I don't think the appeals court for the Federal Circuit had any sort of change of heart. I think they correctly deduced that if they had ruled against Citrix and the Supreme Court addressed it on appeal, the higher court would have most likely completely gutted functional claiming.
By ruling for Citrix, but on very narrow grounds, they manage to foreclose the inevitable appeal while still mostly preserving overly broad functionally claimed patents.
Huge swaths of software and business methods patents would have instantly become invalid [they never should have been granted to begin with] in that case.
The CAFC didn't have a change of heart, they are just displaying a bit of cynical pragmatism.
I think the real problem is that the current crop of employers, Uber, Lyft, etc. think they have found an employment loop hole.
They want to have a company with lots and lots of people working for them, but they _don't_ want to call them employees. It's the next logical stop in the exploitation of labor.
0. _Everyone's_ "exempt from overtime" (i.e. salaried) 1. _Everyone's_ "part time" ... (n) _Everyone's_ an "independent contractor"
In some cases it actually makes sense. Some doctors, lawyers, accountants, employees of another company, etc.
Personally there are a few rules of thumb I like to think about when differentiating between employees and independent contractors:
How many 'companies' does the contractor work for? > If it's only one (1) then they are more likely to be an employee.
How much say does the 'contracting company' have over the work the 'contractor' does? > If they tell the person, what to do, when to do it, where to do it, how much to charge for doing it, and in some cases what to wear while doing it (I'm looking at the new economy house cleaning 'independent contractors' particularly here), then they are probably an employee.
It's not just the New Economy companies that are doing this. FedEx recently lost a case (in the ninth circuit no less, hmmm...) upheld on appeal that declared FedEx was miscategorizing their drivers as 'independent contractors'.
So in light of that ruling, it is not surprising that Uber would get a similar ruling.
I think the comparisons to EBay and Etsy don't aren't really comparable.
FedEx, Uber, Homejoy : do what the company says, when they say it, how they say it for the amount they say.
EBay, Etsy, YouTube : do what you want, when you want for how much you want.
If I was a Homejoy cleaner, I can't even change the order in the houses I clean. As a FedEx driver, I can't say I will only deliver 100 packages today. As an Uber driver, I can't decide to use my personal PayPal account to accept payments.
When I sell things on Ebay or Etsy, I decide what I want to sell, or make, and how much I sell it for. It's more like the digital equivalent of selling on consignment than it's like working in a Foxconn factory cranking out iPhones.
If Google required YouTube posters to use a particular camera and film at least four hours of cat videos while wearing a Google uniform at a list of Google provided locations at particular times, while not doing similar things for any other company, then _maybe_ they might be employees. But you would still have to look at the totality of the relationship.
As it stands now, I think trying to argue that the loss of Uber drivers independent contractor status will have _any_ effect on the EBay, Etsy, and YouTubes of the world feels like a bit of a stretch.
They would make nice straw men, excepting for the fact that they appear to be more like straw shrubbery.
While I don't consider myself a raging Marxist, I think the worker exploitation is getting a bit too blatant lately.
If the New Economy is built on the rampant exploitation of labor, then it's not really all that new now is it?
Yes, there's no causal link between holding up a small radio transmitter to your head and possible ill health (at least not yet, and/or not conclusively).
Yes, there are other things that transmit lots more, and at higher levels of intensity in your day to day life (though to be honest I don't usually hold a CF bulb, wireless access point, or microwave pressed up against my head either).
Until we hear something conclusively either way, shouldn't we just remind people that they are in fact holding a small radio transmitter to their heads.
[Don't "Phhtttt..." me, you and I may realize that a cell phone uses radio waves, but the average man on the street can't tell you how an incandescent light bulb actually works, much less a CF or LCD bulb. So you should forgive them if they don't realize that it's an RF transmitter, and not say magic cyber dust, that makes it work.]
I don't see the problem with a small warning, maybe one of those international pictograms, to remind people that they are actually holding a radio transmitter in their pocket.
Personally I think it's like the warnings on microwaves, laser pointers and food labels, sure it probably doesn't matter to most people, but it might matter to some people. You can argue over why it might matter (health, religion, philosophy) and if those reasons make sense to you, but I don't see the harm in including them.
On the other hand, when I see a trade group (food producers, auto makers, cell phone manufactures) fighting against letting consumers know something about the product they are selling, it tends to make me just a little bit more suspicious than I would have otherwise been.
I can't help but think that we only think the current methodology is ineffective, or counter productive even, because we are looking at the wrong use case.
For catching terrorists, where terrorists fit the traditional definition of outsiders trying to use terror to influence/change our government or society, "collect it all" is a useless strategy.
Given that most honest people agree with that position, in what situation does "collect it all" does it make sense?
The only one I can think of, off the top of my head, is where the government wants to protect itself from its citizens.
We have seen this situation play out countless times throughout history and continuing into today. You need to look no further than; Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Islamist Iran, (I'm not sure how to categorize) North Korea. In modern times, sadly, we can add Great Briton and the United States to that dismal array of countries in fear of their citizenry.
