..or they could pull a Google and sell all that footage to some company who they "partner" with, you know, so they can "customize the user experience".
Or allow would-be thieves a way to take inventory of your possessions and make a burglar's Christmas Wish List......
"......Our approach to privacy starts with the belief that privacy is a fundamental human right and includes our commitment to provide robust protection for every individual...."
IMNTBHO, there HAS to be some sort of provision that prevents companies from bypassing the law by refusing service unless the consumer surrenders their rights under this law (if it becomes law).
For example, back in the 80's, when I was in the Army, and you filled out paperwork (to take leave or change pay allotments, for example), the law (at the time) said the Army could not require you to give them your SSN. However, every single form had small print on it that read: "Federal Law prohibits us from requiring the use of your social security number. However, if you fail to provide it, this form will not be processed" (or words to that effect).
I'm all for DoH, but, since Google and Firefox are the companies (currently) providing this encryption, can't THEY still track (and therefore monetize) our browsing habits?
Isn't this just shifting who gets to monetize our personal data??
AT&T spokesman: "You seriously didn't think that WE were going to pay the $86 billion dollars for the merger, did you???? That's what CUSTOMERS are for!!!"
@Mike, @TKnarr: Thank you both for your clarifications. Now the entire article makes more sense! Then I am in agreement with Mike's original article.
We do provide APIs for our software, which we document and provide to our users at no cost. Many of our users LIKE using the APIs, and therefore want to do more business with us. I'd much rather have the extra business because I provided a service (or product function) that customers WANT, rather than be TOLD to do by the gov't......
"....Get rid of Section 1201 (the anti-circumvention or DRM clause) of the DMCA. This would allow for much more reverse engineering to get access to platforms..."
Wait, what? What about the Chinese, who do this on a daily basis? Why is their reverse engineering ok, but software engineers (like myself), who spend years creating software to earn a living, have to now surrender things that we created so everybody and their brother can make money off of our creations? Or, am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
If you read the "comments" on the Ring site, one would think that having a Ring and the police dept tied into it was the greatest thing since sliced bread!
I wonder, are the guys doing the hacking publishing their new hacks on a website that Sony has access to? Maybe they should create a private email list for that purpose.
Sounds like Sony is being WAAAAY overzealous in keeping tabs on the innovation community.
I agree. Sure, both songs MIGHT have similarities, but I don't subscribe to the notion that Led Zep INTENTIONALLY ripped off any riffs.
And to Mike's statement that there might be a passing resemblance to J.S. Bach's Bourree in E Minor: That would not be in question here, because, AFAIK, anything written before 1925 is not covered by U.S. Copyright law and therefore couldn't be used as a basis for a lawsuit.
I think the entire matter of the lawsuit is just silly.....
On the post: Ring Spends The Week Collecting Data On Trick-Or-Treating Kids And Being An Attack Vector For Home WiFi Networks
Re: Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
I believe this post says it best....
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread340387/pg1
On the post: Ring Spends The Week Collecting Data On Trick-Or-Treating Kids And Being An Attack Vector For Home WiFi Networks
Re: Re:
..or they could pull a Google and sell all that footage to some company who they "partner" with, you know, so they can "customize the user experience".
Or allow would-be thieves a way to take inventory of your possessions and make a burglar's Christmas Wish List......
On the post: Lawsuit: An Officer's BS Claims About 'Odor Of Marijuana' Led To 14 SWAT Team Members Pointing Guns At Our Kids
Re: Focusing on the wrong aspect
...but then they wouldn't get to play with all the cool cop shit they got just laying around the cop house! :)
On the post: Ring Spends The Week Collecting Data On Trick-Or-Treating Kids And Being An Attack Vector For Home WiFi Networks
Creey AF, Amazon. Creepy AF
15.8 million photos of kids. Wow, Ring doorbells must be a pedophile's wet dream!
{ew}
(´ཀ`」 ∠)
On the post: Microsoft Says It's Cool With California's New Privacy Law
Did she just say that..?
"......Our approach to privacy starts with the belief that privacy is a fundamental human right and includes our commitment to provide robust protection for every individual...."
That just reeks of Jack Daniels and failure
On the post: India Is Stifling Kashmir Journalists And Twitter Is Helping Get The Job Done
Might be a good time for a TechDirt deal...
Maybe now would be a good time for TechDirt to offer one of their amazing deals.....on a VPN???
On the post: The Race Is On To Create A Federal Online Privacy Law: First Entry From Reps. Eshoo & Lofgren
Re: Re: One other thought.....
Damn skippy!
On the post: The Race Is On To Create A Federal Online Privacy Law: First Entry From Reps. Eshoo & Lofgren
One other thought.....
Again, I didn't read all 132 pages, but......
IMNTBHO, there HAS to be some sort of provision that prevents companies from bypassing the law by refusing service unless the consumer surrenders their rights under this law (if it becomes law).
