And in many cases, it's not even buried in the EULA.
Clicking saying you are of legal age does not give them consent to install things on your computer. It means you are claiming to be of legal age, nothing more, unless it comes at the end of any sort of user agreement. In this case, you're fair game for porn pop-ups.
Do you ever watch That Man Show? At least back when Carrola (sp?) and Kimmel we both still on it. Okay, the girls ontrampolines was boring to me, but their sketches and interviews could be hilarious. There is this one (available on iTunes) with a man who was paid $100k to get implants. Download that segment, called "Man-Boobs," and watch it. Yes, his man-boobs are shown!
I just suggested authorization for each individual program in response to another reply, but didn't say that the primary software company should be held responsible for undisclosed third-party software. However, I completely agree. But this could be kind of a moot point if the user agreement says you agree to receive third-party software. User agreements need to be written to be understandable at the 10th grade level. People without a law school education should not be expected to understand complicated legalese. Now if a law were to specifically ban companies from requiring a consumer to accept third-party software....
Sad, is it not, that to enforce one law (authorization for individual programs) that we have to think of laws to close loopholes? Laws to enforce laws to enforce laws.
We all know that this is to confuse consumers. Attorneys spend a couple years shy of a decade in school to learn the law needed to understand these massive contracts, and yet the average person without law school experience is also supposed to be able to understand it. A law should be in place that contacts be understandable to the average education level in America, if not a good deal lower so that those who fall under that level can still understand. How about making contracts understandable to a 10th grade level?
Before anything can install on your system, the company must obtain expressed consent. If software is bundled with something else, permission must be obtained. Software defined as a program which can run independently of the software/download/whatever with which is it bundled. (Such as if I download a program that needs Quicktime to run, I am asked if I want to download it as it is seperate.)
Or make it like an ingredients list for food. The contents are clearly labeled.
You know, the government probably does get this information. With what the bastards are already demanding ISPs to have over, I wouldn't doubt that they are indeed paying spyware companies for this information.
Boobieees!
A nice representative in regard to the maturity level around here.:) What is it with guys and boobs anyway? Freud had it backward. Women do not have penis envy. Men have boob envy.!
It amounts to stalking, spying, possibly breaking and entering, and stealing, and the porn pop-ups break federal laws.
When you go to many websites, such as Amazon or Adam & Eve, you can expect as much privacy as in a local mall. But if someone were to follow you around from store to store, at that point it would be stalking.
Now when that "someone" (spyware company) breaks into your property (your computer) to install something without your consent (spyware programs), it's beyond just your typical stalking and into spying. Add to the charge that this "person" didn't have permission to enter your property in any way and you can add breaking and entering to this.
To run this program that you didn't consent to having uses power you are paying for. If it causes your system to crash, if you are someone who can't fix it, you've got to pay someone to repair it for you. Money out of your pocket. Theft. At the least of your own time to fix it.
When you go to a porn site, you usually have to click something saying you are at least 18 or of legal age to view sexually explicit material, and that you consent to doing so. If you were to sit a minor in front of the computer, or were to allow a minor to be nearby while viewing said material, you've commited an offense for which you could be required to register as a sex offender. But yet porn pop-ups happen on sites that aren't sexual in nature, sites that kids sometimes visit. The spyware company is giving no notice whatsoever that sexual material is about to pop up, no chance to consent or for children to be removed from the room first. Would this not be a violation of federal laws by the spyware companies by exposing minors to sexual material?
Get those firnds together and go play football. You know, outside, moving around! That's the best way to get the real experience of playing. Sad, sad thing that playing a sport more often means sitting in front of a console rather than going out and moving around. And we wonder why people are so obese?
The government needs to quit giving these patents so easily. The patent is free. The price comes in the application cost. From personal experience obtaining a patent, I can tell you that it's a long process, but an overly-simple one in the end. To say one company now owns the right to online social networking is insane.
The wording on their application is not specific by any means. Many websites have a form of networking based on interests, not only MySpace, but places such as LiveJournal where you can search for people based on interest and location. Considering social networking wasn't as big three years ago as it is today, Friendster has just been the recipient of a miracle.
There is a box sellers can check indicating that other payment methods are accepted, and those methods aren't specified. Once an auction is closed, exactly how money transfers possession is out of eBay's control. Ebay's policies are becoming so asinine.
"To avoid disruption of these sellers' business during the holiday shopping season, eBay will delay enforcement of this policy against existing payment methods until Jan 15, 2006."
