"Is there a point to privacy protection if free speech eliminates implied confidentiality?"
But it doesn't do this.
Let's say I tell a secret to you under the terms of a contract that binds you to keep the secret. If you then reveal the secret, I have recourse against you for that.
The concept of "free speech" in no way affects that.
If you told my secret to, say, the press and they then published is -- that's fair game. The press never agreed to keep the secret, and their right to report it is totally a free speech issue.
I should have no recourse against the press. My recourse is against you. And the amount of damage your breach of contract caused (including the damage from the press reports) affects the amount of recourse I get.
There are a number of nations that could come up with half a billion for this without much problem.
But I suspect that they aren't really as interested in selling the stuff as they are in sending a signal that they could sell the stuff.
I agree with Snowden in that the way all this went down only really makes sense if its part of a political play. This is about message more than the actual tools.
It does turn the wifi on briefly to listen, but transmits nothing when it does so. It uses the radio chip as a receiver only. The rest of the operating system does not think the radio is on when it does this.
Nasch is right, I'm not talking about cell towers. Also, my Wifi is not engaging in any handshaking to do this. It's just listening for the AP beacons.
No, it's not. The issue with what Comcast is doing isn't the advertising, it's the spying. Comcast is essentially engaging in an extortion racket here, requiring "protection money" to keep them from attacking you.
And even then, we have no assurance that if you pay them the money they'll actually stop with the spying.
You're just reading the wrong definition. "Premium" meaning "high quality" is the third definition in my dictionary. The first is "An amount paid over and above the regular price".
I couldn't disagree more. If we just ignore these issues now, they will be decided by default in a way that is very unfavorable for individuals and will become extremely difficult to change.
Now is exactly the time to raise a big fuss about all of this.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. When my receiver is sniffing, it is only listening. It is not sending out a radio transmission at all. (I just now confirmed this with some test equipment.)
Your reference to "transmission by reflection" is vague and I can think of a couple of things that you might be referring to, but none of them seem very relevant to this particular issue.
I was speaking of the more general case. After all, some retail stores have started using the exact same sort of tracking of anyone that comes into their stores.
This has been trivially possible for a very long time now. The only thing that's happening here that's new is that it's being done by institutions on a wide-scale basis. But the technique they're using is as old as Wifi itself.
By the way, this can't even be considered "hacking". All of the information being obtained is being done through known and accepted protocols being used in the intended way.
The issue, really, is that data, legitimately obtained for one purpose, is being used for an entirely different purpose without people's knowledge -- let alone consent.
So, as with many of these things, the real question is "who owns the data"? Is it "your" data, because it is about you, that you've "licensed" for a particular purpose? Or is it the AP owner's data, because they collected what was freely given, and they can use for any purpose they wish?
A mark that is primarily a surname does not qualify for placement on the Principal Register under the Lanham Act unless the name has become well known as a mark through advertising or long use—that is, until it acquires a secondary meaning. Until then, surname marks can only be listed on the Supplemental Register. To register a mark that consists primarily of the surname of a living person (assuming the mark has acquired secondary meaning), the mark owner must have the namesake’s written permission to register the mark.
Personally, I use Android and Tasker to accomplish a compromise. My phone occasionally "sniffs" the wifi signals in the area (it does not send any wifi signals out when it does this), and if it sees an AP that is on my list of approved access points, it turns the wifi on and connects to that point automatically. When I leave the AP's range, it turns the wifi back off.
This way my wifi is effectively off when I'm out and about, but I don't have to remember to turn it on or off myself.
"the only information that can be gathered from my phone is that a smart phone with such-and-so MAC address sent a ping to identify wi-fi sources in the vicinity."
Right, which means that it's possible to identify and track the movements of your cell phone, even if you don't connect to anything.
On the post: Billionaire Backer Of Palantir & Facebook Insists He's Bankrupting Journalists To Protect Your Privacy
Re:
But it doesn't do this.
Let's say I tell a secret to you under the terms of a contract that binds you to keep the secret. If you then reveal the secret, I have recourse against you for that.
