Nah, I think the key word here is "intentionally", as in "...acquisition of information if it 'intentionally target[s] any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.'"
They *accidentally* collected all that information... yeah, that's it.
Certainly it can be done, and frankly, I think the publishing industry in general must change the way it does things or it's dead in the water. But most of publishing is about getting seen by the right people. You can do that as an author if you have the time (it takes gobs!), and most publishing firms do a crappy job of this anyway. Just like Amazon, they are going to put their real money and time on the books that they know will sell. If you're a first time author (or even mostly unknown) then you get a minimal effort. My wife literally sold more copies of her first book than the publisher did.
Amazon provides a place to be seen, but unless you're somehow able to get the right eyes to read you, you are just a very small fish in vast ocean of other small fish. What sucks is that so many of those other small fish are just bait.
Amazon's model isn't much better. They make their money by setting the price for a best-seller high, and everything else ridiculously low. And this seems reasonable to a "supply and demand" society, but there's an endless supply of ebooks. More over, that means that authors aren't going to make enough money to keep writing unless they happen to have a best-seller - and the market ends up flooded with garbage like Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey. It's a CostCo mentality. The consumer doesn't know any better, and hey, they're getting most of their books for 99 cents! Seems great from their perspective. But that model kills publishing in general. Anyone who thinks the only cost to publishing a book is the time it takes to write it, has never published a book. Even for a bare-bones self-published ebook, you need at the very least an editor. For anything serious, or that crosses over into the print world, then you need a cover artist, a designer, marketing, and probably someone who knows how to bring it all together... they call those people publishers.
Have you seen the absolute garbage that gets "self published" on Amazon? The ability to put a book out there on Amazon's site *for free*, is perhaps the biggest danger to the publishing industry ever. There are thousands upon thousands of "books" that are nothing more than $.99 scams. Some are literally garbage text or word for word rip off's of someone else's work with a new title. They might only get a few suckers, but they do this *thousands* of times over.
Except that the difference between the Streaming catalog and the DVD catalog is like the difference between a burger at McDonalds and a burger at Outback Steakhouse. Sure, there are tons of new releases on streaming, but let's be real... 98% of them are low-budget direct to video crap, with an occasional gem thrown in to keep people thinking there might be more on the way. Most of what people watch on Netflix streaming now are the television shows, and even in that genre there are 99 idiotic realty shows for every one Battlestar Galactica or Breaking Bad. Sure, there are a few movies I wouldn't mind having in my collection to watch when I want (off network, because my service provider is going to cap me), but by far the greater percentage of people just aren't going to bother, especially if the studios would stop putting up content on limited time release. I don't mind paying every month, but it sucks to sit down expecting to re-watch an old favorite, only to find that it's been pulled from the catalog by the studio because they think they can get more sales from the re-release of the Blu-Ray disc.
Ah yes, but the point isn't that the bastards shared my data... That's necessary to conduct business with me, etc. The point is that there's a difference between a "subsidiary" and an "associate". A subsidiary company is a part of the parent, and to some extent shares legal responsibility for your data. An associate company can be anyone that the parent has an association with. It could be a legit and respected service, or it could be a shady marketing firm who couldn't give a rat's ass about you or your personal information. When I click on a consent box, or sign my name on an account card, I'm giving permission to the parent company and their subsidiaries to use (and be responsible for) my data. But I don't know who the hell their "associates" are, vaguely mentioned in some privacy notice that comes as a bait and switch by mail a month later.
This kind of corporate activity is boilerplate now.
They need to add wording so that my data can't be shared without my permission with anyone who doesn't have the same company name. Way too much is being hidden behind "associates" and "partners". Anyone who touches my data should have to accept the same security and legal restrictions/responsibilities as the parent company that collected it. I'm tired to getting those Privacy Notices from everyone I have an account with, written in legaleze so generic as to make them useless. If you can take the time to send me a revised privacy statement every six months, then you can take the time to list who your "associate companies" actually are.
Well, you make the assumption that lobbyists won't use telecommuting to speak to them from Washington (or wherever) instead of visiting them in person. They'll be able to have a completely private and secure (read unrecorded or unmonitored) session with their respective purchased Congressman and no one will ever know. Park your local media outside the office all you want. They're not going to see anything.