Here in the US of A, the Constitution and especially the fourth amendment, serve as a bulwark against the oppressive mass surveillance of the common man by the government, or at least it used to. Unfortunately too many people are cowered by the fear of terrorists to think straight. The odds of dieing in a terrorist attack on US soil is so far down on the list, that personally I don't even think about it. I am far more likely to die in a car accident, drowning in a swimming pool, getting the flu, heck being struck by lightning while winning the lottery. Have people died in a terrorist attack, yes. Will people do so in the future, most definitely. Will it be me, or someone I know, not bloody likely.
Nothing is ever totally safe.
The ultimate goal of our government is to safeguard our freedoms. Therefore whenever you hear a government agent or politician say that their primary goal is to keep you safe, be afraid. Not of whatever boogeyman they have currently dragged up, but of their motives. What they are really trying to do is scare you into letting them strip you of your liberty and freedom.
As it's been said by better men than me over the years;
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You have to admire how this particular judge went out of her way, not only to disregard the First Amendment, but to cite a completely inapplicable law as the basis for her order.
From the linked article:
“As far as we can tell from the Order, the court made no findings of fact and appears to have issued the order in a summary proceeding. --- Notably, the only authority cited for the action was N.J.S.A. 9:8-1 et seq. This section is currently listed as the Following: “Chapter 8. Orphan Asylums; Guardianship and Indenture of Children [Repealed].”
I wonder, did she truly not know the law she was referencing, or cynically thought that no one would look it up.....
The topics are generally interesting, unfortunately the downloadable mp3 files are very very soft (with the occasional loud word). When listening in the car, I have to turn the volume up to 40 just to try and make out what's being said.
It would be helpful if they were recorded/normalized to a traditional level.
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
I think it's you who should know better.
If purchasers actually own the tractors, then John Deere doesn't have any additional liability, so long as they work safely and as expected with unmodified software.
If _John_Deere_ actually owns the tractors, then _John_Deere_ is acquiring _additional_ liability over what end users do with their (John Deere's) equipment.
Here in the United States of America, we have a decades long tradition of modifying cars, motorcycles, even tractor trailers all of which I believe counts as _big_machinery_.
Now I'm not saying that every modification someone has attempted [ever see the rocket strapped to the top of a car] was wise, or without risk. At the same time, it's been a long time {never} since I've heard the CEO of Chevy, Ford, Toyota, etc. complain about the increased liability they suffer under do to the unauthorized modifications made by purchasers of their various products.
So they will be coming by to pick up the pieces....
So, if I don't actually own my tractor, when it breaks down, rusts out, or otherwise outlives its usefulness, the helpful man from John Deere will be coming by to dispose of their tractor right?
The issue was _never_ about Apple refusing to sell at a loss. If that's all they were doing, no one would really care.
As far as eBooks:
What Apple did was: 1. Refuse to sell at less than a 30% mark up (note, we aren't even close to a loss). 2. Ensure that _no_one_ else could sell eBooks for any price _below_ what Apple was charging. 3. Collude with publishers to force other sellers (especially the current market leader Amazon) to switch from a wholesale/retail model to an agent model to enforce #2.
#1 was Apple's choice, #2 harmed consumers, #3 was illegal under anti-trust laws.
In the end Apple didn't have to compete on price. The publishers got more money, and everyone else ended up paying more than they would have (and previously were) in the face of honest competition.
The RealMedia case was two fold.
First, preventing RealMedia files from running on iPods (the current market leader) ensured that you would have to go to the Apple store (and pay Apple prices) to get music for your shiny new iPod. IF people could go to other stores for music, then Apple's position would be significantly weakened.
Second, preventing iTunes music files from playing on any music player other then iPods (iTunes on the desktop doesn't count as it's not a portable player) means it is less likely that people would purchase an iPod competitor. Imagine you have a hundred songs in an Apple music format. Would you buy anything other than another iPod if doing so meant you couldn't play the music files you had already bought?
Once again, Apple was using 'dirty tricks' to kneecap the competition.
If you are thinking of apple as a hardware only company I think you are being rather short sighted. I would wager Apple makes more money form 'curating' their app store than they ever make selling hardware.
Here's a thought (complete speculation of course):
Apple _kneecaps_ all of the other streaming music services. The majority of people have to go to Apple to get legal streaming services.
Apple can: -make streaming services work 'better' on Apple hardware than anyone elses. -charge whatever they want. -access a 'fee' from musicians/labels to host their music in the Apple store (app store fees all over again). -leverage all those music fan eyeballs to push other things. -sell ads and collect all the money.
Just as in the eBook case, Apple and the labels (substituted for publishers) make more money, and the consumer is charged a higher price for a potentially inferior product. Cabals being so much more profitable than actually competing.
Of course, ironically, the puts Apple back in the same position they were in regarding downloads, with Apple in control and the labels dependent on Apple.
Donations (or the busker's hat) would probably work out well for a community of modders that work mostly for their love of the game.
The problem I see, from Steam/publisher's point of view, is where would they get their 75% cut from?