That they were willing to wait on enforcement until after the holidays indicates that there is no danger in other payment methods. no danger to anything other than eBay's profits. This is simply a way for eBay to try to bully people into using payment methods from which they can profit.
Google ought to ban eBay acutions from its searches.
My ex-fiancé and I were in the process of opening a Swiss bank account (more or less simply to say we had one), and came up against road block after road block. Drivers licenses, birth certificates, passports, oh my gods so much information, and in the end, we got a letter citing some stupid new American law that assisted in blocking us from opening the account as of March 31st of 2005, I think it was. If I can recall right, the gist was something about how accounts must have a certain amount in them to be worth it for the banks there to accept them because of the US somehow forcing information out of them regarding American accounts to prevent tax evasion. It's simply a wild fantasy that anyone can open up an account, get a random number, and no one in the world but that person knows what illegal assets are hidden. It's more difficult to get an account in Switzerland for legit purposes than it is here.
...as states, still a large number of Americans have not learned that we now have 50 states. What brainiac thinks we can teach all American people an entirely new spelling system if just the correct number of states, just one change nearly 50 years ago, has proved nearly impossible to teach to all?
I was overly tired after whacking my head in the pool yesterday. 5% of $1mil, not of $3mil. Not that it matters. Point is he got of so easy that it's a more attractive option to defraud $3mil and get a year than to work a year and make so much less while taking care of my own bills. Oh, you know what I mean!
He loses one year of his life in jail to get $3mil, of which he has been ordered to repay absolutely nothing, and will be living the next year without having to pay rent, buy his own food, pay his own utilities, and so on. I lose one year of my life to something like a jail and I earn about 5% of that, and from my own income I have to pay my own rent and my own bills. Gee, defrauding $3mil from the government (really from the taxpayers) is seeming more and more attractive by the minute.*
*This comment was made in jest. As Bush probably has people spying on everyone every moment of every goddamned day, ready to arrest people for the slightest offense in the name of combatting terrorism, I simply want to say to you, Mr. Dumbass, I mean, Mr. President, is that I don't actually plan to steal $3mil from the taxpayers. I mean, you do that enough.
As ploce are public servants, employed by us via our tax dollars, should we citizens not have the same right as other employers to monitor the behavior of our employees? If our phone calls at work, our work e-mail, and where we go online can be monitored, and we can be filmed at work, by our employers, with or without any additional notification, then we should be allowed to monitor the police. Otherwise their power goes unchecked and along comes corruption. The word of one cop has more weight that three citizens, unless there's a videotape the backs up those citizens.
Those surveillance cameras are not hidden. They're pretty clear. And that man has the right to protect his family. If someone broke into his house and the proof he had were tapes, would he be the one charged with a felony while the burgler got off because the evidence would be inadmissible? yeah, let's punish the good guy and let the bad off the hook.
We've got to question what the officers did that they do not want that tape shown. If they were orderly and didn't threaten or act like asses toward that family, then there should be nothing to fear. But if they arrested a man and he's been charged with two felony counts simply for recording, then it would make sense that there is something to hide. They must have acted out of line.
And this man being arrested does not indicate that he did anything wrong in the way you might be thinking. Hostility, trying to attack an officers.... No. If simply recording is against the law, then they can arrest him for that and nothing else. He could have been entirely peaceful, as well as his wife and sons, and still could have been arrested. And now, even if all charges are dropped, this man still has an arrest on his record. And if his wife bailed him out via a bail bonds place, then they are out the 10% paid to the bail bonds place. Money lost, embarassment, a record of arrest....
Sad, sad day when taking steps to ensure personal safety in a non-violent way results in grounds for arrest.
If you're going to be fined via this tax specifically to reimburse recording companies, you may as well make use of pirating. If being punished for something you have not done, you may as well do it and deserve the punishment you're getting anyway.
Easy. The taxes they collect are going to reimburse unspecified "copyright holders," whoever they may be. Assuming this money ever does fine its way to any recording companies (and just how much each would be entitled to is a mystery), the government would still be earning interest on it in the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess compared to a lot of people, I'm brand-spanking new.
The Man Show is free. It's under "video podcasts," and you can watch it on your computer.
And in many cases, it's not even buried in the EULA.
Clicking saying you are of legal age does not give them consent to install things on your computer. It means you are claiming to be of legal age, nothing more, unless it comes at the end of any sort of user agreement. In this case, you're fair game for porn pop-ups.
