no surprise here
In other words, if some shady creeps are going to spy on you, it's going to be us.
Ciq eating googles lunch?
212 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Jul 2009
Agreed, dull old arguments rehearsed. So let's talk about something new.
Assuming there is a demand, what could you do to prevent "piracy?" The only thing I can think of is a strict national IP whitelist, with automatic strict disincentives for anyone accessing or allowing access to non-whitelisted destinations. A bit like China.
That's mega if true (but I'll only be happy if it's minimum /data partition and preferably all partitions with some kind of second channel lockdown if authentication is failed multiple times, no bypass, no automatic adb server. Basically the device should be entirely inaccessible without the lock code).
Been using an Android app which is scraping the data, I do hope they keep the API free. It's awesome, I use it every day, though a few friends have wondered why I have suddenly run off having realised that the bus up the road is the last for 15 minutes. I'd say I spend about 30m a week not hanging around and I get a seat far more often (I know it's worth waiting for the next, empty one if it's 1 minute out)
OK, I'll have a go.
Kids learn from example. Young kids do this more, in fact in the early years it's the main form of social learning. Kids whose parents are violent are more likely to be violent themselves. It's called modelling and psychologists have known about it for years.
Video games are getting better and better at portraying agency in a realistically simulated virtual world. Every increasing realism is one of the engagement techniques of the industry. Many games are violent. Some push boundaries be emphasizing the violence. Know any five year olds? Would you let them play the airport scene in MW2? If not, why?
To claim that very young kids could not model from this is naive. Most would not. But some would. There are plenty of dysfunctional families where toddlers are exposed to everything their older sibs get up to. Sometimes in the context of abusive parents. Or parents who just aren't there.
Anyone who thinks the dominant entertainment force in society has no relationship to how that society behaves is foolish. Anyone who thinks that relationship could only be unidirectional when the evidence is so hard to get and so conflicted has no grounds for that belief.
Seems like some posters here see Usenet servers' right to store *all* content as something worth protecting. Why exactly? It's not as if the big binaries servers are providing anything other than a convenient way to get warez/music/movies/porn. I have no issue with that, let the content industries go after them if they want to play whack a mole with piracy, but if they can serve child porn with no consequences, why protect that? Illegal and reviled everywhere, for sound reasons. If Usenet services were made accountable for carrying it, they would just have to police the content better. They are after all getting a bit of a free ride, the business model is monetized piracy...there are more worthy free speech conduits.
It doesn't matter that cell.cache only stores the most recent entries... Each entry is the result of a lookup on google servers. If Google store all your lookups they have a complete location record. It's not clear whether this collection is done regardless of your opt in/out of location services.
Furthermore, now they have this map, it's such a rich dataset that it is robust - you can break bits of it, say by changing your MAC, and it can use the remaining data to relocate your new MAC.
Finally, does anyone believe the line that all this juicy personal data is not held in a way that allows it to be directly tied too your id? After all, what on earth could the world's biggest targeted advertiser (and their close friends, the world's most mercenary government) want with such information?
The reason tablets didn't take off last time is that they were running a dog of an OS (Windows tablet edition). The reason they are now taking off is IOS and Android. Windows can go wrong in so many billion ways that it's not suited to the casual sofa user.
The smart thing to do would be force it to Android mode when the keyboard is stowed, but switch to Windows when it's time to do some work. Shared storage for user content.
Good luck with this, all their security crud just slows devices down, and I didn't notice an excess of processing power on my Android phone. What it does need is a firewall to stop apps guffing my personal info to all and sundry without me being able to even know about it. But that's not currently possible.
From The Times
March 11, 2010
Libel laws silenced me, says Francisco Lacerda, critic of lie detector system
Mark Henderson, Science Editor
England’s libel laws have been used to silence scientific critics of lie detection technology on which the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has spent £2.4 million.
An academic from Sweden will tell MPs today how a paper challenging the principles behind the voice risk analysis (VRA) system was withdrawn by his publisher after legal threats from its manufacturer.
In an interview with The Times before a House of Commons seminar on his case, Francisco Lacerda, professor of phonetics at Stockholm University, said that the case showed how English law was damaging science abroad as well as in the UK.
Because English was the international language of science, and many important academic journals were based in Britain, anybody who published controversial work could be at risk of being sued, he said.
Libel law was also suppressing information that should be available in the public interest, he added. A public interest defence and controls on costs were needed to protect free scientific debate.
