't think of anything that involves more than 2 terminals that doesn't rely on a central server to do the heavy lifting.
Of course they are going to try to get both. Good greif, if the telcos get to charge both ends of a service, and the govt gives them the go-ahead to charge for the middle too, why shouldn't the *AA get to charge for the original, the coppies, and still sue for the infringement. After all, just because I paid for my compulsory liscense with the blank media, there's no reason I should actually be able to use that liscense. That would be immoral.
In order to safely share your connection, you'd need to make sure that the FON registration process can keep good records of the Fonero users, and that the firmware is able to filter and block access to inappropriate/illegal content
As far as I can tell, they have to log into your router - validated by FON before they can use it. If they are suggesting you sublet your usage, I would assume there is good logging to track time/MB usage.
Officer: We have proof that your router downloaded kiddie porn.
FONuser: Let me see what time.... I was at work but let's see. OK, log says A,B,C were logged in, I show A & B doing torrents and C surfing to baby-titties.XXX.
I would have to assume that if ISP logs are admissable, so would the logs from the router. After all, they are both just text files - not all that hard to doctor up if you know what you are doing.
Especially if we are able to figure out an alternative I/O to the standard mouse/keyboard/screen model that would take up much smaller real estate than a laptop.
Well for the whole keyboard/mouse issue you can fall back to a Chorded keyboard'. Figure a trackball sized pad strapped on your hip for one handed operation.(no, the other hand is not for that)
For the display you could always try a head mounted display. The one pictured in the wiki is for stereo gaming, but they also make them to display on a single eyepiece.
They are over a million patents behind and falling farther behind every day. Most of them are junk patents that should never have been put to paper let alone submitted. If there's a clear definition that taking a bunch of legos & assembling them as a truck is not patentable, then a good chunk of those patents will dry up.
Let's face it, we all agree that double clicking shouldn't be pattentable. The original mice were developed (iIrc) in the late 60s. The process was click - drag - click instead of click/hold - drag - release. (At least that was the process for the one I built for my C64 about 82-83.*) Since you already have the system for diferentiating mouse click meanings based on previous clicks, a 'once to select/twice to run' sequence becomes obvious.
You ever see some of the accounting tricks companies pull to show how little profit they showed when it comes to tax time & then how much profit they made come investment prospectus?
A very nice and an eminently reasonable suggestion, if we add that a request for an extention is also accompanied by a forensic audit by the govt to prove you haven't turned a profit yet.
First if the records that organizations collect on me are my property then how do companies sell my info without compensating me. Of course its not mine i did not collect it they did.
No, PRIVATE information is private. It is yours. If I call up AT&T and they give me your DUF information, they are in violation of Federal laws (Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one). If I call up Citibank and they give me your CC details, they are in violation of other federal laws. If one of the credit reporting agencies gives my information away without my authorization, they are in violation of federal law. Data collected on you illegally is not thiers any more than your TV belongs to the thief who stole it from your livingroom. Why can data collection services sell it, because due to a loophole Congress is trying to close, it's illegal for companies to give you that information, but not for you to have it. Other information - your appearances in court, ownership of a house, birth date - public record type stuff is another matter. Second I did not say that she should give out everyone's records but if the police have a good reason for wanting a particular record she should cooperate.
Who's opinion should she defer to for a 'good reason'? That's the very essence of the supena/warrent system. She doesn't have to defer to anyone's opinion [it's not the judges opinion she has to defer to, it's his ruling]. She has to follow a set protocol which is clearly defined in both the US Constitution, and in 200 years of case law. The library policy is a guideline for behavior meant to protect there patrons but those rules must be interpreted and it seems obvious where the library stands on this situation as they were talking about a reprimand and a possible 30 day suspension for her.
Um, no. How about state law:
N.J.S.A. 18A:73-43.2. Confidentiality of library users' records
Library records which contain the names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of libraries are confidential and shall not be disclosed except in the following circumstances:
a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library; b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpena issued by a court or court order.
L.1985, c. 172, § 2.
And just so we don't get confused:
N.J.S.A. 18A:73-43.1. Definitions
For the purposes of this act:
a. "Library" means a library maintained by any State or local governmental agency, school, college, or industrial, commercial or other special group, association or agency, whether public or private.
b. "Library record" means any document or record, however maintained, the primary purpose of which is to provide for control of the circulation or other public use of library materials.