LOL, no, not too new here.
Do you ever watch That Man Show? At least back when Carrola (sp?) and Kimmel we both still on it. Okay, the girls ontrampolines was boring to me, but their sketches and interviews could be hilarious. There is this one (available on iTunes) with a man who was paid $100k to get implants. Download that segment, called "Man-Boobs," and watch it. Yes, his man-boobs are shown!
And by fascinating to women, I mean we don't go slack-jawed at a guy's pants or sit around talking about them and thinking about them non-stop.
LOL, so boobs = girl, therefore boobs = fascinating?
Penis = guy, yet penis does not = fascinating to women. Have we just evolved a bit more? =D
I just suggested authorization for each individual program in response to another reply, but didn't say that the primary software company should be held responsible for undisclosed third-party software. However, I completely agree. But this could be kind of a moot point if the user agreement says you agree to receive third-party software. User agreements need to be written to be understandable at the 10th grade level. People without a law school education should not be expected to understand complicated legalese. Now if a law were to specifically ban companies from requiring a consumer to accept third-party software....
Sad, is it not, that to enforce one law (authorization for individual programs) that we have to think of laws to close loopholes? Laws to enforce laws to enforce laws.
We all know that this is to confuse consumers. Attorneys spend a couple years shy of a decade in school to learn the law needed to understand these massive contracts, and yet the average person without law school experience is also supposed to be able to understand it. A law should be in place that contacts be understandable to the average education level in America, if not a good deal lower so that those who fall under that level can still understand. How about making contracts understandable to a 10th grade level?
Simple law:
Before anything can install on your system, the company must obtain expressed consent. If software is bundled with something else, permission must be obtained. Software defined as a program which can run independently of the software/download/whatever with which is it bundled. (Such as if I download a program that needs Quicktime to run, I am asked if I want to download it as it is seperate.)
Or make it like an ingredients list for food. The contents are clearly labeled.
It does.
You know, the government probably does get this information. With what the bastards are already demanding ISPs to have over, I wouldn't doubt that they are indeed paying spyware companies for this information.
LOL, I ask a guy for the hundredth time, what is so fascinating about boobs?
Boobieees! A nice representative in regard to the maturity level around here. :) What is it with guys and boobs anyway? Freud had it backward. Women do not have penis envy. Men have boob envy.!
Precisely.
Not always, no.
It amounts to stalking, spying, possibly breaking and entering, and stealing, and the porn pop-ups break federal laws.
When you go to many websites, such as Amazon or Adam & Eve, you can expect as much privacy as in a local mall. But if someone were to follow you around from store to store, at that point it would be stalking.
Now when that "someone" (spyware company) breaks into your property (your computer) to install something without your consent (spyware programs), it's beyond just your typical stalking and into spying. Add to the charge that this "person" didn't have permission to enter your property in any way and you can add breaking and entering to this.
To run this program that you didn't consent to having uses power you are paying for. If it causes your system to crash, if you are someone who can't fix it, you've got to pay someone to repair it for you. Money out of your pocket. Theft. At the least of your own time to fix it.
When you go to a porn site, you usually have to click something saying you are at least 18 or of legal age to view sexually explicit material, and that you consent to doing so. If you were to sit a minor in front of the computer, or were to allow a minor to be nearby while viewing said material, you've commited an offense for which you could be required to register as a sex offender. But yet porn pop-ups happen on sites that aren't sexual in nature, sites that kids sometimes visit. The spyware company is giving no notice whatsoever that sexual material is about to pop up, no chance to consent or for children to be removed from the room first. Would this not be a violation of federal laws by the spyware companies by exposing minors to sexual material?
So I repeat, why is spyware not illegal?
Get those firnds together and go play football. You know, outside, moving around! That's the best way to get the real experience of playing. Sad, sad thing that playing a sport more often means sitting in front of a console rather than going out and moving around. And we wonder why people are so obese?
The government needs to quit giving these patents so easily. The patent is free. The price comes in the application cost. From personal experience obtaining a patent, I can tell you that it's a long process, but an overly-simple one in the end. To say one company now owns the right to online social networking is insane.
The wording on their application is not specific by any means. Many websites have a form of networking based on interests, not only MySpace, but places such as LiveJournal where you can search for people based on interest and location. Considering social networking wasn't as big three years ago as it is today, Friendster has just been the recipient of a miracle.
