Posts by dan1980

@Paul

Now, I am not a 'freetard'* by any stretch and am, in fact, quite taken aback at the amount of (what I deem) casual copyright infringement. But, even then, I would not say that I "accept" that privacy reduces sales.

I don't necessarily disagree, I simply don't accept it - at least not without good, hard numbers that have been properly compiled by reputable, reliable third-parties free from vested interests. And even then, only so long as I am convinced that they have been gathered and assessed with sufficient consideration of the myriad factors that might skew them.

What I am prepared to accept is the possibility that copyright infringement reduces sales, but one would have to quantify what is meant by 'reduce sales'. it really has to be a broad trend, measurable, repeatable and of some level of impact that is relevant.

It would seem to me nearly impossible that 'piracy' doesn't decrease sales in some absolute measure, but if, for example, someone would, in the absence of illegal downloading, purchase just one DVD a year then that is rather too small an effect to bother with.

I think one of the biggest problems with this situation is that the content owners or, more accurately, the big lobby groups representing them, spew vastly inflated figures that would be humourous were it not for the fact that our politicians believe them and then regurgitate them, usually verbatim.

If they actually spent some time and money investigating things honestly and with a goal of getting at the truth and understanding the causes then they would make for themselves a far more compelling argument. There will always, of course, we those who won't pay unless they 100% have to, but they are a small group and should not significantly affect the industry.

Be honest about things and make a genuine attempt to understand the issues and address them with your consumers rather than leaning on politicians with ridiculous numbers. That's how you change people's thinking and behaviour - be on their side and understand the reasons and try to find a 'win-win'.

Make and end run around consumers by trying to get laws changed and you will never get them on side.

* - I dislike the term anyway as it can be used to essentially discount a whole slew of often rather relevant and well-considered arguments and close-off an avenue of discussion that might otherwise be productive.

Re: Scope Creep

@Sanctimonious Prick

What's this "next" business?

This new data is available under the same regime as the existing data that has collected - and that most certainly extends to Centrelink.

It also applies to numerous other groups with even less justifiable cases, such as local councils - all without a warrant, of course. After all, someone illegally dumping rubbish on the kerbside is right up there with terrorists and pedophiles in the list of serious criminals and so requiring Bankstown council to make a case before a judge and obtain a warrant would place an utterly unmanageable burden on them and unacceptably hinder their ability to issue $1500 fines* to these truly heinous individuals.

So, when you heard Brandis and Turnbull and Abbott making their heartfelt pleas about preventing 'serious crime', I am sure you had in your mind images of Darren next door putting his old tele out on the street - a crime so 'serious' that it carries no jail time whatsoever and can be atoned for by paying 5 days' average wages.

The problem is that this isn't 'scope creep' - it's all within the scope and indeed within the pre-existing rules.

* - Not to mention a $455 'clean up notice' charge, or, if they are a business, a stiff $5000 fine. That'll show them.

@Simon

Perhaps the fact that it sounds forced to me is that I only ever see it used in The Register - mostly by Mr. Orlowski - though it has been almost a decade since I worked anywhere close to media circles so that may be the greater part of it : )

Back to the story, I wish I knew this was happening - I work just up the road and wouldn't have minded a bit of a sticky-beak. Or, more honestly, I would have enjoyed muttering to myself that they've strayed too far from the originals while feeling very self-righteous about it.

@matthew42

Except 'efficient' mean 'profitable' and the 'hard decisions' you talk about are things like laying off staff, closing branches/services in lower-performing areas and upgrading only those locations/services that make the most money.

And that's the problem.

I get what you're saying but the result of all that 'efficiency' is that people who would be less profitably for these private enterprises will end up as the 'poor cousins' of those in more profitable areas. With broadband access, you have people in 'regional' areas who are currently very poorly served by the existing 'efficient' private enterprises.

I, personally, have clients who are only able to get ADSL1 into their office. Some of these were able able fork out for fibre links - at quite the cost - while others have to make do with low speeds.

