Consider, if they had legitimate specific intelligence about a pending attack, what are the odds that they would announce that fact?
If I were part of a terrorist organisation, I would certainly want to make use of these kinds of public announcements - plan something for nearby the announcement, so they think any specific info may have been worthwhile, just insufficient. Or plan something counter to the announcements, to lower public confidence in their "protectors".
Luckily for everyone (not least myself), I'm not part of a terrorist organisation.
The region locking is the main reason I've never owned a Blu-ray player. I was living in Singapore when BR was really becoming popular, but I was slated to move to the UK soon, and I always expected to return to my home country of Australia at some point. It never made sense to buy a player locked to any particular region, because I'd always have trouble playing or sourcing movies... so I didn't.
Now I'm back in Australia, and just used to not having a Blu-ray player; and really, between the DVDs I still own and the various streaming options available, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
I've gotta admit, the inertia-based movement system always annoyed me about real life, too.
Never more so than playing touch rugby and some of the opposing team seemed to not realise they are supposed to slow down and stop before changing directions... Stupid cheat codes. And don't even get me started on real-life cliphax!
Actually, I think it'd be funnier to start calling it federal piracy:
"TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Pirated From Him By Federal Agents"
Take the word back to what it used to mean, you know? With the added benefit that old-school piracy is one of the few crimes that is actually punishable by international law!
While you may be able to see the distinction, your actions indicate the opposite. What good or improvement or enlightenment has ever come from replying to Blue's posts?
I suspect you may be underestimating just how bad the previous (or current) system may be, and how long it would take to even get signoff to get access to the old servers, or to find out who actually knows which box the tape backups containing the pre-2014 emails might be sitting in.
Still, a year of full-time work sounds pretty outrageous, and 9 months of 24x7 computation is completely unreasonable. As mentioned below, they should require their own access to search their old emails for any number of reasons, claiming they do not have such is just negligence!
Obviously different strokes for different folks, but I can't imagine there'd be more than 2 months in most years that there's as many as 4 movies that I even WANT to see in the cinema.
You're obviously passionate about the subject, and that can be a good thing. I'd suggest taking a few breaths before and after writing such posts, and if you feel your heart rate going up as you're writing it then it's probably wise to edit before hitting submit.
Reasoned discussion is probably the most useful thing that can be done right now, if you're not someone who's actually releasing hardware yourself. Probably the biggest issue otherwise is the problem of alternatives; yes, Google, Facebook and others (state, corporate, and maybe even criminal) are massively mining every aspect of our behaviour they can get their digital claws on and that may well become THE problem of the 21st century... or encryption might get better, easier to use and more pervasive and we slowly sidestep the problem.
As to what we can do about it today? If you want to own a smartphone, there's not much choice if you don't want to be tracked... and that quickly disappears to no choice if you don't want to spend time with non-mainstream hardware and/or custom operating systems. Same with home computers, laptops, and even TVs. Thankfully "smart" TVs aren't quite as much of a must-have as the producers would like us to think... though if you want a good quality TV with high-end components, it's very hard and getting harder to avoid the smart options. Which is why I'm currently happy enough with a chinese knock-off brand TV with almost no features but decent picture reproduction - especially since it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars at a charity event :-)
So, I hope you don't feel as unheard as yesterday, and I look forward to more reasoned discussion.
All the issues with DRM could be solved just fine by getting rid of anti-circumvention provisions.
Not the issue of DRM itself.
If DRM doesn't have the weight of the law behind it, then there aren't many issues in DRM itself. Note here that I'm talking about the kind of DRM that purely enables or disables access to the program containing the DRM. If it's legal to disable this kind of DRM in software that you have purchased, then it doesn't really matter if it's there or not. Companies that waste money on implementing it may find it harder to be competitive with companies that don't bother, or they may finally realise that it's not worth the money so stop implementing DRM naturally. Once the legal backing for DRM is removed, the problem largely goes away by itself - there's no NEED for any further legislation.
That's what Leigh is talking about when he asks what issues would remain.
As to software that installs rootkits, or scans your hard drive, or otherwise locks up your computer outside the boundaries of the software (or music) that you actually wanted... it's not completely clear that these should be criminal, either. The court of public opinion and the free market may still be better mechanisms for dissuading such behaviour than threat of criminal sanctions - that are nearly impossible to apply to corporations anyway.
How would you propose dealing with a lone software developer that offered some software that lets them connect some device to their PC to control it in a new and novel way... but after some months, it is discovered that the library that the developer used to build their driver functionality on includes a rootkit that is used to build a botnet? What if the developer didn't know that about the library when they chose to use it? Should they be personally liable based on not decompiling and performing a security audit on every third-party library that they are using?
I don't think the law is nimble enough, or flexible enough, to apply any kind of good solution to this kind of problem.