Use headphones and an app like Babel Babble to create a Polyglot Cacophony. With hard ADHD, it might increase your stress level, but if you are trying to block out voices, that's about the best/cheapest you can get.
I'm certainly no expert in the security of GPS/spoofing, but since so many of our devices have location services built in, couldn't we add *where* we are trying to gain access as a relevant factor? Perhaps the security system could ask for a mere simple password if it sees that you are currently at home, and requires secondary authentication (RSA fob, Goggle Auth, etc.) someplace you haven't been before. Most people who have stolen your credentials aren't going to log in from your house (short of your own kids, but if that happens, you have bigger problems).
Maybe, but consider... Movie studios don't make money on movies that get bad reviews. So if they make it impossible for people to find reviews of a new release, they can sucker more patrons to the theater before word gets around. How many movies do you go see after finding reviews with one and two stars? And given the utter unimaginative crap that Hollywood is passing off for entertainment lately, this may actually be a reasonable business move for them.
Maybe I'm not quite understanding the situation, but couldn't you just put a reasonably sensitive geiger counter on a truck and slowly drive it down the same road until you get a spike?
Your "friend" is likely an idiot who has a key-logged, malware-ridden machine. 99.99% of the time, what someone calls "hacking" is nothing more than poor personal security on their own machine.
Why would the various entertainment industries want to stop piracy? They're making a killing off the legal extortion racket. One "settled" case is worth what, 500 months worth of paid services? They know they're not going to stop people from pirating, so they just created a way to monetize it.
Depending on the efficiency, it might be an interesting choice for something like one (North or South) side of a large glass building, effectively giving you a large solar array for windows that you were going to put in anyway.
I think what they are trying to say is that you still have to get it from somewhere, sideloaded or not. If the ugly patent people do their jobs, they would send legal takedown notices to any place they find has the software. 10 minutes on Google would cover 90% of them. I suppose those places could ignore the notices, but why would they risk that? Alternately, PRC, SCS could simply send a cease and desist to the app maker, preventing any further updates at all, anywhere. Which is what the GP was speaking to in the first place. The fact that it's on iOS remains irrelevant.
Honestly, I would be quite surprised to find a decent pair of headphones (sound and comfort-wise) for less than $100. For less than $50 you can probably get something light and comfy, but it'll be crap for sound quality and isolation. Or you can find something that isolates well, but squeezes your brains out your nose and sounds like the inside of a garbage can. But once you hit the $100 mark, then you start to have some real choices. I've had three pairs of MDR V6's, and for the money, I have yet to find anything close in terms of sound, isolation, and comfort. BUT - Sony has turned the physical *quality* of these headphones into utter garbage. The first pair I had lasted 10 years with pretty hard abuse. The second pair made it 2 years before literally falling apart. They also changed the material used to make the spiral phono cord into that horrid Sony patented TangleMatic crap that got so bad that I finally chopped the damnable thing off and put on my own shorter straight cord, as any 'studio monitor' should have in the first place. My third pair is already dying (cushions) after less than a year, and the cord is getting snipped this weekend.
The sound range on the V6's is incredible for the money, but damnitall, Sony has dropped the ball on quality and that alone makes them a poor choice today.
Any serious photographer is probably going to be shooting camera RAW format, which, with any modern digital camera is going to be at least 16 megs an image or more. This guy says he's shooting 200-300 images *a day*. So 3.2 gigs conservative, to 6.3 gigs with a 10 megapixel sensor. Per day. Upload. On WiFi... And all that while he's out someplace with an unfamiliar/restricted network (hotel, internet cafe etc...).
For $150 bucks you can easily get an external 2-3 terabyte USB hard drive. Dump everything to that and deal with it when you get back home. Unless there's some reason why you want/need those photos and files at home before you get there...
Or just a cable TV subscription? Seems like it would have to be the TV side to make *any* sense at all for them.
Why is the government not splitting cable companies in two? One side for TV, and one side for internet - since the two are now in competition with each other.
And when did cable companies start *making* content? Aren't they distributors of content?
