Virtually every privacy policy that I have read has an intro phrase that implies how they will "protect" your data that is immediately followed by another phrase that they will "share" your data with anyone who asks (pays).
You are automatically opted into this policy. To opt out you have to do all sorts of convoluted things, such as manually entering your information and using snail mail. So here we have computers that make things easy to give your data away; but when it comes to opting out, the companies make it as difficult as possible.
As an interesting aside. Today I received my copy of Forbes. One of the lead articles was the debate over "your" medical records. My first thought, what does Forbes mean by "your" medical records??? Companies are routinely and with greater vigor claiming that they "own" all data that is in their possession.
The government is simply another player in the competitive market landscape. Like community developed products such as LINUX or Wikipedia, if government can do better than for-profit private industry, why not. These efforts help to keep the for-profit companies competitive and fighting for survival. Isn't that what competition is supposed to do? If for-profit private industry can't compete too bad, you don't deserve to be in business.
Mike correctly notes "The idea that a toolmaker can be liable for the actions of its users should trouble everyone -- especially when that tools has plenty of legitimate uses as well. ". But we must also recognize that the RIAA and the MPAA are NOT simply protecting their supposed rights, the are actually attempting to expand their rights by making formally legal activities illegal through legislation that they pay for and through these types of court cases. It is unfortunate that companies can buy the "law". It is they who are stealing from you.
The potential that companies can simply shut you down by pressing a "kill switch" has been languishing around for several years now. Unfortunately, to get some sort of action on this, we will need a sacrificial poster child who "died" or otherwise suffered as a result of a "kill switch" being pressed for some trivial "offense".
Obama is busy hiring lawyers working for the likes of the RIAA who want to restrict your ability to use content. Well Obama has now become a beneficiary of DRM in that he gave the PM of England DVDs that won't work in England because of regional encoding!!! This is a clear example of how DRM frustrates the ability of users to use the products they paid for and are entitled to use. It also points to clueless lawmakers who don't realize what they are approving.
Excellent point. The music industry wants you to feel sorry for them, but they have no feelings of guilt for the damage they willfully inflict on others. If the music industry is unwilling to treat you fairly; then there is no reason to treat them fairly.
One normally thinks of a "right" as being existent and obvious, such as a right to life. However, with content creators, so-called rights are being claimed out of thin air and few people seem to question this "land grab". Take the recently posted article on Techdirt for the Kindle. A new technology comes along to allow a reader to hear the text and Authors Guild screams infringement and libraries wonder if it is "legal" to lend a Kindle with an ebook. The release of new technologies is not an excuse for content creators to assert that they now have "new" rights.
Another base case of relative reality. We had a firestorm of analysis concerning the sanctity of contracts when it came to the contracts authorizing "bonuses" to AIG executives for failure. To paraphrase -> "We have to honor contracts, they are binding legal documents and we can't break our holy word."
Companies routinely "break" contracts with customers all the time. In fact many of these "contracts", to me anyway, don't even qualify as valid contracts. Yet where is the moral outrage when companies fail to honor their contracts by those who feel that the AIG contracts should be honored?
If private industry can renege on the holy contract at will in any arbitrary and capricious fashion of their choosing. The government has a right to void contracts allowing unearned "bonuses".
It consistently amazes me that a picture can be considered a gross violation of privacy that evokes extreme outrage that demands significant media coverage. This isn't an invasion of privacy.
The real invasion of privacy is hyper-marketing assault on the consumer by telemarketers, spam, and the selling/trading/sharing of your personal data by corporations. We need to get our priorities straightened out.
Need Transparancy on What Spectrum Licensing Means
In following this debate, I have not seen a real disclosure of what will be licensed off. All I've been hearing are the empty buzz words that the spectrum should not be in government ownership so that private industry can innovate and take advantage of new technologies. Well, innovation and the lack of regulation allowed a lot of "innovation" in the financial sector that "proves" that the private sector lacks competence itself.
I am not against the LICENSING of spectrum, where the US government holds the spectrum in trust for the benefit of the American people. What I would be opposed to is the unspoken "land grab" of spectrum by private entities.
Also many people who seen to favor the "land grab" model do not seem to disclose the full implications of what this would mean. For example, would you now be required to license, for a fee, your currently free wifi router in your home?????
It's fair game for competitors to be listed in the search results. What I find irritating and abusive are "fake" search results. For example, I was searching for a replacement watch battery through Google. I received a whole bunch of hits, but many of the sites didn't even have the battery in stock!
Competition is good, but trying to entice you to visit a site when they don't even have the product being searched for is plain wrong. It defeats the whole purpose of searching! Besides, if someone pursues an unethical business tactic to get you to buy, they are probably unethical to begin with.