L.1985, c. 172, § 1.
Now, can we discuss how exactly the Board of Directors of the library can complain about her behavior? Oh right, they are elected and appointed officials. If they do anything to her, they are going to have every ACLU lawyer camped out on their doorstep just dieing to take a crack at them.
ACLU: Why did you suspend her?
Board: Because she didn't give out record information when the police asked.
ACLU: Did they provide a supena?
Board: No.
ACLU: So she followed the legal requirement of L.1985, C.172, 2(c) - which requires a supena prior to the release of that information to the police?
Board: Um
ACLU: So, in the opinion of the board, Michele Reutty should have violated state law, rather than follow it?
It goes downhill fast from there.
This isn't a case of some librarian with a privacy bug up her ass, it's someone following the letter and the spirit of the law, and having over zelous cops asking her to break the law, and a moronic board responding in typical gutless elected official fasion.
I do truely believe that if they thought they could get away with it, AT&T and the other Tier 1's would impliment traffic shaping created around protocol/payment schemas.
Will those companies that pay extra get access to magical pipes? no. They will get priority on the existing pipes with those companies that do not pay up being shifted down in priority. Hence at 145.router.net when an AT&T VOIP packet comes along at the same time as a Vonage packet, AT&T goes, Vonage get's dropped. More importantly when an AT&T http packet meets a Vonage VOIP packet, it's going to be the Vonage packet getting dropped even though http is not latency sensative and VOIP is.
The net result to the customer is that companies that pay up get a police escort to their screen and everyone else has to pull over and wait.
What about the privacy of the people who didn't commit the crime ? What if the next step from the police was to search every house in the city and then arrest the person who had this book, would you be up for that ?
I'll claim the Mea Culpa here.
I read it as a 'if she would just turn it over we don't have to' as opposed to 'hey, if just got it this time, why can't we do this next time."
Slashdot Mirror
I guess my question on this is: "Was the 'objectionable' portion of the video shown on the Big Brother website as part of the show or an extra?"
If I go to a TV stations website to view a show, I think it is reasonable to assume that what is going to be shown there is going to be the same as what is shown on the broadcast. I don't care if there's another link that shows unedited/adult cut of the same episode, but the main link should be what was broadcast.
So, if Ch10's website had the 'Broadcast' video and the 'Unedited' video - who cares. If however, CH10 offered the unedited cut as the only or the main video, then they need slapped personally, not more legislation.
Yeah we pay it back in the bulk ethanol tax though, 100% import tarrif on comercial grade ethanol. 'Gee, it's too expensive to import ethanol, and we don't grow enough corn to produce enough, guess we'll have to use gasoline.'
No, a classic prank is mapping the HD icon on a Mac to the Shutdown menu option :)
My favorite has to be:
- Me: thank you for calling $CO_HEADING_TO_C11 how can I help you today.
- Her: I need you to help me get back online.
- Me: OK, what seems the be the matter.
- Her: The computer keeps saying that it can't find a dialtone.
- Me: OK, have you checked that the phone line is plugged into the back of the computer and the wall.
- Her: [angry]Of course it's plugged in. I caught my son viewing pornography last weekend so I superglued the end of the plug into the back of the computer, and cut off the cord so he can't connect by himself. So I know the jack is plugged in.
- Me: OK, just to verify I understand the problem: You superglued the phone cord jack into the back of your computer and then cut off the cord. Now you want to connect to the internet and the phone cord jack is preventing you from putting in another cord.
- Her: [even angrier]I don't have another cord. I just want to get on the internet, that's what I pay you for, so get me connected.
- Me: Ma'am, I am confused. You have physically modified your computer in order to prevent your son from connecting to the internet, is that correct?
- Her: [furious]I didn't change anything, I just glued the plug in and cut the cord. Now get me connected to the internet or I'm going to cancel my service.
- Me: Ma'am, I cannot get you connected to the internet because you have damaged your computer. In order to get you connected to the internet, you will need to have someone replace the modem in the computer.
- Her: [screaming]I didn't break anything, why won't you help me?!!