Corporations aren't "moral" or "immoral". They are machines for profit. Always. This is why Citizens United was such an outrageous mistake. We gave corporations all the protections and benefits of "people", without the moral regulation that usually comes with them. Corporations like Apple are only doing what corporations do. It's a little like bringing a wild animal into your home and then being angry at them when they bite you. Is biting you wrong? Sure, but that's what wild animals do.
I think what they mean is that it doesn't really change anything. You still can't give your book to a friend, or even lend it out without risking that somewhere along the line it could be pirated and leave you at the sharp end of the law. We *hope* our friends are trustworthy enough, but shit happens. Someone steals your laptop, or a college buddy uses your computer and uploads the book to TPB with your name on it, whatever. Watermarking is dangerous because it makes *you* liable for protecting the copyright of a purchase. If someone steals a physical book from me, then I'm just out a book. If someone steals a watermarked ebook and then distributes it, I could be liable. The problem is that I *shouldn't* be. Theoretically, you can't *prove* that it was me who infringed, even though my name is on the book.
This is a serious shift in copyright. It takes the onus of protection off of copyright holders, and puts it on the reader/user. That seems like a really bad idea from the consumer's point of view.
"And what Apple is accused of doing is "allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases."" - false. There's no "pushing" here. If anything it's enticement. But just for the sake of argument, let's say Apple is being accused of this and continue.
"Apple is no common carrier, Apple exercises control over every app sold through its store." - true. Focus on the word "control" here.
"And is therefore responsible for the app, including any immoral, unethical or downright illegal inducement of children to enter into financial transactions." - Oops. This is where the poster steps off the logic train. This is complete assumption. I'm sure you could read through the TOS on the App Store and find numerous paragraphs specifically releasing Apple from all responsibility for the use and content of the Apps they sell. The "control" mentioned earlier applies *only* to the choice to sell or not sell a given app, NOT it's use. That stays completely within the realm of the account holder (notice I did not say 'app user').
I'm sorry you can't keep *your* kids under control, but mine do just fine, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, I think the key word here is "intentionally", as in "...acquisition of information if it 'intentionally target[s] any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.'"
They *accidentally* collected all that information... yeah, that's it.
Certainly it can be done, and frankly, I think the publishing industry in general must change the way it does things or it's dead in the water. But most of publishing is about getting seen by the right people. You can do that as an author if you have the time (it takes gobs!), and most publishing firms do a crappy job of this anyway. Just like Amazon, they are going to put their real money and time on the books that they know will sell. If you're a first time author (or even mostly unknown) then you get a minimal effort. My wife literally sold more copies of her first book than the publisher did.
Amazon provides a place to be seen, but unless you're somehow able to get the right eyes to read you, you are just a very small fish in vast ocean of other small fish. What sucks is that so many of those other small fish are just bait.
Amazon's model isn't much better. They make their money by setting the price for a best-seller high, and everything else ridiculously low. And this seems reasonable to a "supply and demand" society, but there's an endless supply of ebooks. More over, that means that authors aren't going to make enough money to keep writing unless they happen to have a best-seller - and the market ends up flooded with garbage like Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey. It's a CostCo mentality. The consumer doesn't know any better, and hey, they're getting most of their books for 99 cents! Seems great from their perspective. But that model kills publishing in general. Anyone who thinks the only cost to publishing a book is the time it takes to write it, has never published a book. Even for a bare-bones self-published ebook, you need at the very least an editor. For anything serious, or that crosses over into the print world, then you need a cover artist, a designer, marketing, and probably someone who knows how to bring it all together... they call those people publishers.
Have you seen the absolute garbage that gets "self published" on Amazon? The ability to put a book out there on Amazon's site *for free*, is perhaps the biggest danger to the publishing industry ever. There are thousands upon thousands of "books" that are nothing more than $.99 scams. Some are literally garbage text or word for word rip off's of someone else's work with a new title. They might only get a few suckers, but they do this *thousands* of times over.