When we receive these notices, we also get in the mail the sales pitch for signing-up for "identity theft protection". I have also gotten phone calls, that I assume are related to marketing the identity theft protection product. I didn't answer the phone, but got the vague voice mail requesting a call back concerning an "issue".
What has amazed me, we now have computers which automates producing a textbook so the price should go down. After all you don't have to hire all those editors, artists, and typists, right? As everyone knows the price has amazingly gone up.
What also amazes me, the quality has gone done. Specifically, lots of spelling errors. I guess spell check, another automation tool, simply does not work for textbooks.
Textbook marketing is nothing more than the extortion of a captive market.
No, the lawsuits disappear. You do not need patents to create, you can create without patents. Many people create without the expectation of ever getting paid. Getting paid helps and is desirable; but also patents were meant as a limited right. The concept of "intellectual property" has degenerated to be a welfare system enforced through endless lawsuits and special interest legislation.
"Clarifying" damages is not reform. Real reform would involve materially changing what can be patented. This would eliminate any claim of patent infringement from even getting into the court system. As it stands now, things are so vague that everyone is infringing on everyone.
Real patent reform would eliminate vague abstract concepts such as business plans, software, and processes from being patented. No patent no lawsuit, no damages.
Lets see we will probably need separate licenses for a man's voice versus a woman's voice, then what about English versus Spanish? The endless incremental permutations are mind boggling!
It's a time honored tradition for government to "offload" its responsibilities through unfunded mandates. However, this misses a central premise to the free-market system. It should not be the responsibility of either the government or the ISPs to protect the interests of RIAA and their ilk.
I also find the absence the "privacy" issue disturbing. If the government where to read your mail on a routine basis to so that they can find out what you have done wrong, we would be hearing all sorts of howling about government interference. Private companies take aggressive action to read your packets(mail)without any due process, and there is silence?
Patent law and Copyright law is a shifting landscape where the content owners, who are stealing from the public, have convinced the news media that the public is stealing from them. Of course, there is a conflict of interest as the news media would like "strong" copyright so that they extort money.
Reporters aren't much into history, so they fail to explain to the public that, over time, copyright and patent law has become ever more onerous. Think of it this way, a yellow light at an intersection stays on for five seconds, the grace period is reduced to four seconds. Guess what we have now stolen one second from the public and we now have more criminals to fine!
We just received a bunch of these privacy notices from the credit card companies, since they seem to be all changing their policies. I wonder why!?!?!?! (sarcasm).
Anyway they all read: We respect your privacy so we will sell/give/rent/trade or whatever your personal information to anyone who asks (pays) so that they can send you even more junk mail. Oh, by the way, if the personal information that we sold to some unknown entity is used to "steal" your identity, it isn't our fault since you failed to sign-up and pay for this protection even though we said that we "protect" your data.
What also gets me, if you want to opt-out of having your information broadcast to the world, these companies make it purposely difficult. If privacy/security really mean something, the trading/selling/renting of data that a company collects should be made illegal.
It is a solvable issue. Just think we have a standard 60 cycle 110 Volt electrical delivery system and I seem to be able to plug in all sorts of devices.
Cars and boats have 12 volt direct current systems, seems that we can plug in all sorts of devices into these systems too.
The claim that proprietary connectors are a safety feature is mostly FUD. Look at what DELL tried to pull with its power supplies. They look normal, but if you don't buy a replacement from DELL, you fry your computer. A power supply that looks like a normal power supply but fries your computer is NOT a safety feature.
We have engineers for a reason. Engineers design stuff, so if they can design an incompatible product they can also design the products to work with standard connectors.
On the post: Just Because A Site Has A Privacy Policy, Doesn't Mean It Will Keep Your Data Private
Everything is for Sale
You are automatically opted into this policy. To opt out you have to do all sorts of convoluted things, such as manually entering your information and using snail mail. So here we have computers that make things easy to give your data away; but when it comes to opting out, the companies make it as difficult as possible.
As an interesting aside. Today I received my copy of Forbes. One of the lead articles was the debate over "your" medical records. My first thought, what does Forbes mean by "your" medical records??? Companies are routinely and with greater vigor claiming that they "own" all data that is in their possession.
On the post: The 8,000 Year Copyright?
Copyrighted by Whom?
If the copyright remains with the descendants, by this time virtually everyone in the world would be a partial owner and entitled to use the content.
On the post: Yup, Broadband Providers Still Hate Muni Competition
Competition is Competition
On the post: Pirate Bay Loses A Lawsuit; Entertainment Industry Loses An Opportunity
A Shifting Landscape
On the post: Amazon Uses DRM To Turn Kindle Into A Very Expensive Paperweight
Poster Child
I'm also somewhat bemused that Obama's international DRM embarrassment hasn't made the news here. Brown’s DVD Gift From Obama Wrong Format
Obama is busy hiring lawyers working for the likes of the RIAA who want to restrict your ability to use content. Well Obama has now become a beneficiary of DRM in that he gave the PM of England DVDs that won't work in England because of regional encoding!!! This is a clear example of how DRM frustrates the ability of users to use the products they paid for and are entitled to use. It also points to clueless lawmakers who don't realize what they are approving.
