Posts by dan1980

@P.Lee

I think it's actually a bit simpler than that - I believe that a large portion of those in the NSA actually believed in their own righteousness.

That's not a problem per se as most people fall into that trap. That's why the whole system of 'checks and balances' exists - because self-regulation almost never works.

Unfortunately for the American people and indeed the rest of the normal humans out in that wide land known as 'not-the-USA', the NSA operated outside of that system. They lied to congress (you know - the representative part of 'representative democracy') and were shielded from the oversight of the courts. That's two whole arms of the US federal government excluded.

Little wonder they ran amok.

Re: Shoot first, then call what you hit the target

@RedneckMother

Eh? What's this "ready" business?

Re: "I thought they were spying,"

Quis?

The custodes' mates, of course. Duh.

But this isn't just for covert operations - it's just as good a policy for regulation and oversight of industry.

@Malcolm Weir

Excellent point.

But, I would suggest that no, everybody did not know what was going on.

There were certainly plenty of people who worried about what might be happening but trusted the 'checks and balances' of the tripartite systems to make sure that the constitution was upheld and their best interests kept at heart.

Those members of the public who 'knew' were called paranoid and ridiculed as conspiracy theorists wearing foil hats and watching out for black helicopters. They were told that the government had better things to do than listen to everyone's conversations, told that, even if the government wanted to do that then the equipment and storage and cost would be prohibitive, told that there's no way the government was putting 'back doors' and spyware into software and hardware.

The truly crazy thing was that it wasn't even the government that told them that - it was the rest of the public dismissing them. They were lumped with those who think the moon landing was faked and the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job. Alex Jones agreed with them.

And anyway, how many people believed that the government was doing all this is not the point. After all, how can you get the government to change its policies if they won't even admit what they are doing?

PROOF, however, changes the whole game. The simple fact that prior to this proof, there was no outrage but after it there is is surely evidence enough that.

The whole 'traitor' thing is ridiculous because Mr. Andreessen is making a big, though all-too-common, mistake, which is to confuse 'The Government of the United States of America' with 'The United States of America'..

And anyway, if revealing to the US people what the US government is doing (ostensibly on their behalf) makes Edward Snowden a traitor, what does breaking the constitution make the US government?

When I grow up I want to be you, Don.

Re: Maybe Obama should listen.

@Daniel B.

I don't know where you get this idea that Wheeler is not 'competent'. He might not be working for the good of the American people, but that doesn't mean he isn't competent . . .

Re: Oh dear.

@Andrew Orlowski

Your post could be read as you suggesting your own 'special report', as linked, was "probably the most moronic interpretation of network architecture [you] have ever seen"

However, taking it instead to mean that John Oliver's presentation was, in fact, "probably the most moronic interpretation of network architecture [you] have ever seen", I have to ask the question - really?

That video was really that bad?

What, then - specifically - in that video did you find so overwhelmingly moronic to earn such a statement? I've just watched it again to refresh my memory and he says almost ZERO on 'network architecture'.

Here, are the actual points he makes:

* The Internet is great

* Net neutrality discussions are, largely, boring

* Net neutrality is important and allows startups to challenge establish brands

* The Internet is not broken

* Telcos/cable providers are greedy, can't be trusted and are more-or-less monopolies

* Wheeler's appointment to the FCC is not ideal

* Broadband in the US is expensive and not overly fast, by world standards

* Comcast and TWC are hated by their customers

So, out of those moronic statements - none of which are an 'interpretation of network architecture' - which do you disagree with and why?

As to what John Oliver would make of a flexible field described in 1981 when the 'Internet' was being used solely inside the government - defence and universities/research institutes - for select purposes and groups, well I can't say but perhaps he might reply that the existence of an option does not necessarily make exercising that option a good idea.

Re: DailyWTF?

Gotta be honest here - I find Fridays are very suitable for some changes. It all depends on the client, the work to be done and the circumstances but in some instances, it is the best option. Failing to even consider an option because of some personal rule is surely the bigger crime?

Indeed, "never makes changes on a Friday" sounds very much like those who admonish all and sundry that they should stick to white paper solutions (to the letter) or not bother. Without knowing the client, their usage patterns, 'risk appetite' or indeed a whole host of variables, such proclamations are on the same level as "migrate to the Cloud" - i.e. blanket assertions of suitability that, when blindly followed, can lead companies and their IT departments down some very steep roads.

IT is so varied and we are all at risk of falling prey to our own biases. That your rule has worked for you so far in the situations you are used to is great but really not an indication of if it is suitable for another situation - even one that looks, on the surface, to be similar.

The one thing I would say, however, is that changes to live systems generally require monitoring real-world use (traffic/transactions/disk access/etc...) for a period after the changeover. If that is not possible on a Friday night, or you are not able/willing to stay up late to do so then you need to find another way. If you are willing/able/paid enough to do so, then there is no inherent reason why a Friday change-over should be off the table.

