"This expansion would cause even more passengers to either leave their laptops/tablets behind, as this ban would prevent them from being placed in checked luggage..."
...or be forced to finish this sentence. Public advocates are unsure which fate is worse.
I'm a detail-oriented guy, so sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees. I was so focussed on the parallels to the retail model that I wasn't even thinking about the infinite resources difference.
OTOH, to be fair, the real point wasn't actual costs so much as loss of control. Retailers have learned to let go some control to maximize profits; in their case, shrinkage is a real cost, but they've decided it's worth the cost to increase their profits. They spend reasonable amounts on mitigation, and write the rest off.
Orbitalinsertion is correct that Hollywood et.al. don't have that excuse. For them it's ALL about the control.
Are there problems with this model? Yep. It makes it easier for customers to shoplift; there's a certain amount of loss as a result. But retail stores have discovered that the benefits of the new model FAR outweigh the drawbacks, and they were making more profit at a lower cost while making the customers happier.
How many gas stations offer full service these days?
And it's not stopped there. Now -- due in part to ubiquitous, inter-connected electronic forms of payment -- stores are starting to have you check YOURSELF out, with one clerk supervising a handful of registers. I don't know if shrinkage increases as a result, but obviously it's worth it to them. (AND the extra cost of the new equipment, conversion of several checkout lanes, plus extra training for the clerks.) Gas stations have been doing this for a while; I never need to go inside or talk to a clerk unless the receipt printer is broken, or I need a snack. Swipe card, fill tank, drive off.
Obviously steps are taken to keep shrinkage to a minimum, but it's otherwise treated as an inevitable cost of doing business. The most I ever see is a few particularly high-risk items being made a special case of.
Hollywood has gone the opposite direction: instead of treating a minor amount of shrinkage as inevitable, but worth the cost due to economies of scale, they're pouring tremendous amounts of effort into reducing shrinkage at comparatively high costs. One of which is making their customers unhappy. Same with game companies, who toss tons of money at DRM that only inconveniences the people who actually buy their games.
It's probably a form of Loss Aversion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion They're so afraid of losing a little that they don't see how much it's costing to prevent the loss. And they're losing anyway, which is why they keep doubling down.
"Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." - George Santayana
Learn from Piggly Wiggly, guys. It's not too late.
"As has been explained time and time again, the only way you prevent bad guys from having encryption is by preventing everyone from having effective encryption..."
Actually, there is no way to prevent everybody from having encryption, because people can develop encryption without permission from the government. The most the government can do is prevent lawful citizens from using encryption. That means that lawful citizens will be vulnerable to criminals (and to governments), but criminals will not be vulnerable to anyone.
Technically it also means the government will be vulnerable, except I'll bet you a nickle they'll either carve out exceptions for themselves or will only enforce the laws selectively.* People never make laws to stop themselves from doing things, they only make laws to stop other people from doing things.
*Or perhaps they won't care. The government has a pretty piss poor track record on security.
"Over in a corresponding blog post, the NCTA pushed a load of disingenuous prattle insisting that the cable industry will remain on its best behavior..."
Well, yeah. Technically this IS their best behavior. Lying, cheating, stealing, breaking promises.
You don't want to see their worst behaviour. But be sure to hide your kids and pets. It isn't pretty.
I don't go through the hassle and expense of using VPN to protect my data, especially on strange networks. I mean, it's not like coffee house WiFi is insecure and users vulnerable to MITM attacks or anything. The only possible reason for using VPN is to disguise my location. Because that information isn't available via GPS, cell tower or hotspot geolocation methods. And, you know, so much of your client base uses VPN to cheat your regional filters.
I haven't rooted my phone and installed a custom OS because it's an old phone, because I want to get more utility out of it instead of spending hundreds of dollars every year for a new one, and because I want to get the latest OS patches in spite of it having been abandoned by the manufacturer. I don't use a custom OS because the manufacturer and the carrier each bake in an egregious number of useless apps that chew up precious resources, are distracting, and cannot be removed. I don't use a custom OS because it has extra features that improve performance, allow customization, provide more choices, and simply improve my overall smartphone experience. Nope, I do it to steal content. Because the hours I've spent experimenting and learning how to install Cyanogenmod and getting things juuuust right were so much easier than logging into The Pirate Bay.
Netflix has officially jumped the shark. It's no longer an edgy, rebellious new company who is defying the status quo; it's joined the ranks of established big corporations, and is now part of the status quo.
And then there was AOL, who banned the word "breast" and pissed off - a generation of breast-feeding mothers - several generations of breast cancer victims and survivors - their families - their friends ...not to mention anybody cooking fowl and trying to avoid the dark meat.
Porn producers LOVE to use punny names based on popular media or literature. I'm dying to see how the "similar names" rule works with that.
On the post: DHS To Expand Foreign Laptop Ban If Overseas Airlines Won't Make Their Security More Theatrical
...or be forced to finish this sentence. Public advocates are unsure which fate is worse.
On the post: Bob Murray's Lawsuit Against John Oliver Is Even Sillier Than We Expected
Response to: Jeffrey Nonken on Jun 24th, 2017 @ 3:36pm
On the post: Bob Murray's Lawsuit Against John Oliver Is Even Sillier Than We Expected
They just wrap their news in Funny.
On the post: Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
Re:
On the post: Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
...said every fascist dictator ever.
On the post: Congress 'Fixes' Child Porn 'Loophole' With 15-Year Prison Sentences For Teen Sexting
There's a simple test; it should be part of the hiring requirement.