Here's one more question, just out of curiosity: would free trial versions of software that disable after a given number of days also be illegal?
Most likely, and everyone hates those anyway. It would provide an opportunity for innovation, to develop a better model for demo software. :)
Spoiler: You don't speak for everyone. Those software trials can be critical for evaluating some software that may have high unit costs. Heck, I don't know how you can say they could be illegal without calling into question the entire premise of software trials, or software/services that you license on a subscription basis.
And whether or not you LIKE such models, making them illegal sounds extreme, and would more likely reduce innovation in software marketing than provide new opportunities, especially considering those opportunities already exist. I don't think there's a single developer out there who is saying "Look, everyone hates this method of trialling software... but it's not illegal, so let's not bother looking for a new way". Well, not more than two or three.
Ok, those things are terrible if true, and maybe relevant in an article about Google. They are also completely compatible with Leigh's statement that he thinks "there are genuine privacy concerns to be considered around something like Google Glass".
Why jump on Leigh for that?
Also, there are many dozens of stories that TD doesn't report on. They also have limited staff. If they've already called out behaviour on some other company, just assume that they feel the same about the same behaviour from a different company. Why assume the worst? It just makes you look bad.
Forgive me if I seam a bit pissy- but markets are being driven by people who are ignorant of the way there devices work.
I think you'll find that the only markets driven by people who understand the way the products work all have the label "niche", and possibly "enthusiast".
Well, it's lucky that TD commenters are always willing to venture as far into "tin hat" territory as required, and further!
If anything, privacy conserns are extreamly understated, most don't even understand the extent of the threat. People absolutely should be "freaking out" alot more then they are.
Debatably true, but then you trip down the slippery slope of sanity and you aren't even talking about Google Glass any more.
In what way was your comment relevant to Leigh's post (repeated here for simplicity)?
I called them "somewhat overblown" and "freakouts" — not entirely ungrounded or irrelevant. I do think there are genuine privacy concerns to be considered around something like Google Glass, but unfortunately most people were unable to have any kind of rational conversation about it, and went straight to violent opposition of the technology up to and including ripping them off people's faces and smashing them (and being widely applauded online for doing so).
If you think that was a reasonable reaction, so be it. I think it was a somewhat overblown freakout.
On the post: Sony To Court: Of Course We're Allowed To Contractually Screw Over Our Artists
Re: Re: Out of the frying pan, into the fire(but now with self-righteous satisfaction as you roast)
On the post: Sony To Court: Of Course We're Allowed To Contractually Screw Over Our Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Majority
On the post: FBI & Homeland Security Now 0 For 41 In Predicting Imminent Terrorist Attacks On The US
Would they announce if they actually knew?
If I were part of a terrorist organisation, I would certainly want to make use of these kinds of public announcements - plan something for nearby the announcement, so they think any specific info may have been worthwhile, just insufficient. Or plan something counter to the announcements, to lower public confidence in their "protectors".
Luckily for everyone (not least myself), I'm not part of a terrorist organisation.
On the post: How Section 1201 Of The Copyright Statute Threatens Innovation
Re: Re:
Now I'm back in Australia, and just used to not having a Blu-ray player; and really, between the DVDs I still own and the various streaming options available, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
On the post: How Section 1201 Of The Copyright Statute Threatens Innovation
On the post: David Cameron Promises To Do Away With 'Safe Spaces' On The Internet
Re: Re: Math Thought
I wonder, of those few terrorists that weren't stopped by regular police work, would they have ruined more than 6400 lives?
On the post: David Cameron Promises To Do Away With 'Safe Spaces' On The Internet
Re: Defining "terrorists"
"We just want to ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate, by ensuring that there are no safe spaces for communication"
On the post: DailyDirt: Playing Super Mario By Rote... Is Fun?
Re:
Never more so than playing touch rugby and some of the opposing team seemed to not realise they are supposed to slow down and stop before changing directions... Stupid cheat codes. And don't even get me started on real-life cliphax!
On the post: TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Taken From Him By Federal Agents
Re: Typo
"TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Pirated From Him By Federal Agents"
Take the word back to what it used to mean, you know? With the added benefit that old-school piracy is one of the few crimes that is actually punishable by international law!
On the post: TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Taken From Him By Federal Agents
Re: Re: When is this going to stop?
That's funny, I don't really know anyone willing to pay $77k to get $77k in cash; I suspect market value is going to be lower.
(Not sure if being sarcastic or logical...)
On the post: EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to go everyone!
Second-most-insightful comment of the week in response to a troll post: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150426/10123930790/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdir t.shtml
On the post: As Uber Crackdown In France Continues, Uber Downloads In France Reach Record Highs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "We keep pointing out that the public really seems to like Uber,"
I'd like to thank my parents, and my friends, I couldn't have done it without you guys...