There is a box sellers can check indicating that other payment methods are accepted, and those methods aren't specified. Once an auction is closed, exactly how money transfers possession is out of eBay's control. Ebay's policies are becoming so asinine.
"To avoid disruption of these sellers' business during the holiday shopping season, eBay will delay enforcement of this policy against existing payment methods until Jan 15, 2006."
That they were willing to wait on enforcement until after the holidays indicates that there is no danger in other payment methods. no danger to anything other than eBay's profits. This is simply a way for eBay to try to bully people into using payment methods from which they can profit.
Google ought to ban eBay acutions from its searches.
My ex-fiancé and I were in the process of opening a Swiss bank account (more or less simply to say we had one), and came up against road block after road block. Drivers licenses, birth certificates, passports, oh my gods so much information, and in the end, we got a letter citing some stupid new American law that assisted in blocking us from opening the account as of March 31st of 2005, I think it was. If I can recall right, the gist was something about how accounts must have a certain amount in them to be worth it for the banks there to accept them because of the US somehow forcing information out of them regarding American accounts to prevent tax evasion. It's simply a wild fantasy that anyone can open up an account, get a random number, and no one in the world but that person knows what illegal assets are hidden. It's more difficult to get an account in Switzerland for legit purposes than it is here.
...as states, still a large number of Americans have not learned that we now have 50 states. What brainiac thinks we can teach all American people an entirely new spelling system if just the correct number of states, just one change nearly 50 years ago, has proved nearly impossible to teach to all?
I was overly tired after whacking my head in the pool yesterday. 5% of $1mil, not of $3mil. Not that it matters. Point is he got of so easy that it's a more attractive option to defraud $3mil and get a year than to work a year and make so much less while taking care of my own bills. Oh, you know what I mean!
He loses one year of his life in jail to get $3mil, of which he has been ordered to repay absolutely nothing, and will be living the next year without having to pay rent, buy his own food, pay his own utilities, and so on. I lose one year of my life to something like a jail and I earn about 5% of that, and from my own income I have to pay my own rent and my own bills. Gee, defrauding $3mil from the government (really from the taxpayers) is seeming more and more attractive by the minute.*
*This comment was made in jest. As Bush probably has people spying on everyone every moment of every goddamned day, ready to arrest people for the slightest offense in the name of combatting terrorism, I simply want to say to you, Mr. Dumbass, I mean, Mr. President, is that I don't actually plan to steal $3mil from the taxpayers. I mean, you do that enough.
As ploce are public servants, employed by us via our tax dollars, should we citizens not have the same right as other employers to monitor the behavior of our employees? If our phone calls at work, our work e-mail, and where we go online can be monitored, and we can be filmed at work, by our employers, with or without any additional notification, then we should be allowed to monitor the police. Otherwise their power goes unchecked and along comes corruption. The word of one cop has more weight that three citizens, unless there's a videotape the backs up those citizens.
Those surveillance cameras are not hidden. They're pretty clear. And that man has the right to protect his family. If someone broke into his house and the proof he had were tapes, would he be the one charged with a felony while the burgler got off because the evidence would be inadmissible? yeah, let's punish the good guy and let the bad off the hook.
We've got to question what the officers did that they do not want that tape shown. If they were orderly and didn't threaten or act like asses toward that family, then there should be nothing to fear. But if they arrested a man and he's been charged with two felony counts simply for recording, then it would make sense that there is something to hide. They must have acted out of line.
And this man being arrested does not indicate that he did anything wrong in the way you might be thinking. Hostility, trying to attack an officers.... No. If simply recording is against the law, then they can arrest him for that and nothing else. He could have been entirely peaceful, as well as his wife and sons, and still could have been arrested. And now, even if all charges are dropped, this man still has an arrest on his record. And if his wife bailed him out via a bail bonds place, then they are out the 10% paid to the bail bonds place. Money lost, embarassment, a record of arrest....
Sad, sad day when taking steps to ensure personal safety in a non-violent way results in grounds for arrest.
If you're going to be fined via this tax specifically to reimburse recording companies, you may as well make use of pirating. If being punished for something you have not done, you may as well do it and deserve the punishment you're getting anyway.
Easy. The taxes they collect are going to reimburse unspecified "copyright holders," whoever they may be. Assuming this money ever does fine its way to any recording companies (and just how much each would be entitled to is a mystery), the government would still be earning interest on it in the meantime.