You might say 'tough' - user pays - but even some cursory thought into the matter would show that Internet connectivity has is, in this modern age, become an essential business infrastructure - as important as phone and mail services have been*. Or transport. One might even say that with good Internet connectivity, you can work around issues like poor transport or mail services.

So, given that Internet connectivity is an important piece of business infrastructure, it stands to reason that good Internet connectivity is good for the economy. And, given that, as our cities get busier we are trying to encourage more development of 'regional' areas, good connectivity in those places is vital for this and therefore for the future of our country.

Good infrastructure means more business investment, means more jobs, means more people staying in regional areas rather than moving to the cities, means less commuting, means less traffic, etc...

The more businesses that set up in regional areas, the more people those areas can support, means the more businesses will open up their, creating more jobs. There's a reason 'cities' are the way they are - they have transport hubs and businesses, meaning that people work there so more businesses open up there and so they grow.

That got away from me a bit but the simple point is that some services are essential and good for the country as a whole, regardless of whether you, personally, will benefit directly. These services are prime candidates for running publicly and, yes, subsidising in areas where a pure, private, 'user pays' regime will not work.

'Efficiency' is not the prime concern in these instances. Or at least shouldn't be. There must be a long-term vision and for it to work rather than analysts hawkishly looking over quarterly profit reports. Say what you will about our politicians and the slapdash way the (original) NBN was handled but it was certainly a long-term vision with fibre-to-the-premises. The new 'vision' is decidedly shorter-term, which people coming out and saying the equivalent of '640KB should be enough for anyone'.

* - After all, e-mail and VoIP and cloud services like Skype and dropbox and so on have supplemented and in some cases replaced these traditional services.

Re: Am I the only person...

The point of the BBC or the ABC is that you have a channel - or range of channels (TV and radio) - that are not supported and governed by commercial interests.

Of course, they are governed by other interests and people with a right-leaning ideology believe those interests to be left-leaning. Fair enough. To be honest, though, with that many channels and programs and producers and presenters, it is unlikely that everything is biased towards one ideological position or another but I accept that the stations, as a whole may have a general bias.

Still, it is not a commercial bias.

Whether it is good value or not, is another question altogether because that depends not just on if you use the BBC, but also on whether you believe that its existence provides an important service.

One important point, however, is that the services the BBC - as with the ABC in Australia - provide are not limited to simply broadcasting content. Most importantly, they invest back into local groups. in Australia, for example, the ABC broadcasts the local netball competition. Now, this is of no interest to me, nor indeed to a majority of Australians. But this is part of the point - if it was more popular, it would be shown on the commercial channels.

If the ABC didn't broadcast it, the competition would be worse off because broadcast deals inject much-needed money for the sport and clubs. Perhaps that, too, is not overly important to me as I don't care for netball but it means that there is more money for school programs, which encourages girl to get active.

Likewise music.

And local dramas and mini-series - some of which are world-renowned. Not to mention the documentaries.

My point is that they help inject money into areas and towards groups that don't always get represented well by the commercial stations. Again, whether you think that is important is a personal matter but it's not just about whether you watch the BBC or not.

That said, it should most definitely be means-tested.There's really no good reason not to.

Re: I call bullshit

It has nothing to do with efficiency or savings or any actual benefit to any current provider - it's an ideological position.

Not that following your party line is inherently a bad thing - each party has one - but doing so without any clear gain coming from smacks of forgetting that you are there to serve the people, rather than your own agenda. (ha!)

Re: And why not?

@Evil Graham

Amen. Couldn't agree more. I also don't have an iPhone and I'm not really an Apple person because the way Macs work doesn't really gel with the way I work. Personal preference and habit perhaps but if I would faster on a Windows machine then that's what I'll use.

Unfortunately, MS seem to just love changing UIs around with generally very little gain and often quite a lot of inconvenience.

MS and Apple are both 'my way or the highway' when it comes to their interfaces. The difference is that once you're used to an Apple device's interface, they don't go and change it for the next release. That said, their changes (such as 'natural' scrolling) on Macs as part of their efforts to merge OSX and iOS were every bit as annoying as MS's Windows 8/Office 2013 changes toward the same goal, but the changes seemed to be smaller.