Apple started it (Apple's 30% cut for the right to sell your product), Google's doing it, and Microsoft _really_ wants to as well. Now Steam/publisher's are hoping to get on to the gravy train of getting a cut of other people work. Of course only leaving the developer with 25% is rather greedy on their part.
I think allowing modders to put out their hat for donations, and then skimming 75 cents out of every dollar donated will go over even worse than charging directly.
That's good to hear that the Supreme Court ruled that way (if you get a chance you should listen to the oral arguments).
This of course leads to the _next_ case. Unlawfully _extending_ a stop.
Drivers need to _not_consent_ to any requests to search _anything_. This needs to be followed by the newest mantra; "Am I free to go?"
Possible future case;
Carlos stopped for not having his headlights on during the day (it's not _actually_ an infraction, but that's O.K. right?).
Officer Bob knows Carlos brings the cash from his family's fleet of lunch vans to the bank every Thursday. Office Bob just _knows_ that it's really _drug_money_ that's being laundered by Carlos. Unfortunately for Officer Bob, Rusty, the department's trusty drug sniffing dog (the one that can be counted upon 'alert' whenever it's handler taps his left foot) has decided to chase after a hot dog wielding poodle upon arrival.
Officer Bob commences to; drop his ticket pad, break his pencil, stop to retie his shoes, complain that his vehicle's computer has lost connection, squint at Carlos' license and clean his glasses (never mind that they are non-prescription sunglasses) repeatedly. All the while frantically calling into his walkie talkie for updates on the status of good 'ol Rusty.
Carlos repeatedly, and politely, asks if he's free to go.
Office Bob tells Carlos that he'll be free to go as soon as he completes giving Carlos a warning about his head lights. IF Carlos would consent to a simple little search of his vehicle, no? Hmm wouldn't you know it, his pencil has run out of ink.
An hour later, Rusty and his handler shows up and would you believe he 'alerts' to Carlos' car.
After Officer Bob finishes moving the cash box from Carlos' trunk to _his_ trunk (obviously drug related as proven by Rusty 'alerting' to the box {on command}) Officer Bob writes Carlos out a warning for not having his headlights on during the day. He is now ...free to go.
Carlos sues the town for their illegal seizure of his family businesses money. His lawyer sites "Rodriguez v. US".
The district attorney argues that it's all legal and above board as the _reason_for_the_stop_ namely giving Carlos a warning, wasn't completed before the drug sniffing dog alerted, so it all completely legal.
Personally, it looks like the return of AOL, CompuServe, Delphi and others.
For those old enough to remember before broadband, before dial-up, before the internet was open to anyone other than governments, research labs and universities, we had bulletin board systems. People dialed into systems and left messages for each other (hence the name). Machine's passed messages to each other (any one remember the FidoNet?). This grew into the massive closed gardens of the major players, CompuServe, AOL and their like.
Then the internet was opened up to the masses. At first AOL and the other big players provided some access to the larger internet. Eventually most people stopped subscribing to these closed systems and instead connected through an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to get access to the internet itself. For the price of a connection, and maybe a server, anyone could publish, create, or consume the fruits of someone else's labor. It was in this environment that Google and Facebook and Amazon were born.
Even mobile phones went from running a small set of carrier approved applications to a practically anything a developer could conceive of.
Unfortunately competing isn't as profitable as extracting monopoly rents. What benefits an upstart young company isn't the same as a large established player. This is where the consumer needs a strong and fair regulatory system. We are already seeing the signs that the market is sliding back into economic darkness.
ISP cartels/monopolies/duopolies besides leading to poor service and higher prices encourage providers to leverage their control to extract 'extra' payments from other companies to access 'their' customers.
'App Stores' (Apple, Google, and now Microsoft) is another case of a major provider charging a toll to allow developers to sell their products to iOS, or Google, or Microsoft's customers.
Now with these _zero_rated_ apps and services we have come full circle. Facebook Zero, Google Free Zone, these are just the 21st century reincarnation of AOL and CompuServe.
If you've never been 'on the Net' AOL might seem like a pretty good thing. Does anyone having lived through that, seriously want to go back to that?
If we're not careful that's where we'll end up. Trapped in an AOL like service with access to things packaged up like bundles of cable channels.
The next Facebook, Google, Etsy, or Twitter will never exist, strangled in its swaddling by the Googles and Comcasts of the world.
It's not good for consumers, and it's not good for the economy. What it is good for are the profits of current major players.... at least in the short term.
If something _ever_ happens, it can make George Orwell seem terribly naive, Franz Kafka a model of directness.
Examples include:
Failed connection, FairPoint confirms the issue is a blown card in their central office. They refuse to repair the issue until you schedule a technician's visit. Yes, it's in _their_ facility, no they never did actually show up at my house.
Can not connect outside of FairPoint's walled garden to the greater internet (they are still using PPOE on DSL). After more than 4 hours and three levels of support, FairPoint discovers that they have changed the PPOE password without notice. Entering the updated password re-enables internet access.
But wait there's more (sounding like a 2:00AM infomercial). The next day a FairPoint tech arrives at the house unannounced. Insists on coming inside to "check on the issue". When he is refused entry with the explanation that the issue has been resolved, he proceeds to climb up a near by telephone poll to disconnect internet service to the house. It takes several phone calls to FairPoint corporate and complaining to the PUC to get service restored several hours later.