Pairing with that, I would implore people to not underestimate the variability of real-world inputs and to make sure they have a solid understanding of the true scope, volume and variability of what the system is asked to deal with on a daily basis. But then, that's important whether you do your work on a Friday afternoon or a Tuesday morning.

@Don Dumb

Exactly.

My point was simply that, while moving some steps to the user would likely get around the patent, in the case of those patents in dispute between Apple and Samsung (e.g. the 'Quick Links' and 'autocorrect') that would largely negate the benefit of the features in the first place, which is the phone 'understanding' what is going on an 'intelligently' suggesting options for the user based on that analysis.

If the user is the one doing the heavy lifting then what is the point of the feature?

In short, in the instance Mark and I were discussing, getting around the patents, while possible, would be pointless and so unlikely to be a tactic that Samsung would employ. (And, therefore, unlikely to resolve the current round of disputes.)

Re: Interesting ruling, but

@D.A.M.

Given your icon choice, I feel it important to point out the glaring error in your post - the word is 'schlock'.

Sheesh, man.

@Mark

I suppose that's the battleground and one of the ways that a court can show bias - by interpreting both the scope and effect of a precedent.

For example, in the Myriad case I mentioned, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit's original decision and ordered the case to be reheard so that they could take into account the recent precedent set in the Mayo case.

In that instance, the Supreme Court basically said - our decision in Mayo should affect your decision in Myriad. The CAFC, in coming to exactly the same decision again (with the exception of Bryson, who dissented) decided that the Mayo precedent was not relevant.

What I am saying is that the CAFC tends to water-down statutes and precedents that limit patentees and strengthen and expand rulings that favour them. This can be seen in the twin cases the Supreme Court overturned regarding awarding attorney's fees where they found that the CAFC had imposed additional restrictions above what was to be found in statue and precedent. Likewise the tests they applied in Nautilus v. Biosig case I referenced regarding ambiguity in a patent. The way they interpreted the statutes allowed a far greater degree of vagueness than the Supreme Court ruled was warranted.

They can't completely ignore SCOTUS precedents but they can be particular about how they apply them and to what extent. Their track record suggests that any precedents like this (that favour defendants) will be applied as narrowly as possible.

Re: Once more . . .

@Mark 85

You are correct - they are bench trials so no juries.

As to what is going on in the Federal Circuit, I wrote a bit about this recently.

The short version is that any given court may, depending on the composition of the justices, display a bias one way or another. This is clear in (e.g.) Delaware and East Texas, which are so patent-friendly (~45-50% win rate) that some patent-litigants set up their head offices in those districts to make getting their cases heard there more likely.

Other courts, like Maryland or Colorado are significantly less patentee-friendly, with only a 25% win rate.

This is normal but the problem occurs because the CAFC is just a single court and it presides over all patent appeals so its leaning is far more influential.

Of note, it is manifestly not ignorant of patent law, given that nearly half the judges of the CAFC come from an IP/Patent background! This may actually play into it though.

Marrying that with your statement that ". . . if one follows the money, one finds an answer", you might find that, as patent lawyers generally work for patent holders rather than for the defendants, having a bench composed of patent lawyers means an inevitable bias towards patentees.

@Mark 85

I get what you're saying but not really.

The thing is that the phones are devices the users are interacting with and so that interaction of the user with the device is part of the patents.

Removing some of the 'smarts' of the processes may help but would negate the point of the features in the first place.

For example, with the (frankly ridiculous) "Quick Links" patent*, the phone identifies some type of data in text - e.g. a phone number, address or date/time - and then, once touched, presents options to the user about what to do. For example, if it is a phone number, the user can call it, send a message or add it to their contacts. A date can go in the calendar and so on.

Now, if you move some of that over to the user then, for example, the user would have to identify the text themselves and then tell the phone what type of data it is, thereafter the phone can present options. In this instance one might see the patent not applying as the critical function of identifying the data structures is handled by the user.

Great, but I wouldn't think that was an overly-neat feature!

* - AKA: "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data".

Re: Obvious

@AC

Sorry, Monsanto audit people? Under what law can a private company inspect another private company with whom they have no commercial relationship or agreement?

Don't get me wrong - the more money you have, the more you can co-opt the makers and keepers of the law but WTF? I mean, can Monsanto literally just pick a farm and storm in with some G-men? That'd be like a petrol company being able to pull over cars to check what they have in their tanks.

If that is really the way of things then fuck it - they are all four horsemen. The barest bit of me, however, still carries a guttering torch for the basic decency of people and I truly hope that what you are saying is not representative. I'm about to go to bed; someone please tell me there is at least a seal or two left.

Re: Obvious

@Wade

See - that's kind of what I thought; that Monsanto are a company with an excellent and very desirable product that they charge a premium (both in actual cost and conditions) for. Apart from the GM angle, I just couldn't see the problem. There's a lot in this world that is over-priced but very few real bargains; if you're not paying for it, chances are you're not getting it. After all, those with a truly superior product can set their price. (And, people will pay it.)