On the post: Canadian Recording Industry Puts Out Copyright Law FAQ... Which Gets Almost Everything Wrong
Music Industry Hypocrisy
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
False "Rights"
On the post: Pissing Off Users By Changing Terms Of Service Along The Way
Contract Sanctity
Companies routinely "break" contracts with customers all the time. In fact many of these "contracts", to me anyway, don't even qualify as valid contracts. Yet where is the moral outrage when companies fail to honor their contracts by those who feel that the AIG contracts should be honored?
If private industry can renege on the holy contract at will in any arbitrary and capricious fashion of their choosing. The government has a right to void contracts allowing unearned "bonuses".
On the post: Which Is The Bigger Privacy Invasion: Google Street View Images Or Major Newspaper Reprinting Those Images?
A false Issue
The real invasion of privacy is hyper-marketing assault on the consumer by telemarketers, spam, and the selling/trading/sharing of your personal data by corporations. We need to get our priorities straightened out.
On the post: Senators Call for Spectrum Inventory
Need Transparancy on What Spectrum Licensing Means
I am not against the LICENSING of spectrum, where the US government holds the spectrum in trust for the benefit of the American people. What I would be opposed to is the unspoken "land grab" of spectrum by private entities.
Also many people who seen to favor the "land grab" model do not seem to disclose the full implications of what this would mean. For example, would you now be required to license, for a fee, your currently free wifi router in your home?????
On the post: Who Says Users Don't Want Competitors' Ads in Search Results?
Abusive "Search" Tactics
Competition is good, but trying to entice you to visit a site when they don't even have the product being searched for is plain wrong. It defeats the whole purpose of searching! Besides, if someone pursues an unethical business tactic to get you to buy, they are probably unethical to begin with.
On the post: Are Breach Notification Laws Anything More Than Window Dressing?
Another Marketing Ploy
On the post: The Coming Disruption In The Textbook Market
Computerized Publishing and the Cost Goes UP!?!?!
What also amazes me, the quality has gone done. Specifically, lots of spelling errors. I guess spell check, another automation tool, simply does not work for textbooks.
Textbook marketing is nothing more than the extortion of a captive market.
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Reintroduced; More Of The Same
Re: Re: Re: This is NOT Reform
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Reintroduced; More Of The Same
This is NOT Reform
Real patent reform would eliminate vague abstract concepts such as business plans, software, and processes from being patented. No patent no lawsuit, no damages.
On the post: Amazon Gives In To Ridiculous Authors Guild Claim: Allows Authors To Block Text-To-Speech
Just the Abusrd Begining for Endless Licensing
On the post: New Zealand Temporarily Backs Down From Controversial Copyright Law
Re: Copyrights
I also find the absence the "privacy" issue disturbing. If the government where to read your mail on a routine basis to so that they can find out what you have done wrong, we would be hearing all sorts of howling about government interference. Private companies take aggressive action to read your packets(mail)without any due process, and there is silence?
On the post: How Reporters Contribute To Misconceptions About Patent Lawsuits
Reporters Don't Understand
Reporters aren't much into history, so they fail to explain to the public that, over time, copyright and patent law has become ever more onerous. Think of it this way, a yellow light at an intersection stays on for five seconds, the grace period is reduced to four seconds. Guess what we have now stolen one second from the public and we now have more criminals to fine!
On the post: People Don't Read Privacy Policies... But Want Them To Be Clearer
Gobbley Gook
Anyway they all read: We respect your privacy so we will sell/give/rent/trade or whatever your personal information to anyone who asks (pays) so that they can send you even more junk mail. Oh, by the way, if the personal information that we sold to some unknown entity is used to "steal" your identity, it isn't our fault since you failed to sign-up and pay for this protection even though we said that we "protect" your data.
What also gets me, if you want to opt-out of having your information broadcast to the world, these companies make it purposely difficult. If privacy/security really mean something, the trading/selling/renting of data that a company collects should be made illegal.
On the post: About Damn Time: Phone Makers To Standardize Chargers
Re: Re: About Fricking Time
Cars and boats have 12 volt direct current systems, seems that we can plug in all sorts of devices into these systems too.
The claim that proprietary connectors are a safety feature is mostly FUD. Look at what DELL tried to pull with its power supplies. They look normal, but if you don't buy a replacement from DELL, you fry your computer. A power supply that looks like a normal power supply but fries your computer is NOT a safety feature.
We have engineers for a reason. Engineers design stuff, so if they can design an incompatible product they can also design the products to work with standard connectors.
Next >>