Can not connect to the internet, or even their walled garden. No green lights on the DSL 'modem', one red, a few yellow. Call tech support. Passed around and put on hold for 16 hours. The last time I was put on hold was from a male 'supervisor' for more than 3 hours. Finally, in the wee hours of the morning a female supervisor picks up the phone and asks how she can help. I explain that I can't connect, she asks; "What does the DSL modem look like?"
I answer; "Red, yellow, yell..."
She breaks in and says; "Your modem is defective, we'll ship one out overnight. You can throw away that one if you want."
Finally, FairPoint doesn't limit themselves to just technical incompetence. One month I notice my bill (phone & DSL) has gone up $5.00. When I called to ask just why my bill has gone up the FairPoint employee says;
"Oh, you noticed that." "We add that fee to everyone, but it's O.K. because we'll remove it if anyone complains."
I do wish people wouldn't think of 'biometrics' (ex: fingerprint, iris, etc.) as some kind of security magic. It isn't.
Before _any_ biometric can be used it's converted into a string of values. What we know of as a _PASSWORD_.
The only differences between a _biometric_ and a standard password are:
you can't loose it (well, unless you loose an eye, or a finger)
you can't forget it (see above caveats)
after being _processed_ it's generally stronger than a typical password (nothing is stopping the finger print to password algorithm from doing something silly like counting the number of ridges and wholes)
you can't change it (most people only have 2 eyes, 10 fingers, etc.)
you are leaving copies of it everywhere
the cops, or the _bad_guys (yes, sometimes that's redundant) can easily force you to disclose it.
Currently most of the work in cracking biometric protected systems has focused on replicating the biometry (fake finger, picture of subject, etc.) Personally, I think that's a fools errand.
Make a finger print reader, someone makes a fake finger. Add _life_ detection, someone makes a fake fingerprint and puts it on an actual finger, etc. Rinse lather repeat.
Alternatively, apply the algorithm the finger print reader uses to a copy of the fingerprint (or take a page from the Target credit card hackers and copy the actual generated code from the back end of the finger print reader itself.
Inject the computed code (a.k.a. password) into the system, BINGO you are in. Until they change the algorithm that generates the code it doesn't matter HOW GOOD the reader gets at figuring out if it's the real person, in the end it's just computing a password based on the biometric seed.
Science fiction has figured this out awhile ago. In any book/movie/television show whenever you see the person pry open the iris scanner, fingerprint reader, etc. and connect a (usually hand held) computer directly to the innards, that's just what they are doing. Skip the biometric to password generation to send the password directly to the system.
Biometrics aren't _better_than_passwords_, they _ARE_ passwords.
Just a guess, but I think he might be referring to the Taliban's strict fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and how it should be applied in a very strict manner to every aspect of life.
Just as the Taliban espouse how people dress, where they go to school (if at all), what books to read, how to pray, so the thinking goes that net neutrality proponents want to dictate how every one (from ISP to company to end user) gets to use their internet connection.
The idea basically being that if companies aren't allowed to have maximum flexibility to maximize the profit potential of their activities, then using the internet will become just like living in a Taliban controlled country.
Not that I agree mind you.
Just in case that wasn't enough to sway you to support his financial backers world view, cars will crash and people will die due to their inability to access medical stuff.
All that's missing is an appeal to protect the children.
I think it's time for a couple of new open source projects.
One to update hard drive firmware with a known _good_ (a.k.a. non-NSA bugged version).
The second to update the encryption keys in your SIM cards.
Boot from a known _good_ copy of Linux (read-only media), reflash HD firmware as soon as you open the box. Check again every so often to make sure it's still clean.
Installing a new OS used to consist of; -Partition the hard drive -Format the hard drive -Install the OS
Now it needs to be: -Reflash the hard drive firmware -Partition the hard drive -Format the hard drive -Install the OS
Sure TAO can probably find a way to monkey with it again, but then they'll have to _actively_ do something. Surveillance has gone ultra-wide band because it's gotten so easy. When you used to have to break into some one's home or office, plant a bug, monitor that bug, transcribe what you hear, etc. not a lot of people were surveilled. Now you can just use a computer to tap the internet, track everyone by their cell phones, and now break into large numbers of computers using sleeper hard drive firmware from the comfort of their own offices.
We may not ever be able to completely stop the NSA/GCHQ/etc., but we can sure make it as difficult/time consuming/painful as possible.
Then _maybe_ they'll have to be a bit more particular about who they surveil.
On the post: Appeals Court May Have Finally Reversed An Error That Enabled Bogus Software Patent Claims
CAFC was just trying to preempt Supreme Court
By ruling for Citrix, but on very narrow grounds, they manage to foreclose the inevitable appeal while still mostly preserving overly broad functionally claimed patents.
Huge swaths of software and business methods patents would have instantly become invalid [they never should have been granted to begin with] in that case.
The CAFC didn't have a change of heart, they are just displaying a bit of cynical pragmatism.