Ahhh Classic Shell - where would I be without you?

Re: A bit idiotic

@AC

It's also a workplace harassment case waiting to happen.

Re: But what about...

And then you can add another level of complications - what about different countries?

I wonder how some in the EU would respond if (e.g.) Apple had their phones all sending encrypted data to the US and providing keys. Presumably they would insist that no such phone be some in their countries. The result is a different device (or service) be made for that location. And any other.

Even more complication if, say, the UK wants its own keys for UK phones and China theirs. And France. And Australia.

@Mark

Obvious? Only to those of us who work in IT. Or management. Or really anywhere in the real world.

To government and, specifically, those managing government IT projects, such advice is quite the revelation and those concepts and processes that the rest of us take for granted as basic, roll-a-six-to-start practices can be confusingly absent.

For example (and I've used this example before), we have a project to implement SAP for a State (well, Territory) government department in Australia.

"How we would do it if we had to do it again would be paying much more attention up-front before we went to market; looking at it in much more detail when the initial request came up for the system; what exactly it was going to do; understanding that at a greater depth; involving agencies right from the beginning then; and differentiating between what are the business needs from the nice-to-haves and understanding the costs and benefits of those at a much deeper level; a lot more involvement in the developing of the tender; and monitoring that process right from the get go."

And, from another person:

"I believe we should have, right from the beginning, engaged someone who actually knew SAP - from the beginning."

No, really?

Like I said: what is so obvious to the rest of us as to barely need saying is a world of wonder and innovation to those managing government projects.

@croc

Or like Microsoft and Adobe and other software giants, who insist on selling identical copies of their products at sometimes massively different prices in different markets and yet go and route their sales and profits round the world and back.

Why do Microsoft think it's fair to try and force me to buy their software from an Australian site at an inflated Australian price but then funnel that money off through Ireland and the Netherlands and the Bahamas?

Short version is that they can and if they can then then they will.

Re: Religion - the source of all evil

@Jack

I wouldn't say it's unchallenged beliefs so much as beliefs that refuse to be challenged.

Ain't that the truth.

Internode was the best. (At least the best available in NSW.) When they were bought by iiNet, I was a bit disappointed but if it was going to be anyone, iiNet was probably the best.

TPG? Dodo?

Ugh.

Re: Security!=privacy

@FF22

While you certainly make some good points about this specific instance, the larger issue is that these apps are slurping up data that has no relevance to the service being offered.

In other words, the current practice is simply to grab whatever you can or want and assume that that is fine. To argue whether any specific bit of data collected by any specific application for any specific entity is problematic or not is to get bogged down in, well, specifics - to miss the forest for the trees so to speak.

The problem here is the state-of-play of the industry, which sees both security and privacy relegated rather far down the priority list.

This is what is meant by "doing [it] wrong" - the way personal information is being treated is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of security and privacy. Security must be built in from the start to really be effective; it has to guide the development, the features, the technology and the data.

Doing it right means starting from a base position of saying that security and privacy are the most important considerations and so wherever there is a quick buck to be made selling private information, that is trumped by the requirement of ensuring that private information is kept, well, private.

Doing it right means a philosophy of 'least privilege' - grant access to as few systems and as little data as possible.

So, while my SSID is less sensitive than most of the other information PayPal already has on me, they do not need it for any part of the transaction and so it shouldn't be collected.

Re: Opt Opt Opt

@Notas Badoff.

Technology isn't evil but it can change a situation enough that analogies with more 'conventional' methods and scenarios can fall down.

This is an area where laws haven't kept pace but, unlike copyright - where there there is huge money to line politicians' pockets - there seems to be no push to 'fix' things.

As Vector has said, collecting and collating all this data manually, while possible, is simply not practical as it would cost more than they would earn and indeed be very error-prone.

Tracking shoppers manually in the manner you have identified has indeed been possible for a long time but the fact that it is not actually done shows that it isn't feasible. Thus, there is an inherent barrier that protects people from this type of monitoring. This technology drastically lowers that barrier so that it is now profitable for companies to undertake such monitoring.