The concept of "free speech" in no way affects that.
If you told my secret to, say, the press and they then published is -- that's fair game. The press never agreed to keep the secret, and their right to report it is totally a free speech issue.
I should have no recourse against the press. My recourse is against you. And the amount of damage your breach of contract caused (including the damage from the press reports) affects the amount of recourse I get.
On the post: Ed Snowden Explains Why Hackers Published NSA's Hacking Tools
Re: 1 million bitcoins?
But I suspect that they aren't really as interested in selling the stuff as they are in sending a signal that they could sell the stuff.
I agree with Snowden in that the way all this went down only really makes sense if its part of a political play. This is about message more than the actual tools.
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re:
No, it's not. The issue with what Comcast is doing isn't the advertising, it's the spying. Comcast is essentially engaging in an extortion racket here, requiring "protection money" to keep them from attacking you.
And even then, we have no assurance that if you pay them the money they'll actually stop with the spying.
On the post: Dallas PD Asks Attorney General For Permission To Withhold 'Embarrassing' Documents About Its Bomb Robot
Re: Re: Asimov
On the post: Dallas PD Asks Attorney General For Permission To Withhold 'Embarrassing' Documents About Its Bomb Robot
Re: Re: Re: Cops wanted Revenge
Neither, thank you.
I would rather the police not act as judge, jury, and executioner.
On the post: Comcast Fancies Itself The Tesla Of Cable
Re: A Premium Product?
I think Comcast is going with the first.
On the post: Lots Of Newspapers Discovering That Paywalls Don't Work
Re: Re: Pulitzer and advertising
A certain amount of annoying is fine with me. What I absolutely cannot tolerate is the tracking. Until that stops, my adblockers stay up.
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re:
I couldn't disagree more. If we just ignore these issues now, they will be decided by default in a way that is very unfavorable for individuals and will become extremely difficult to change.
Now is exactly the time to raise a big fuss about all of this.
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your reference to "transmission by reflection" is vague and I can think of a couple of things that you might be referring to, but none of them seem very relevant to this particular issue.
What am I missing?
On the post: Lots Of Newspapers Discovering That Paywalls Don't Work
Re: Yes and no...
I pay them. Not because of the paywall, but despite it.
Their coverage of local news is very good, and I want to support that. Also, they let me run my adblocker full blast and still read the news.
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was speaking of the more general case. After all, some retail stores have started using the exact same sort of tracking of anyone that comes into their stores.
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re: Stalker's Wet Dream
By the way, this can't even be considered "hacking". All of the information being obtained is being done through known and accepted protocols being used in the intended way.
The issue, really, is that data, legitimately obtained for one purpose, is being used for an entirely different purpose without people's knowledge -- let alone consent.
So, as with many of these things, the real question is "who owns the data"? Is it "your" data, because it is about you, that you've "licensed" for a particular purpose? Or is it the AP owner's data, because they collected what was freely given, and they can use for any purpose they wish?
On the post: Trademark Office Tosses Phyllis Schlafly's Opposition To Her Nephew's Brewery Name Trademark Application
Re: What statute?
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/using-surname-family-name-trademark.html
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re: Re: Re:
This way my wifi is effectively off when I'm out and about, but I don't have to remember to turn it on or off myself.
On the post: University Tracks Students' Movements Using WiFi, But Says It's OK Because It's Not Tracking Students
Re: Re: Re:
Right, which means that it's possible to identify and track the movements of your cell phone, even if you don't connect to anything.
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re:
It's not a "discount" when its a surcharge.
On the post: Broadband Industry Think Tank Claims Comcast Plan To Charge More For Privacy 'Pro Consumer'
Re:
And let's not forget that even aggressive and sincere attempts at anonymization have yet to actually work.
On the post: Study Says Police Body Cameras Have Contributed To Increased Uses Of Deadly Force
Re:
I wish this were true, but I have seen exactly zero evidence that it is.
Next >>