On the post: Our Response To Titan Note Sending A Frivolous Takedown Notice Over Our Critical Coverage
*snerk*
On the post: Court Says Password Protection Doesn't Restore An Abandoned Phone's Privacy Expectations
It's amazing what one of these "rock" things will do for your privacy when applied correctly.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
OTOH, to be fair, the real point wasn't actual costs so much as loss of control. Retailers have learned to let go some control to maximize profits; in their case, shrinkage is a real cost, but they've decided it's worth the cost to increase their profits. They spend reasonable amounts on mitigation, and write the rest off.
Orbitalinsertion is correct that Hollywood et.al. don't have that excuse. For them it's ALL about the control.
On the post: Piracy Killing Hollywood So Bad That Disney Made More Money In 2016 Than Any Studio Ever
That changed. http://mentalfloss.com/article/85551/market-disrupted-how-piggly-wiggly-revolutionized-grocery-shopp ing Now this revolutionary new idea is pretty much universal: you fetch your own items, bring them to the clerk, who then rings you up and send you on your way.
Are there problems with this model? Yep. It makes it easier for customers to shoplift; there's a certain amount of loss as a result. But retail stores have discovered that the benefits of the new model FAR outweigh the drawbacks, and they were making more profit at a lower cost while making the customers happier.
How many gas stations offer full service these days?
And it's not stopped there. Now -- due in part to ubiquitous, inter-connected electronic forms of payment -- stores are starting to have you check YOURSELF out, with one clerk supervising a handful of registers. I don't know if shrinkage increases as a result, but obviously it's worth it to them. (AND the extra cost of the new equipment, conversion of several checkout lanes, plus extra training for the clerks.) Gas stations have been doing this for a while; I never need to go inside or talk to a clerk unless the receipt printer is broken, or I need a snack. Swipe card, fill tank, drive off.
Obviously steps are taken to keep shrinkage to a minimum, but it's otherwise treated as an inevitable cost of doing business. The most I ever see is a few particularly high-risk items being made a special case of.
Hollywood has gone the opposite direction: instead of treating a minor amount of shrinkage as inevitable, but worth the cost due to economies of scale, they're pouring tremendous amounts of effort into reducing shrinkage at comparatively high costs. One of which is making their customers unhappy. Same with game companies, who toss tons of money at DRM that only inconveniences the people who actually buy their games.
It's probably a form of Loss Aversion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion They're so afraid of losing a little that they don't see how much it's costing to prevent the loss. And they're losing anyway, which is why they keep doubling down.
"Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." - George Santayana
Learn from Piggly Wiggly, guys. It's not too late.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Celebrates Megamerger One-Year Anniversary With Blanket Price Hikes For 'Mispriced' Customers
On the post: UK Government Using Manchester Attacks As An Excuse To Kill Encryption
Actually, there is no way to prevent everybody from having encryption, because people can develop encryption without permission from the government. The most the government can do is prevent lawful citizens from using encryption. That means that lawful citizens will be vulnerable to criminals (and to governments), but criminals will not be vulnerable to anyone.
Technically it also means the government will be vulnerable, except I'll bet you a nickle they'll either carve out exceptions for themselves or will only enforce the laws selectively.* People never make laws to stop themselves from doing things, they only make laws to stop other people from doing things.
*Or perhaps they won't care. The government has a pretty piss poor track record on security.
On the post: Cable Companies Refuse To Put Their Breathless Love Of Net Neutrality Down In Writing
Well, yeah. Technically this IS their best behavior. Lying, cheating, stealing, breaking promises.
You don't want to see their worst behaviour. But be sure to hide your kids and pets. It isn't pretty.
On the post: New Netflix DRM Blocks Rooted Phone Owners From Downloading The Netflix App
Dear Netflix:
I don't go through the hassle and expense of using VPN to protect my data, especially on strange networks. I mean, it's not like coffee house WiFi is insecure and users vulnerable to MITM attacks or anything. The only possible reason for using VPN is to disguise my location. Because that information isn't available via GPS, cell tower or hotspot geolocation methods. And, you know, so much of your client base uses VPN to cheat your regional filters.
I haven't rooted my phone and installed a custom OS because it's an old phone, because I want to get more utility out of it instead of spending hundreds of dollars every year for a new one, and because I want to get the latest OS patches in spite of it having been abandoned by the manufacturer. I don't use a custom OS because the manufacturer and the carrier each bake in an egregious number of useless apps that chew up precious resources, are distracting, and cannot be removed. I don't use a custom OS because it has extra features that improve performance, allow customization, provide more choices, and simply improve my overall smartphone experience. Nope, I do it to steal content. Because the hours I've spent experimenting and learning how to install Cyanogenmod and getting things juuuust right were so much easier than logging into The Pirate Bay.
Sarcasm because Screw Your Attitude.
On the post: New Netflix DRM Blocks Rooted Phone Owners From Downloading The Netflix App
On the post: Leaked NSA Hacking Tool On Global Ransomware Rampage
Assuming Wannacrypt is just another name for Wannacry, looks like MS has actually stepped up to the plate on this one. Well done.
On the post: UK Parliament Takes First Step Towards Making Google & Facebook Censor Everything
- a generation of breast-feeding mothers
- several generations of breast cancer victims and survivors
- their families
- their friends
...not to mention anybody cooking fowl and trying to avoid the dark meat.
Porn producers LOVE to use punny names based on popular media or literature. I'm dying to see how the "similar names" rule works with that.
On the post: ISPs Lose En Banc Appeal, Current Net Neutrality Rules Remain Intact...For Now
On the post: Legislators, School Administrators Back Off Cellphone Search Bill After Running Into ACLU Opposition
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Next >>