This is similar to the bullshit that people like Malcolm Turnbull and the Attorney General were spouting here in Australia about how the new metadata retention laws were really nothing beyond what is already permissible.

One of the analogies given was that, as it is fully permissible to watch people going in and out of a lawyer's offices, there is really no problem in collecting data about people accessing a lawyer's website. This falls down as soon as you give it any though for the same reason as the idea that this Wifi-tracking technology is no different to watching a security camera - you can't task police officers to stand outside every lawyers office in the country and record who goes in and out.

So, while 'technology' does not necessarily provide a specific feature (e.g. tracking a customer around a store) that was not previously possible, it does allow these features to be used across-the-board, which is rather a different proposition.

That said, as this specific technology tracks people via a unique value, it does provide something that a manual process doesn't - correlation between multiple locations. Sure, you might always get your groceries from the same local supermarket but what happens when that supermarket is owned by a group that also owns hardware stores and service stations and convenience stores and bottle-shops and department stores and so on?

So, this technology allows stores to match up data across different locations and businesses that they operate - something that would not be possible manually.

Even more basic, manually monitoring would not (reliably) allow you to track people across multiple visits to the same store, which is something that is extremely useful - how often do individual people shop and how does this vary by area? Are people doing smaller, more frequent shops or fewer, larger shops?

It really is a level of tracking that has not previously been available - it is creating a profile of people.

The other obvious point is that the use of security cameras is usually advertised and even when it isn't, they are often visible (that's part of the deterrent) and are expected anyway. I would suggest that most normal people expect that they will be filmed on a security camera as they walk around a store. I doubt any 'normal' people knew they were having their phones tracked.

Re: What they *could* do ...

@big_D

Absolutely - my point was that they can either have the flexibility and dynamic nature of the web as it currently exists or choose to abandon that in the pursuit of forcing visitors/consumers to see the site (ads and all) exactly as they want.

As long as the user's PC is responsible for requesting the data and the users browser is responsible for rendering it, they will have a fair measure of control over what data is requested and how that is rendered.

Just as increasing demand for encryption - and better encryption - has come from the massive, nearly unrestrained spying being done by our governments, so too has an increased demand for ad-blocking come from the massive, nearly unrestrained pushing of advertising by website owners.

In the end, people are, largely, reasonable. Or, at least, lazy and thus not necessarily inclines to go to very much effort unless something has gotten out of hand.

I very much approve of the situation you advocate for - reasonable, secure, unobtrusive advertising that works for everyone. Unfortunately, it's more likely that if a certain business model stops working, those making money from that model will try to change the environment and laws rather than change their business model.

Re: Only 6 signed the letter...

Was thinking exactly the same thing.

Re: Time was not on FBI's side

First - sorry for the jumbled post - hopefully you were able to make sense of it. Bloody copy and paste!

I understand what you are saying but the problem is that it is indeed viewed as a 'risk' - something that they weigh-up to decide whether it is worth it. Law enforcement agencies simply don't get to make that decision; the constitution is there because their position is inherently open to abuse and so it restricts what they can and can't do - regardless of whether they think it's a good idea or they really 'need' to.

This is a complete and utter failure of the system and anyone in a position to authorise this behaviour should know that they shouldn't do this. If they don't know that then they are not fit to hold that position.

Likewise the prosecutor. If he or she had any knowledge of the provenance of the evidence and proceeded anyway then that person should be fired. In fact, I would argued that anyone involved in this should be prevented from holding any position of inside law enforcement ever again. When it comes to this, it has to be 'one-strike' because if you are willing to breach the right of the public for reasons expedience or effectiveness then can't be trusted to have their interests at heart.

If you have shown that you don't respect the people you are supposed to be protecting or the legal system you are supposed to be upholding then for the protection of the public and the integrity of the legal system, you need to go. No second chances.

Re: Sony/Netflix contract

@mijami

As you imply - the logistics of film stock distribution is just not really an issue anymore.

The only real concern is that overseas content providers have to get their content approved (classified) for distribution in Australia (as in NZ). But, they have to do that for their local market too so there's no reason why they can't sort this out.