On the post: California Labor Commission Declares Uber Driver An Employee, Rather Than A Contractor
In the new world order, EVERYONE is a contractor
They want to have a company with lots and lots of people working for them, but they _don't_ want to call them employees. It's the next logical stop in the exploitation of labor.
0. _Everyone's_ "exempt from overtime" (i.e. salaried)
1. _Everyone's_ "part time"
...
(n) _Everyone's_ an "independent contractor"
In some cases it actually makes sense. Some doctors, lawyers, accountants, employees of another company, etc.
Personally there are a few rules of thumb I like to think about when differentiating between employees and independent contractors:
How many 'companies' does the contractor work for?
> If it's only one (1) then they are more likely to be an employee.
How much say does the 'contracting company' have over the work the 'contractor' does?
> If they tell the person, what to do, when to do it, where to do it, how much to charge for doing it, and in some cases what to wear while doing it (I'm looking at the new economy house cleaning 'independent contractors' particularly here), then they are probably an employee.
It's not just the New Economy companies that are doing this. FedEx recently lost a case (in the ninth circuit no less, hmmm...) upheld on appeal that declared FedEx was miscategorizing their drivers as 'independent contractors'.
[an example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/27/fedex-misclassified-drivers-as-independent-contrac tors-rules-ninth-circuit/ ]
So in light of that ruling, it is not surprising that Uber would get a similar ruling.
I think the comparisons to EBay and Etsy don't aren't really comparable.
FedEx, Uber, Homejoy : do what the company says, when they say it, how they say it for the amount they say.
EBay, Etsy, YouTube : do what you want, when you want for how much you want.
If I was a Homejoy cleaner, I can't even change the order in the houses I clean. As a FedEx driver, I can't say I will only deliver 100 packages today. As an Uber driver, I can't decide to use my personal PayPal account to accept payments.
When I sell things on Ebay or Etsy, I decide what I want to sell, or make, and how much I sell it for. It's more like the digital equivalent of selling on consignment than it's like working in a Foxconn factory cranking out iPhones.
If Google required YouTube posters to use a particular camera and film at least four hours of cat videos while wearing a Google uniform at a list of Google provided locations at particular times, while not doing similar things for any other company, then _maybe_ they might be employees. But you would still have to look at the totality of the relationship.
As it stands now, I think trying to argue that the loss of Uber drivers independent contractor status will have _any_ effect on the EBay, Etsy, and YouTubes of the world feels like a bit of a stretch.
They would make nice straw men, excepting for the fact that they appear to be more like straw shrubbery.
While I don't consider myself a raging Marxist, I think the worker exploitation is getting a bit too blatant lately.
If the New Economy is built on the rampant exploitation of labor, then it's not really all that new now is it?
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Of a mixed mind myself.
Yes, there are other things that transmit lots more, and at higher levels of intensity in your day to day life (though to be honest I don't usually hold a CF bulb, wireless access point, or microwave pressed up against my head either).
Until we hear something conclusively either way, shouldn't we just remind people that they are in fact holding a small radio transmitter to their heads.
[Don't "Phhtttt..." me, you and I may realize that a cell phone uses radio waves, but the average man on the street can't tell you how an incandescent light bulb actually works, much less a CF or LCD bulb. So you should forgive them if they don't realize that it's an RF transmitter, and not say magic cyber dust, that makes it work.]
I don't see the problem with a small warning, maybe one of those international pictograms, to remind people that they are actually holding a radio transmitter in their pocket.
Personally I think it's like the warnings on microwaves, laser pointers and food labels, sure it probably doesn't matter to most people, but it might matter to some people. You can argue over why it might matter (health, religion, philosophy) and if those reasons make sense to you, but I don't see the harm in including them.
On the other hand, when I see a trade group (food producers, auto makers, cell phone manufactures) fighting against letting consumers know something about the product they are selling, it tends to make me just a little bit more suspicious than I would have otherwise been.
On the post: NSA Personnel: Search For Needles Not Being Helped By Continual Addition Of Hay To The Stacks
Reward results not progress.... ?[Re: Re:]
Maybe that would direct the focus on only doing those things that achieve results.
[There's no guarantee that we'll end up liking the results we may end up getting... of course.]
On the post: NSA Personnel: Search For Needles Not Being Helped By Continual Addition Of Hay To The Stacks
It's just right for the propper mission
For catching terrorists, where terrorists fit the traditional definition of outsiders trying to use terror to influence/change our government or society, "collect it all" is a useless strategy.
Given that most honest people agree with that position, in what situation does "collect it all" does it make sense?
The only one I can think of, off the top of my head, is where the government wants to protect itself from its citizens.
We have seen this situation play out countless times throughout history and continuing into today. You need to look no further than; Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Islamist Iran, (I'm not sure how to categorize) North Korea. In modern times, sadly, we can add Great Briton and the United States to that dismal array of countries in fear of their citizenry.