It went downhill from there.Hey, if you put them on lay-away, they can be remarkably cheap on a weekly basis. Of course you do have to wait a while to take them home, and occasionally some screw-up will sell them off the reserved shelf, but all in all not a bad way to go.
What you have to look out for are these rent-a-rep locations. Yeah, you get to use the senator right away, but you end up having to pay so much more for them after the fees and what-not.
Damit, we fell behind again?!!!!?!!!
Just last week I made my monthly bribery payment, and now you're telling me it's not even getting top rate corruption?! What the hell is this state coming to?
Sigh, I was going to use the Bush Sr. & the grocery store ancecdote here but Snopes says it's not what it's cracked up to be.
Guess I'll have to fall back to the standard: Because he's a clueless pratt who just got a $30M 'donation' to the state education system by MS - so obviously creating any standard not MS's is bad.
OK did you get it? Good, go ahead and try opening that in your spiffy Office 2003. Oh, it didn't work? Um, sorry that's alls I have to save it with besides notepad.
Face it MS products are not compatible with each other, let alone with anything else. The whole purpose of an open standard/format is that there is a freely available document standard that will allow anyone to create a program capable of reading that format. The ITD of MA was looking at the long term. Up until just a few years ago there was a single standard format for all Official Documents in MA
If MS drops support for the Office 2003
You know that was concidered for text documents don't you? How about a spreadsheet attached to a report?
As for the cries that it doesn't support the needs of the disabled, I call bullshit.
- Visually Impared: what does MS
.doc format offer? um nothing, MS Windows offers a screen magnifier, that's usable by any program because all it does is blow up the window to a specified magnification. I don't see how this changes when I change to the ODF.
- Blind: OK so magnification isn't enough you need it read. Which is easier for a text-speach company to create, a program that converts 20 proprietary document formats to speach, or one that converts a single, standardized, fully documented format to speach?
- Deaf/Hard of hearing: Um, don't think ODF covers audio recordings, and I'm not aware of any speach -> text software that's capable of good accuracy without training to the speaker.
- Physically Disabled: These are issues with hardware not a document format.
Let's add to this whole mix that if MS is claiming that only Office is capable of providing these features, then if they want to play in the MA govt, all they have to do is grab the spec and use it. This is not about excluding MS from the game, it's about making MA goverment documents available on a level playing field. If I need to read it using Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or Windows I should be able to.Moving to the tin hat area, the encryption supposedly available on the documents for the 2007 release of Office will trigger the DCMA when you try to reverse engineer the format. Oops, didn't think of that did you. Not an issue with an Open Standard.
How many more reasons would you like, as to why a single Open Standard is better than multiple Closed formats with reguards to public documents?
You know you've been doing too much coding when it's easier to use psudo-code than put together a compound English sentance.
Actually from what we could read in the IBM experts declaration in support of this motion, NONE of the claims actually met the degree of specification required - FVL (File, Version, Line) for origin (SCO product) and destination (Linux). IBM just let the 101 claims slide because they didn't care so much - either they could identify the source for the SCO product as being outside of SCO's control, or they could prove where the code that was in Linux originated.
The one example I remember is SCO claimed that IBM gave Linux the SCO code to interface with certain Intel MBs. In the motion, IBM referenced an Intel developers guide as having the exact code that's in both Unix V5 & Linux kernel 2.4. A lot of these things are like that. One I like is that SCO is claiming that the JFSv2 code in Linux - developed by IBM for first AIX, then seperately from the ground up as JFSv2 for OS/2 & backported into AIX to replace JFSv1, and for which IBM has a couple of patents - was not IBM's to place into Linux because it was originally developed for AIX. Remember, this is the same company that says that the GPL is a viral liscense.
I also like some of the few claims that did make it through, they are claims on negative-know-how. Yep, they have not only made claims of proprietary methods and concepts in materials they admit to having no trade secrets, they also claim that they own the knowledge of what won't work as a method or concept - of everything that ever touched UNIX.
Here there is a blog that quotes a couple of people saying that the NSA data mining is doing more harm - in the sense of overwhelming the FBI with bad leads - than good - in the sense of finding terrorists. ... nothing significant. By the time they can track down a name & account to attach to it, they've already identified enough to find someone in more traditional ways - 2 or 3 year old data is going to be worthless.