Except that the difference between the Streaming catalog and the DVD catalog is like the difference between a burger at McDonalds and a burger at Outback Steakhouse. Sure, there are tons of new releases on streaming, but let's be real... 98% of them are low-budget direct to video crap, with an occasional gem thrown in to keep people thinking there might be more on the way. Most of what people watch on Netflix streaming now are the television shows, and even in that genre there are 99 idiotic realty shows for every one Battlestar Galactica or Breaking Bad. Sure, there are a few movies I wouldn't mind having in my collection to watch when I want (off network, because my service provider is going to cap me), but by far the greater percentage of people just aren't going to bother, especially if the studios would stop putting up content on limited time release. I don't mind paying every month, but it sucks to sit down expecting to re-watch an old favorite, only to find that it's been pulled from the catalog by the studio because they think they can get more sales from the re-release of the Blu-Ray disc.
Ah yes, but the point isn't that the bastards shared my data... That's necessary to conduct business with me, etc. The point is that there's a difference between a "subsidiary" and an "associate". A subsidiary company is a part of the parent, and to some extent shares legal responsibility for your data. An associate company can be anyone that the parent has an association with. It could be a legit and respected service, or it could be a shady marketing firm who couldn't give a rat's ass about you or your personal information. When I click on a consent box, or sign my name on an account card, I'm giving permission to the parent company and their subsidiaries to use (and be responsible for) my data. But I don't know who the hell their "associates" are, vaguely mentioned in some privacy notice that comes as a bait and switch by mail a month later.
This kind of corporate activity is boilerplate now.
They need to add wording so that my data can't be shared without my permission with anyone who doesn't have the same company name. Way too much is being hidden behind "associates" and "partners". Anyone who touches my data should have to accept the same security and legal restrictions/responsibilities as the parent company that collected it. I'm tired to getting those Privacy Notices from everyone I have an account with, written in legaleze so generic as to make them useless. If you can take the time to send me a revised privacy statement every six months, then you can take the time to list who your "associate companies" actually are.
Well, you make the assumption that lobbyists won't use telecommuting to speak to them from Washington (or wherever) instead of visiting them in person. They'll be able to have a completely private and secure (read unrecorded or unmonitored) session with their respective purchased Congressman and no one will ever know. Park your local media outside the office all you want. They're not going to see anything.
Use headphones and an app like Babel Babble to create a Polyglot Cacophony. With hard ADHD, it might increase your stress level, but if you are trying to block out voices, that's about the best/cheapest you can get.
Hmm... I guess I was seeing location verification for access to a device rather than a website. I see your point.
I'm certainly no expert in the security of GPS/spoofing, but since so many of our devices have location services built in, couldn't we add *where* we are trying to gain access as a relevant factor? Perhaps the security system could ask for a mere simple password if it sees that you are currently at home, and requires secondary authentication (RSA fob, Goggle Auth, etc.) someplace you haven't been before. Most people who have stolen your credentials aren't going to log in from your house (short of your own kids, but if that happens, you have bigger problems).
Blue Screen of Death
Maybe, but consider... Movie studios don't make money on movies that get bad reviews. So if they make it impossible for people to find reviews of a new release, they can sucker more patrons to the theater before word gets around. How many movies do you go see after finding reviews with one and two stars? And given the utter unimaginative crap that Hollywood is passing off for entertainment lately, this may actually be a reasonable business move for them.
Maybe I'm not quite understanding the situation, but couldn't you just put a reasonably sensitive geiger counter on a truck and slowly drive it down the same road until you get a spike?
I believe that would be, "Fuck you up the ass."
Your "friend" is likely an idiot who has a key-logged, malware-ridden machine. 99.99% of the time, what someone calls "hacking" is nothing more than poor personal security on their own machine.
Why would the various entertainment industries want to stop piracy? They're making a killing off the legal extortion racket. One "settled" case is worth what, 500 months worth of paid services? They know they're not going to stop people from pirating, so they just created a way to monetize it.
Depending on the efficiency, it might be an interesting choice for something like one (North or South) side of a large glass building, effectively giving you a large solar array for windows that you were going to put in anyway.
I think what they are trying to say is that you still have to get it from somewhere, sideloaded or not. If the ugly patent people do their jobs, they would send legal takedown notices to any place they find has the software. 10 minutes on Google would cover 90% of them. I suppose those places could ignore the notices, but why would they risk that? Alternately, PRC, SCS could simply send a cease and desist to the app maker, preventing any further updates at all, anywhere. Which is what the GP was speaking to in the first place. The fact that it's on iOS remains irrelevant.