Here in the US of A, the Constitution and especially the fourth amendment, serve as a bulwark against the oppressive mass surveillance of the common man by the government, or at least it used to. Unfortunately too many people are cowered by the fear of terrorists to think straight. The odds of dieing in a terrorist attack on US soil is so far down on the list, that personally I don't even think about it. I am far more likely to die in a car accident, drowning in a swimming pool, getting the flu, heck being struck by lightning while winning the lottery. Have people died in a terrorist attack, yes. Will people do so in the future, most definitely. Will it be me, or someone I know, not bloody likely.
Nothing is ever totally safe.
The ultimate goal of our government is to safeguard our freedoms. Therefore whenever you hear a government agent or politician say that their primary goal is to keep you safe, be afraid. Not of whatever boogeyman they have currently dragged up, but of their motives. What they are really trying to do is scare you into letting them strip you of your liberty and freedom.
As it's been said by better men than me over the years;
[Benjamin Franklin https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin]
[Patrick Henry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death!]
[Emiliano Zapata Salazar https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata]
On the post: Judge Orders Newspaper To Delete Article, Newspaper Reminds Judge That It's In The US And The 1st Amendment Exists
From the linked article:
I wonder, did she truly not know the law she was referencing, or cynically thought that no one would look it up.....
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 25: EFF's Parker Higgins On Correcting Copyright Misconceptions
Interesting, but tooo soft.
It would be helpful if they were recorded/normalized to a traditional level.
Keep up the good work.
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
If purchasers actually own the tractors, then John Deere doesn't have any additional liability, so long as they work safely and as expected with unmodified software.
If _John_Deere_ actually owns the tractors, then _John_Deere_ is acquiring _additional_ liability over what end users do with their (John Deere's) equipment.
Here in the United States of America, we have a decades long tradition of modifying cars, motorcycles, even tractor trailers all of which I believe counts as _big_machinery_.
Now I'm not saying that every modification someone has attempted [ever see the rocket strapped to the top of a car] was wise, or without risk. At the same time, it's been a long time {never} since I've heard the CEO of Chevy, Ford, Toyota, etc. complain about the increased liability they suffer under do to the unauthorized modifications made by purchasers of their various products.
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: a tiny stretch
You are free to paint it a different color, add a cool spoiler, mount it on a roomba, or.....
Oh, you mean modify the software running on the console. Kind of like modifying the software on the tractor.
Actually it isn't a small stretch, it exactly the same thing.
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
So they will be coming by to pick up the pieces....
On the post: Apple Trying To Kill Off Spotify's Free Tier; DOJ Now Investigating For Antitrust
Then you weren't paying attention
As far as eBooks:
What Apple did was:
1. Refuse to sell at less than a 30% mark up (note, we aren't even close to a loss).
2. Ensure that _no_one_ else could sell eBooks for any price _below_ what Apple was charging.
3. Collude with publishers to force other sellers (especially the current market leader Amazon) to switch from a wholesale/retail model to an agent model to enforce #2.
#1 was Apple's choice, #2 harmed consumers, #3 was illegal under anti-trust laws.
In the end Apple didn't have to compete on price. The publishers got more money, and everyone else ended up paying more than they would have (and previously were) in the face of honest competition.
The RealMedia case was two fold.
First, preventing RealMedia files from running on iPods (the current market leader) ensured that you would have to go to the Apple store (and pay Apple prices) to get music for your shiny new iPod. IF people could go to other stores for music, then Apple's position would be significantly weakened.
Second, preventing iTunes music files from playing on any music player other then iPods (iTunes on the desktop doesn't count as it's not a portable player) means it is less likely that people would purchase an iPod competitor. Imagine you have a hundred songs in an Apple music format. Would you buy anything other than another iPod if doing so meant you couldn't play the music files you had already bought?
Once again, Apple was using 'dirty tricks' to kneecap the competition.
On the post: Apple Trying To Kill Off Spotify's Free Tier; DOJ Now Investigating For Antitrust
Lots of reasons.....
Here's a thought (complete speculation of course):
Apple _kneecaps_ all of the other streaming music services.
The majority of people have to go to Apple to get legal streaming services.
Apple can:
-make streaming services work 'better' on Apple hardware than anyone elses.
-charge whatever they want.
-access a 'fee' from musicians/labels to host their music in the Apple store (app store fees all over again).
-leverage all those music fan eyeballs to push other things.
-sell ads and collect all the money.
Just as in the eBook case, Apple and the labels (substituted for publishers) make more money, and the consumer is charged a higher price for a potentially inferior product. Cabals being so much more profitable than actually competing.
Of course, ironically, the puts Apple back in the same position they were in regarding downloads, with Apple in control and the labels dependent on Apple.
On the post: Valve Tries Out Paid Mods Platform; It Fails Completely
But how would Steam/Valve get their 75% cut?
The problem I see, from Steam/publisher's point of view, is where would they get their 75% cut from?
Apple started it (Apple's 30% cut for the right to sell your product), Google's doing it, and Microsoft _really_ wants to as well. Now Steam/publisher's are hoping to get on to the gravy train of getting a cut of other people work. Of course only leaving the developer with 25% is rather greedy on their part.
I think allowing modders to put out their hat for donations, and then skimming 75 cents out of every dollar donated will go over even worse than charging directly.