I guess I have to question this in terms of traditional press personals. At no time or place does a newspaper require that you present proof of age prior to or durring the posting of personal adds. They don't even inquire if the add is yours or if your pulling a prank on someone else.
If a newspaper is not responsible for the usage of it's personals, how can MySpace be responsible for the use of it's services. Worse, there are policies in place to restrict access between people claiming to be adults & those claiming to be children. There are also procedures in place to remove accounts determined to be/reported to be used by people of the wrong age-group.
Where does this end, I would think that the log files for a day's worth of MySpace traffic would be substantial in terms of storage requirements. From the artical, they want 2 at least years for ISP's. That's going to be a huge storage amount. Who pays for keeping it? It serves no useful purpose for an ISP or site after about a week or so (time enough to verify a claim of acct hijacking) so this is just a waste of time and money for them. What does it give the police
Let's look at it from another angle. The 80GB tapes I use at work are about $125US each. What is going to be the cost to store every transaction record from every ISP and Social Networking site/BBS? I think we can easily say it's going to be in the millions. What benifit is it really going to provide? The FBI's own reports [sorry at work not going to google for FBI reports on the appropriate subject] estimate that full funding for these kinds of actions will cost around $400M/yr and help less than 1000 kids a year. Sorry, $400,000/child is not a good expenditure ratio - when you concider the same amount of money can be spent in other ways - Community centers, education, more/better trained police, runaway programs, and drug programs are the ones that come most immediately to mind - and help many, many, many more children for even less money. Call me a heartless, callus bastard, but I think that if the govt is going to spend money 'for the sake of the children' then they should have a program that is going to actually do something 'for the children'. When the proponents of it show it's horribly ineficient, it's time to drop it and come up with something else. Of course this is the same government that still thinks that telling kids 'abstinance is good' will stop teenage pregnancy.
Actually, in some communities, with actual beat cops that know the people, it's not all that unusual for a cop to see an open door & knock on it just to check that something's not amiss.
Actually, if you were hacked, it would be a valid defense - presupposing you made a best reasonable effort to prevent said hacking.
If I loan my car to Bob & Bob runs over Alice, Alice can sue me as the car owner and probably win a settlement from the insurance company. If however I locked my car and Bob stole it - running over Alice in the process, she shouldn't be able to win the case. (not that she can't sue, and not that some jury won't feel sorry for her & give her something)
In short, you're not criminally responsible for the criminal activity of others if you took reasonable efforts to prevent them from using your possessions to do so.
Technically, showing that bits of a botnet program were left in your PC after it was cleaned up, should show that your PC was owned at some point and therefor it is reasonable to assume that the illegal access to your system was used to perform illegal actions. Ergo: the fact that your PC was illegally compromised creates, by it's existance, reasonable doubt that the owner of the PC performed an illegal act with the PC. Obviously this could be overcome with a preponderance of other evidence, but it's certainly damaging to any case.
Generaly, no, the nature of the internet is not P2P. The vast majority of the internet is client/server.
Every IRC network, FTP site, Web site, Mail server, Gopher hole, YUM/YAST repository, etc is all client/server.
Peer to Peer is based on a state of equality - peering. For the majority of protocols, you ask a main repository of the information for what you want and the repository provides it. Everything is routed through main servers which is an artifact of it's creation. As a DARPA and University construct, it was designed for redundency and to utalize the processing power of a limited number of mainframes. Even in '87, the serious programming & heavy lifting for scientific research at my school (SUNY Geneseo) was done on the mainframes. P2P is relatively new concept (even phone & finger routed through the mainframe from/to essentially dumb terminals). In fact beyond P2P file transfer, I can't think of anything that involves more than 2 terminals that doesn't rely on a central server to do the heavy lifting.
Of course they are going to try to get both. Good greif, if the telcos get to charge both ends of a service, and the govt gives them the go-ahead to charge for the middle too, why shouldn't the *AA get to charge for the original, the coppies, and still sue for the infringement. After all, just because I paid for my compulsory liscense with the blank media, there's no reason I should actually be able to use that liscense. That would be immoral.
Officer: We have proof that your router downloaded kiddie porn.