On the post: As Uber Crackdown In France Continues, Uber Downloads In France Reach Record Highs
Re: Re: Re: Re: "We keep pointing out that the public really seems to like Uber,"
On the post: City Claims It Will Take 9,000 Hours And $79,000 To Fulfill Gawker's Request Emails Related To Abusive Police Officer
Re: You are sh!tting me!
Still, a year of full-time work sounds pretty outrageous, and 9 months of 24x7 computation is completely unreasonable. As mentioned below, they should require their own access to search their old emails for any number of reasons, claiming they do not have such is just negligence!
On the post: MPAA Targets New Anti-Piracy Ads... At People Who Already Paid To Go See Movies
Re: Re:
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Not Quite Google Glass
Re: Re: MrTroy...unfairness.
Reasoned discussion is probably the most useful thing that can be done right now, if you're not someone who's actually releasing hardware yourself. Probably the biggest issue otherwise is the problem of alternatives; yes, Google, Facebook and others (state, corporate, and maybe even criminal) are massively mining every aspect of our behaviour they can get their digital claws on and that may well become THE problem of the 21st century... or encryption might get better, easier to use and more pervasive and we slowly sidestep the problem.
As to what we can do about it today? If you want to own a smartphone, there's not much choice if you don't want to be tracked... and that quickly disappears to no choice if you don't want to spend time with non-mainstream hardware and/or custom operating systems. Same with home computers, laptops, and even TVs. Thankfully "smart" TVs aren't quite as much of a must-have as the producers would like us to think... though if you want a good quality TV with high-end components, it's very hard and getting harder to avoid the smart options. Which is why I'm currently happy enough with a chinese knock-off brand TV with almost no features but decent picture reproduction - especially since it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars at a charity event :-)
So, I hope you don't feel as unheard as yesterday, and I look forward to more reasoned discussion.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Not Quite Google Glass
Re:cursion
If DRM doesn't have the weight of the law behind it, then there aren't many issues in DRM itself. Note here that I'm talking about the kind of DRM that purely enables or disables access to the program containing the DRM. If it's legal to disable this kind of DRM in software that you have purchased, then it doesn't really matter if it's there or not. Companies that waste money on implementing it may find it harder to be competitive with companies that don't bother, or they may finally realise that it's not worth the money so stop implementing DRM naturally. Once the legal backing for DRM is removed, the problem largely goes away by itself - there's no NEED for any further legislation.
That's what Leigh is talking about when he asks what issues would remain.
As to software that installs rootkits, or scans your hard drive, or otherwise locks up your computer outside the boundaries of the software (or music) that you actually wanted... it's not completely clear that these should be criminal, either. The court of public opinion and the free market may still be better mechanisms for dissuading such behaviour than threat of criminal sanctions - that are nearly impossible to apply to corporations anyway.
How would you propose dealing with a lone software developer that offered some software that lets them connect some device to their PC to control it in a new and novel way... but after some months, it is discovered that the library that the developer used to build their driver functionality on includes a rootkit that is used to build a botnet? What if the developer didn't know that about the library when they chose to use it? Should they be personally liable based on not decompiling and performing a security audit on every third-party library that they are using?
I don't think the law is nimble enough, or flexible enough, to apply any kind of good solution to this kind of problem.
Spoiler: You don't speak for everyone. Those software trials can be critical for evaluating some software that may have high unit costs. Heck, I don't know how you can say they could be illegal without calling into question the entire premise of software trials, or software/services that you license on a subscription basis.
And whether or not you LIKE such models, making them illegal sounds extreme, and would more likely reduce innovation in software marketing than provide new opportunities, especially considering those opportunities already exist. I don't think there's a single developer out there who is saying "Look, everyone hates this method of trialling software... but it's not illegal, so let's not bother looking for a new way". Well, not more than two or three.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Not Quite Google Glass
Re: Re:Re:
Why jump on Leigh for that?
Also, there are many dozens of stories that TD doesn't report on. They also have limited staff. If they've already called out behaviour on some other company, just assume that they feel the same about the same behaviour from a different company. Why assume the worst? It just makes you look bad.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Not Quite Google Glass
Re:
Forgive me if I seam a bit pissy- but markets are being driven by people who are ignorant of the way there devices work.
I think you'll find that the only markets driven by people who understand the way the products work all have the label "niche", and possibly "enthusiast".
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Not Quite Google Glass
Re:
If anything, privacy conserns are extreamly understated, most don't even understand the extent of the threat. People absolutely should be "freaking out" alot more then they are.
Debatably true, but then you trip down the slippery slope of sanity and you aren't even talking about Google Glass any more.
In what way was your comment relevant to Leigh's post (repeated here for simplicity)?
Next >>