Just my $0.02 (before taxes)
On the post: Supreme Court Rules That A Traffic Stop Ends When The 'Objective' Is 'Complete,' Rather Than Whenever The Officer Feels It Is
Next case... unlawfully 'extending stop'
This of course leads to the _next_ case. Unlawfully _extending_ a stop.
Drivers need to _not_consent_ to any requests to search _anything_. This needs to be followed by the newest mantra;
"Am I free to go?"
Possible future case;
Carlos stopped for not having his headlights on during the day (it's not _actually_ an infraction, but that's O.K. right?).
Officer Bob knows Carlos brings the cash from his family's fleet of lunch vans to the bank every Thursday. Office Bob just _knows_ that it's really _drug_money_ that's being laundered by Carlos. Unfortunately for Officer Bob, Rusty, the department's trusty drug sniffing dog (the one that can be counted upon 'alert' whenever it's handler taps his left foot) has decided to chase after a hot dog wielding poodle upon arrival.
Officer Bob commences to; drop his ticket pad, break his pencil, stop to retie his shoes, complain that his vehicle's computer has lost connection, squint at Carlos' license and clean his glasses (never mind that they are non-prescription sunglasses) repeatedly. All the while frantically calling into his walkie talkie for updates on the status of good 'ol Rusty.
Carlos repeatedly, and politely, asks if he's free to go.
Office Bob tells Carlos that he'll be free to go as soon as he completes giving Carlos a warning about his head lights. IF Carlos would consent to a simple little search of his vehicle, no? Hmm wouldn't you know it, his pencil has run out of ink.
An hour later, Rusty and his handler shows up and would you believe he 'alerts' to Carlos' car.
After Officer Bob finishes moving the cash box from Carlos' trunk to _his_ trunk (obviously drug related as proven by Rusty 'alerting' to the box {on command}) Officer Bob writes Carlos out a warning for not having his headlights on during the day. He is now ...free to go.
Carlos sues the town for their illegal seizure of his family businesses money. His lawyer sites "Rodriguez v. US".
The district attorney argues that it's all legal and above board as the _reason_for_the_stop_ namely giving Carlos a warning, wasn't completed before the drug sniffing dog alerted, so it all completely legal.
Que up the next phase of this saga......
On the post: Facebook, Google's Supposed Love Of Net Neutrality Notably Absent In India
What's old is new again
For those old enough to remember before broadband, before dial-up, before the internet was open to anyone other than governments, research labs and universities, we had bulletin board systems. People dialed into systems and left messages for each other (hence the name). Machine's passed messages to each other (any one remember the FidoNet?). This grew into the massive closed gardens of the major players, CompuServe, AOL and their like.
Then the internet was opened up to the masses. At first AOL and the other big players provided some access to the larger internet. Eventually most people stopped subscribing to these closed systems and instead connected through an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to get access to the internet itself. For the price of a connection, and maybe a server, anyone could publish, create, or consume the fruits of someone else's labor. It was in this environment that Google and Facebook and Amazon were born.
Even mobile phones went from running a small set of carrier approved applications to a practically anything a developer could conceive of.
Unfortunately competing isn't as profitable as extracting monopoly rents. What benefits an upstart young company isn't the same as a large established player. This is where the consumer needs a strong and fair regulatory system. We are already seeing the signs that the market is sliding back into economic darkness.
ISP cartels/monopolies/duopolies besides leading to poor service and higher prices encourage providers to leverage their control to extract 'extra' payments from other companies to access 'their' customers.
'App Stores' (Apple, Google, and now Microsoft) is another case of a major provider charging a toll to allow developers to sell their products to iOS, or Google, or Microsoft's customers.
Now with these _zero_rated_ apps and services we have come full circle. Facebook Zero, Google Free Zone, these are just the 21st century reincarnation of AOL and CompuServe.
If you've never been 'on the Net' AOL might seem like a pretty good thing. Does anyone having lived through that, seriously want to go back to that?
If we're not careful that's where we'll end up. Trapped in an AOL like service with access to things packaged up like bundles of cable channels.
The next Facebook, Google, Etsy, or Twitter will never exist, strangled in its swaddling by the Googles and Comcasts of the world.
It's not good for consumers, and it's not good for the economy. What it is good for are the profits of current major players.... at least in the short term.
On the post: One ISP's Prices Are So Bad, It Refuses To Tell Anyone What They Are
Count me as one of the unfortunate ones.
Good points: When it works, it's stable.
Bad points: Where to begin....
If something _ever_ happens, it can make George Orwell seem terribly naive, Franz Kafka a model of directness.
Examples include:
Failed connection, FairPoint confirms the issue is a blown card in their central office. They refuse to repair the issue until you schedule a technician's visit. Yes, it's in _their_ facility, no they never did actually show up at my house.
Can not connect outside of FairPoint's walled garden to the greater internet (they are still using PPOE on DSL). After more than 4 hours and three levels of support, FairPoint discovers that they have changed the PPOE password without notice. Entering the updated password re-enables internet access.