FONuser: Let me see what time.... I was at work but let's see. OK, log says A,B,C were logged in, I show A & B doing torrents and C surfing to baby-titties.XXX.
I would have to assume that if ISP logs are admissable, so would the logs from the router. After all, they are both just text files - not all that hard to doctor up if you know what you are doing.
For the display you could always try a head mounted display. The one pictured in the wiki is for stereo gaming, but they also make them to display on a single eyepiece.
They are over a million patents behind and falling farther behind every day. Most of them are junk patents that should never have been put to paper let alone submitted. If there's a clear definition that taking a bunch of legos & assembling them as a truck is not patentable, then a good chunk of those patents will dry up.
Let's face it, we all agree that double clicking shouldn't be pattentable. The original mice were developed (iIrc) in the late 60s. The process was click - drag - click instead of click/hold - drag - release. (At least that was the process for the one I built for my C64 about 82-83.*) Since you already have the system for diferentiating mouse click meanings based on previous clicks, a 'once to select/twice to run' sequence becomes obvious.
*Never did get the lightpen to work right though.
You ever see some of the accounting tricks companies pull to show how little profit they showed when it comes to tax time & then how much profit they made come investment prospectus?
A very nice and an eminently reasonable suggestion, if we add that a request for an extention is also accompanied by a forensic audit by the govt to prove you haven't turned a profit yet.
No, PRIVATE information is private. It is yours. If I call up AT&T and they give me your DUF information, they are in violation of Federal laws (Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one). If I call up Citibank and they give me your CC details, they are in violation of other federal laws. If one of the credit reporting agencies gives my information away without my authorization, they are in violation of federal law. Data collected on you illegally is not thiers any more than your TV belongs to the thief who stole it from your livingroom. Why can data collection services sell it, because due to a loophole Congress is trying to close, it's illegal for companies to give you that information, but not for you to have it. Other information - your appearances in court, ownership of a house, birth date - public record type stuff is another matter.
Second I did not say that she should give out everyone's records but if the police have a good reason for wanting a particular record she should cooperate.
Who's opinion should she defer to for a 'good reason'? That's the very essence of the supena/warrent system. She doesn't have to defer to anyone's opinion [it's not the judges opinion she has to defer to, it's his ruling]. She has to follow a set protocol which is clearly defined in both the US Constitution, and in 200 years of case law.
The library policy is a guideline for behavior meant to protect there patrons but those rules must be interpreted and it seems obvious where the library stands on this situation as they were talking about a reprimand and a possible 30 day suspension for her.
Um, no. How about state law:
And just so we don't get confused:Now, can we discuss how exactly the Board of Directors of the library can complain about her behavior? Oh right, they are elected and appointed officials. If they do anything to her, they are going to have every ACLU lawyer camped out on their doorstep just dieing to take a crack at them.
ACLU: Why did you suspend her?
Board: Because she didn't give out record information when the police asked.
ACLU: Did they provide a supena?
Board: No.
ACLU: So she followed the legal requirement of L.1985, C.172, 2(c) - which requires a supena prior to the release of that information to the police?
Board: Um
ACLU: So, in the opinion of the board, Michele Reutty should have violated state law, rather than follow it?
It goes downhill fast from there.
This isn't a case of some librarian with a privacy bug up her ass, it's someone following the letter and the spirit of the law, and having over zelous cops asking her to break the law, and a moronic board responding in typical gutless elected official fasion.
I do truely believe that if they thought they could get away with it, AT&T and the other Tier 1's would impliment traffic shaping created around protocol/payment schemas.
Will those companies that pay extra get access to magical pipes? no. They will get priority on the existing pipes with those companies that do not pay up being shifted down in priority. Hence at 145.router.net when an AT&T VOIP packet comes along at the same time as a Vonage packet, AT&T goes, Vonage get's dropped. More importantly when an AT&T http packet meets a Vonage VOIP packet, it's going to be the Vonage packet getting dropped even though http is not latency sensative and VOIP is.
The net result to the customer is that companies that pay up get a police escort to their screen and everyone else has to pull over and wait.
I'll claim the Mea Culpa here.
I read it as a 'if she would just turn it over we don't have to' as opposed to 'hey, if just got it this time, why can't we do this next time."