“I feel my duty to return to society the knowledge I have been gathering cannot be done because of the English libel laws,” Professor Lacerda said. “MPs have to find a way to allow scientists to challenge claims freely.
“It is a big problem, not only for English scientists. If you publish in English, as scientists must, you are at risk.”
Professor Lacerda has come to London to support the Libel Reform Coalition, which is campaigning for changes in the law after a series of high-profile defamation actions against scientists.
Simon Singh, the science writer, is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for questioning the evidence for its medical claims, and Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist, is being sued over his criticisms of an American company’s heart implant trial.
The campaign has been backed by Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, and more than 40,000 people have signed a petition calling for reform.
In 2007, Professor Lacerda and Anders Eriksson, of Gothenburg University, published an article entitled “Charlatanry in Forensic Speech Science” in the International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. It criticised the science behind analysis technologies that purport to identify stressed voices, which may indicate lying.
One VRA system, designed by Nemesysco, an Israeli company, is being evaluated in 24 pilot studies by the DWP, as a means of highlighting potential benefit fraud. The DWP has spent £2.4 million on the pilots, which are due to report back soon. Nemesysco threatened the journal with a libel action over the article, which was withdrawn from its website.
Amir Liberman, who devised the technology, said the paper contained inaccuracies that could damage his business, and that he had particularly objected to the title’s implication that he was a charlatan.
“Scientists’ words are taken for more than face value and therefore call for even higher responsibility,” he said. “Nobody should be protected against gross slander and defamation, and this includes scientists.”
Professor Lacerda said he felt it important that governments, insurance companies and other agencies that might buy the technology were aware of his concerns. The withdrawal of the paper will limit access to his work.
“We expected a rebuttal of the claims, but in the academic literature, not in court,” he said. “That has a suffocating effect on science.”
A spokeswoman for the DWP said officials running the trial were aware of the Lacerda paper, and that the department had a duty “to do everything we can to stop fraud in the benefit system".
Tracey Brown, of Sense About Science, which is part of the Libel Reform Coalition, said: “With such high costs and few defences, it is not surprising that threats of libel action from big companies succeed in getting publications withdrawn and critical views silenced.”
Dr Singh said that the case showed the international reach of English libel law.
“It is bad enough that English libel law can intimidate British scientists, but when our law begins to silence overseas academics such as Professor Lacerda then we need to take responsibility for the global chill caused by our legal system.”
I don't buy the idea that a sub is the only way to ensure nobody knows where they are. A nation with considerably less resources that the UK managed to keep the world completely in the dark about whether they had WMDs. As long as there is uncertainty, there is a deterrent
I'm guessing it gets a bit cheaper if you don't buy the vehicle.
If mobile phone radiation was going to have this kind of effect, would it not be the handset that was the relevant source, as it's very close to the body and incident energy falls off with something reated to the square of the distance? In which case, living far from a mast would be bad, as the phone ramped up power to keep a signal.
The previous administration seems to have been suffering from something analogous to obsessive compulsive disorder. OCD is characterized by repetitive behaviours aimed at averting an imagined catastrophe, eg checking the gas cooker is off. Issues of responsibility seem to be particularly pertinent.
Similarly the Labour govt seemed prepared to go to any lengths to avoid a bad thing happening. For them, a bad thing meant "a thing for which we will be criticised by the press". Spending 600k to prevent one of those was a good deal for them. Sadly though in their OCD-like efforts to avoid all possibility of badness, they created this nightmarish erosion of civil liberties which is going to be hard to undo.
You can tell it came from a pathological state of mind because it is obvious to the rational observer that the surveillance society creates acute (false positives) and chronic (general loss of trust in society) problems which are worse than the very few bad things they were trying to prevent.
Basically, they were sick, and they had to go. Hopefully one of the Millibands will realise this and learn to live with risk.
Thanks for doing this comparison. TMobile used to be pretty good here in London, but recently I and mates have been feeling very let down. Good to see that it's confirmed by a more formal test, albeit in a different location.
TMobile were really the first movers in this sector; they got a lot of business by offering the only "unlimited" deal in town at a decent price. Sadly it seems they haven't been increasing capacity as the clientbase grew. I hope they get some more bandwidth, but with 24m contracts common these days they have reduced churn and the pressure's not so great on them to fulfil their promises.
Because we choose to trade information about us for services. And they are the best "free" cloud services out there, nothing else works as well and ties together so well.
We just have to hope regulation prevents them doing anything too evil (their mantra won't of course, that's just marketing).