For example, back in the 80's, when I was in the Army, and you filled out paperwork (to take leave or change pay allotments, for example), the law (at the time) said the Army could not require you to give them your SSN. However, every single form had small print on it that read: "Federal Law prohibits us from requiring the use of your social security number. However, if you fail to provide it, this form will not be processed" (or words to that effect).
On the post: The Race Is On To Create A Federal Online Privacy Law: First Entry From Reps. Eshoo & Lofgren
Privacy bill
I applaud at least the effort to rein in privacy, but one thing I didn't see (TL;DR) is how would this effect data that is ALREADY OUT in the wild?
Kinda hard to unring that bell.
On the post: The Race Is On To Create A Federal Online Privacy Law: First Entry From Reps. Eshoo & Lofgren
Privacy Bill trigger
The one page bill says it is sponsored by "Congresswomen". "Women"? They used the word "women" and they are from California?
I feel triggered. I need a safe space..... :)
On the post: Comcast Insists It's An Innocent Little Daisy On Consumer Privacy
Yeah, but Google
I'm all for DoH, but, since Google and Firefox are the companies (currently) providing this encryption, can't THEY still track (and therefore monetize) our browsing habits?
Isn't this just shifting who gets to monetize our personal data??
On the post: Steak With A Side Of Surveillance: Outback Restaurants Adding Employee-Tracking Analytics To Its Cameras
Re: Burger-G restaurants
Actually, there is a "Burger-G" restaurant chain in the Middle East.
<sarcasm-mode-engaged>
Oh no! I hope Marshall Brain doesn't get sued for copyright infringement! And @mhajicek for posting the link, or ME, for commenting on the link
</sarcasm mode disengaged>
On the post: AT&T Jacks Up TV Prices Post Merger After Repeatedly Claiming That Wouldn't Happen
AT&T getting rape-y with their prices...
AT&T spokesman: "You seriously didn't think that WE were going to pay the $86 billion dollars for the merger, did you???? That's what CUSTOMERS are for!!!"
On the post: McDonald's Bullies Local Canadian Burger Joint Over 'Filet O' Fish' Trademark
McDonald's should hit Woodshed Burgers where it counts...
Now, if McDonald's made a decent poutine, then maybe I'd go....
On the post: The Good And The Bad Of The ACCESS Act To Force Open APIs On Big Social Media
Re: Re: Just a clarifictation, if you would.....
@Mike, @TKnarr: Thank you both for your clarifications. Now the entire article makes more sense! Then I am in agreement with Mike's original article.
We do provide APIs for our software, which we document and provide to our users at no cost. Many of our users LIKE using the APIs, and therefore want to do more business with us. I'd much rather have the extra business because I provided a service (or product function) that customers WANT, rather than be TOLD to do by the gov't......
On the post: The Good And The Bad Of The ACCESS Act To Force Open APIs On Big Social Media
Just a clarifictation, if you would.....
"....Get rid of Section 1201 (the anti-circumvention or DRM clause) of the DMCA. This would allow for much more reverse engineering to get access to platforms..."
Wait, what? What about the Chinese, who do this on a daily basis? Why is their reverse engineering ok, but software engineers (like myself), who spend years creating software to earn a living, have to now surrender things that we created so everybody and their brother can make money off of our creations? Or, am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Ask Legislators To Block Ring's Surveillance Partnerships With Law Enforcement
Ring's propaganda is outstanding
If you read the "comments" on the Ring site, one would think that having a Ring and the police dept tied into it was the greatest thing since sliced bread!
https://blog.ring.com/2019/08/28/working-together-for-safer-neighborhoods-introducing-the-nei ghbors-active-law-enforcement-map/
On the post: Sony Is Feverishly Battling Vita Tinkerers Despite Vita Being Discontinued
Sony's perfidy
I wonder, are the guys doing the hacking publishing their new hacks on a website that Sony has access to? Maybe they should create a private email list for that purpose.
Sounds like Sony is being WAAAAY overzealous in keeping tabs on the innovation community.
On the post: Indiana Appeals Court Decides Badmouthing A Cop On Facebook Is A Crime
Re:
According to the filing, McGuire specifically said "this mother is on a rampage and ready to shoot to kill."
THAT, in and of itself, sounds like she crossed the line from pissed off to actual, physical threat.
Just sayin'
On the post: DOJ/Copyright Office File An Amicus Brief In Support Of Led Zeppellin
Re: Copyright gone too far
I agree. Sure, both songs MIGHT have similarities, but I don't subscribe to the notion that Led Zep INTENTIONALLY ripped off any riffs.
And to Mike's statement that there might be a passing resemblance to J.S. Bach's Bourree in E Minor: That would not be in question here, because, AFAIK, anything written before 1925 is not covered by U.S. Copyright law and therefore couldn't be used as a basis for a lawsuit.
I think the entire matter of the lawsuit is just silly.....
Next >>