No, the real 'problem' is that content providers are businesses and businesses want to maximise their profits - and one way they do that is by supplying different markets with different ranges of products and applying 'optimised' pricing regimes.

In the past, these strategies not only worked, but were far more justified because things really did cost more to distribute in Australia. Now, given that the content in question is 'transported', stored and distributed digitally, it's just not justified anymore.

The content producers want to maximise their revenues so have different arrangements in different markets. Just look at Game of Thrones - that constant companion when discussing copyright breaches in Australia. In the US, you can get it from iTunes or via HBO's streaming service. In Australia, it's via Foxtel. Only.

These kind of deals are one reason for the restricted content and the higher prices - Netflix Australia can only provide the content they have licenses to provide in Australia and must price their service according to the fees charges by the license holders.

Re: Ever heard of "word of mouth"?

'Word of mouth' is different from a location where multiple people can post and read reviews.

Exactly how different is another question, but it isn't quite the same thing because people are publishing their views expressly for the purpose of other people - when they don't know - to read.

This puts it into the sphere of libel.

There are two concerns when determining this - first, whether the statements in question are statements of fact or opinion and, second, if they are statements of fact, whether those facts are indeed true or not.

The truth of a statement of fact is open to be determined in court but before it gets to that point, it must be decided whether the statement was fact or opinion.

So, I suppose it's down to what was said. If review said that the cleaner was rude then my take is that that counts as opinion. If someone says that the cleaner arrived an hour late or damaged the carpet or left it carpet wet or didn't remove the stain then that is a statement of fact and fit to be decided in a court.

In this instance, the court was right to rule as it did but, should this go to a court where they do have the authority then it becomes a more interesting question.

It is my position that if someone wants to request the details of these reviewers then they must satisfy a court that the statement - each statement - is a statement of FACT and not opinion. If it is a statement of opinion then there is no need for the company to get the names in the first place.

Re: Can't charge...what rubbish.

@gnasher729

"I thought the accuser would be the prosecutor, or the state in general . . ."

I had to think about this because my first response was (literally): "abso-fucking-lutely". But, on further reflection, touching someone's crotch and groin is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to be driving someone else's car or to walk out of someone else's apartment with their TV.

These things are all perfectly legal, provided that they are consensual.

In these cases, what makes them a case for law enforcement is that someone is complaining about the behaviour and wishes to press charges.

If your ex-wife 'keys' your car one day then that is clearly malicious damage but it's your car so, while the perpetrator can be arrested, she can't be charged if you don't want to.

Some acts, of course, are considered criminal and the perpetrator can be charged regardless of whether the 'victim' wishes to press charges or not. This is the case in what is commonly known as 'statutory rape'. This is when an adult has sex with a minor because even if the minor says it was consensual, if they are below the legal age of consent, then it is a crime.

So, while I really believe that this behaviour by the TSA staff was utterly reprehensible, I do understand why they can't be charged with a crime.

That said, this matter should be in police hands and they should make every effort to identify the person involved and give them the opportunity to press charges. And the TSA should be URGING the police to do so with all possible zeal.

Re: Green Rectangle

I like it.

I like simple logos. Yes, there's still the whole "this means that" but there's less of "this" that has to mean anything.

Re: Here's the deal.......

@awood-something_or_another

So, you've never seen software that will ONLY work in Chrome AND requires plugins? If not then let me assure that such software exists.

If everything was as simple as you say - one legacy browser and one 'modern browser' - then all would be good. The reason people - IT people supporting real environments - are complaining is that it ISN'T that simple. The real world is messy with odd combinations of requirements and interdependencies.

What about if you have multiple web apps you need - one with an ActiveX plugin that won't work on anything newer than IE9 (can vouch for that one), another that requires an ActiveX plugin so requires IE but is coded such that the menus only work in IE10/11 and a third that is coded for Chrome and requires NPAPI plugins (2 of them) to perform essential functionality.

And, of course, the random government websites using authentication via Java.

The above may sound like a rather rare situation but it's more common than you evidently think. I can vouch for the exact scenario I have listed and could give you more of a similar stripe.