Honestly, I would be quite surprised to find a decent pair of headphones (sound and comfort-wise) for less than $100. For less than $50 you can probably get something light and comfy, but it'll be crap for sound quality and isolation. Or you can find something that isolates well, but squeezes your brains out your nose and sounds like the inside of a garbage can. But once you hit the $100 mark, then you start to have some real choices. I've had three pairs of MDR V6's, and for the money, I have yet to find anything close in terms of sound, isolation, and comfort. BUT - Sony has turned the physical *quality* of these headphones into utter garbage. The first pair I had lasted 10 years with pretty hard abuse. The second pair made it 2 years before literally falling apart. They also changed the material used to make the spiral phono cord into that horrid Sony patented TangleMatic crap that got so bad that I finally chopped the damnable thing off and put on my own shorter straight cord, as any 'studio monitor' should have in the first place. My third pair is already dying (cushions) after less than a year, and the cord is getting snipped this weekend.
The sound range on the V6's is incredible for the money, but damnitall, Sony has dropped the ball on quality and that alone makes them a poor choice today.
Any serious photographer is probably going to be shooting camera RAW format, which, with any modern digital camera is going to be at least 16 megs an image or more. This guy says he's shooting 200-300 images *a day*. So 3.2 gigs conservative, to 6.3 gigs with a 10 megapixel sensor. Per day. Upload. On WiFi... And all that while he's out someplace with an unfamiliar/restricted network (hotel, internet cafe etc...).
Yeah, that'll work.
For $150 bucks you can easily get an external 2-3 terabyte USB hard drive. Dump everything to that and deal with it when you get back home. Unless there's some reason why you want/need those photos and files at home before you get there...
Or just a cable TV subscription? Seems like it would have to be the TV side to make *any* sense at all for them.
Why is the government not splitting cable companies in two? One side for TV, and one side for internet - since the two are now in competition with each other.
And when did cable companies start *making* content? Aren't they distributors of content?
Corporations aren't "moral" or "immoral". They are machines for profit. Always. This is why Citizens United was such an outrageous mistake. We gave corporations all the protections and benefits of "people", without the moral regulation that usually comes with them. Corporations like Apple are only doing what corporations do. It's a little like bringing a wild animal into your home and then being angry at them when they bite you. Is biting you wrong? Sure, but that's what wild animals do.
I think what they mean is that it doesn't really change anything. You still can't give your book to a friend, or even lend it out without risking that somewhere along the line it could be pirated and leave you at the sharp end of the law. We *hope* our friends are trustworthy enough, but shit happens. Someone steals your laptop, or a college buddy uses your computer and uploads the book to TPB with your name on it, whatever. Watermarking is dangerous because it makes *you* liable for protecting the copyright of a purchase. If someone steals a physical book from me, then I'm just out a book. If someone steals a watermarked ebook and then distributes it, I could be liable. The problem is that I *shouldn't* be. Theoretically, you can't *prove* that it was me who infringed, even though my name is on the book.
This is a serious shift in copyright. It takes the onus of protection off of copyright holders, and puts it on the reader/user. That seems like a really bad idea from the consumer's point of view.
"learn to logic"? Learn to speak.
Let me "logic" it out for you...
"And what Apple is accused of doing is "allowing games geared at kids to push them to make purchases.""
- false. There's no "pushing" here. If anything it's enticement. But just for the sake of argument, let's say Apple is being accused of this and continue.
"Apple is no common carrier, Apple exercises control over every app sold through its store."
- true. Focus on the word "control" here.
"And is therefore responsible for the app, including any immoral, unethical or downright illegal inducement of children to enter into financial transactions."
- Oops. This is where the poster steps off the logic train. This is complete assumption. I'm sure you could read through the TOS on the App Store and find numerous paragraphs specifically releasing Apple from all responsibility for the use and content of the Apps they sell. The "control" mentioned earlier applies *only* to the choice to sell or not sell a given app, NOT it's use. That stays completely within the realm of the account holder (notice I did not say 'app user').
I'm sorry you can't keep *your* kids under control, but mine do just fine, thank you very much.