But wait there's more (sounding like a 2:00AM infomercial). The next day a FairPoint tech arrives at the house unannounced. Insists on coming inside to "check on the issue". When he is refused entry with the explanation that the issue has been resolved, he proceeds to climb up a near by telephone poll to disconnect internet service to the house. It takes several phone calls to FairPoint corporate and complaining to the PUC to get service restored several hours later.
Can not connect to the internet, or even their walled garden. No green lights on the DSL 'modem', one red, a few yellow. Call tech support. Passed around and put on hold for 16 hours. The last time I was put on hold was from a male 'supervisor' for more than 3 hours. Finally, in the wee hours of the morning a female supervisor picks up the phone and asks how she can help. I explain that I can't connect, she asks; "What does the DSL modem look like?"
I answer; "Red, yellow, yell..."
She breaks in and says;
"Your modem is defective, we'll ship one out overnight. You can throw away that one if you want."
Finally, FairPoint doesn't limit themselves to just technical incompetence. One month I notice my bill (phone & DSL) has gone up $5.00. When I called to ask just why my bill has gone up the FairPoint employee says;
"Oh, you noticed that."
"We add that fee to everyone, but it's O.K. because we'll remove it if anyone complains."
Which they promptly did.
On the post: Daily Deal: Newbie to Node Course Bundle
All the learning you can memorize
Another course without any course materials.
All the knowledge that you can memorize plus all the notes you can take.
Where's the text book? PDF'S of the PowerPoints, anything?
No thanks.
On the post: DailyDirt: Breaking Bad... Passwords
Biometrics aren't magic.
Before _any_ biometric can be used it's converted into a string of values. What we know of as a _PASSWORD_.
The only differences between a _biometric_ and a standard password are:
you can't loose it (well, unless you loose an eye, or a finger)
you can't forget it (see above caveats)
after being _processed_ it's generally stronger than a typical password (nothing is stopping the finger print to password algorithm from doing something silly like counting the number of ridges and wholes)
you can't change it (most people only have 2 eyes, 10 fingers, etc.)
you are leaving copies of it everywhere
the cops, or the _bad_guys (yes, sometimes that's redundant) can easily force you to disclose it.
Currently most of the work in cracking biometric protected systems has focused on replicating the biometry (fake finger, picture of subject, etc.) Personally, I think that's a fools errand.
Make a finger print reader, someone makes a fake finger. Add _life_ detection, someone makes a fake fingerprint and puts it on an actual finger, etc. Rinse lather repeat.
Alternatively, apply the algorithm the finger print reader uses to a copy of the fingerprint (or take a page from the Target credit card hackers and copy the actual generated code from the back end of the finger print reader itself.
Inject the computed code (a.k.a. password) into the system, BINGO you are in. Until they change the algorithm that generates the code it doesn't matter HOW GOOD the reader gets at figuring out if it's the real person, in the end it's just computing a password based on the biometric seed.
Science fiction has figured this out awhile ago. In any book/movie/television show whenever you see the person pry open the iris scanner, fingerprint reader, etc. and connect a (usually hand held) computer directly to the innards, that's just what they are doing. Skip the biometric to password generation to send the password directly to the system.
Biometrics aren't _better_than_passwords_, they _ARE_ passwords.
On the post: EU Digital Commissioner: Net Neutrality Is A 'Taliban-Like' Issue
Re: Enlighten me here
Just as the Taliban espouse how people dress, where they go to school (if at all), what books to read, how to pray, so the thinking goes that net neutrality proponents want to dictate how every one (from ISP to company to end user) gets to use their internet connection.
The idea basically being that if companies aren't allowed to have maximum flexibility to maximize the profit potential of their activities, then using the internet will become just like living in a Taliban controlled country.
Not that I agree mind you.
Just in case that wasn't enough to sway you to support his financial backers world view, cars will crash and people will die due to their inability to access medical stuff.
All that's missing is an appeal to protect the children.
On the post: This Week In 'The NSA Knows F**king Everything': How It Hacked Most Hard Drives And SIM Cards
Time for a new open source project
One to update hard drive firmware with a known _good_ (a.k.a. non-NSA bugged version).
The second to update the encryption keys in your SIM cards.
Boot from a known _good_ copy of Linux (read-only media), reflash HD firmware as soon as you open the box. Check again every so often to make sure it's still clean.
Installing a new OS used to consist of;
-Partition the hard drive
-Format the hard drive
-Install the OS
Now it needs to be:
-Reflash the hard drive firmware
-Partition the hard drive
-Format the hard drive
-Install the OS
Sure TAO can probably find a way to monkey with it again, but then they'll have to _actively_ do something. Surveillance has gone ultra-wide band because it's gotten so easy. When you used to have to break into some one's home or office, plant a bug, monitor that bug, transcribe what you hear, etc. not a lot of people were surveilled. Now you can just use a computer to tap the internet, track everyone by their cell phones, and now break into large numbers of computers using sleeper hard drive firmware from the comfort of their own offices.
We may not ever be able to completely stop the NSA/GCHQ/etc., but we can sure make it as difficult/time consuming/painful as possible.
Then _maybe_ they'll have to be a bit more particular about who they surveil.
Next >>