I mean, if the product costs more than its worth then those farmers who don't use it should win out because they are able to put their capital into more worthwhile products/endeavours. But, it seems that what they sell, even with the conditions of the sale (however strict) makes farmers more profitable.

Again, I am very far removed from all this, which is why I asked in the first place.

I suppose the core question is - do farmers earn more using Monsanto products or not?

Of course, I appreciate what Trevor is saying and it may be that not using Monsanto, regardless of efficiency isn't really an option if they have to pay anyway, they might as well play ball.

Thanks all for the input - it's appreciated.

Re: Obvious

Thanks Trevor - another capital post and very informative.

I am the same as you re: GMO and that was kind of the gist of my question - I knew they made GM seeds and know there is a lot of backlash against that - people, as you say, basically believing them to be at least two of the four horsemen.

I also knew that they had patented stuff and that was their business - selling seeds they developed - but that's not really cause for any upset by itself.

I must presume, then, that the business practices that are the real problem are unethical beyond imagining!

Re: Obvious

Being neither American nor at all clued-in on happenings in the agricultural world, could someone please explain the dislike of Monsanto?

Re: And yet . . .

Okay, with a forum full of people apparently not caring, I just want to say that I do not mind looking at Kim Kardashian at all.

That's not why I read the story and commented - I was on the train and needed something to distract from the chap behind me blathering on about his job, speaking very loudly whenever he mentioned sums of money he felt were large enough to impress what he must have imagined was an interested audience.

But back to the story, looking at Kim Kardashian is in the same bag as listening to Iron Maiden - it's a simple, if slightly guilty, pleasure and makes me feel the barest sliver better while doing no one any harm at all.

My partner only rolls her eyes at one of the two. (Hint: it's not Kim.)

I just felt it was important that, amidst all the people professing a lack of interested in, or even knowledge of the subjects of this article, I be honest and admit that while I don't care what Kim Kardashian does, I can't pretend I don't enjoy how she looks.

So I'm a perve and a bit shallow; I'm only human and so if it doesn't hurt anyone else, I'll take my pleasures where I can.

Re: @AceRimmer (was: Why does)

@Jake

"I want to know. Is this important in the great scheme of things? Does it matter? Are people really this shallow?"

No, no, yes.

As for ". . . why does anybody care?". Well, in a nutshell, the twin lures of living vicariously through someone else and passing judgement on others are only really equalled be the need most humans share of feeling that they are being heard. Hence 35,800 people telling the world what they think of someone they've never met and who doesn't care a fig about them, and hence me taking the time to tell you what I think about that.

Re: So Red Dwarf was right

So you're a waffle man . . .

Re: Of all the privacy violations to worry about

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's not concerning.

It's the little steps from different directions that end up converging into something dystopian. The Minority Report future so often referenced regarding these things is very, very close on the technological side and only legislation will prevent it becoming a reality.

I dare say most consumers would rather avoid that type of future and the only way is for ALL commercial facial recognition to be banned. Straight up - no ifs, ands or buts.

It should be enshrined in the constitution of every democracy.

I would extend it to say that, where facial recognition is the choice of the individual - for example as a biometric lock or for a home-automation system to recognise preferences - the company providing the hardware and software for that purpose is NOT allowed see that data.

Privacy was previously based on natural human limits and thus the laws did not have to be overly strict. Up until relatively recently, it hasn't been possible (much less feasible) to monitor, record, cross-reference and analyse data about all your customers as individuals. You could know what was selling well, when the best days and times were and could correlate things like whether a particular advertisement or special worked well.

Everything has and is changing now and the normal barriers that limited how much our privacy could be invaded and eroded are, largely, gone.

It's funny, in the not-funny-at-all-but-really-rather-upsetting way - for some reason law-makers seem all to easily to be able to see that modern technology poses a threat to content providers in the form of copyright violations or to retailers in the form of Internet shopping but somehow they are rather less able to see that those same advances pose an even graver threat to the privacy of the public.

It's a graver threat because once it is gone, it will be beyond difficult to get it back.

That might sound overly melodramatic* but things like this are really a testing of the proverbial waters. We are already seeing the first, tentative, steps down this path and we know where it leads. All the rest of the pieces are already in place - the huge storage capacities and compute power, the uncounted data points, the analysis engines, the world-wide networks and the immense financial backing - it's all ready, waiting. We're already 90% there - we're already being identified and quantified, our very personalities analysed and commoditised.

It's such a small step and the scouts and skirmishers are already on the opposite bank.

* - If you knew me, you'd know that it's in fact quite measured and sober in comparison to my usual flights : )

@Steven Roper

But, but . . . the economy!

Right with you mate. The problem is that technology is advancing far quicker than the laws governing it. Partly because of the speed of the developments, partly because of the slowness of bureaucracy but mostly I suspect because vested interests are far closer to the ears of our elected so-called representatives than the the electorate is.

The starting premise is simple: personal privacy is more important than the profit. That then becomes the test.