Phil Deakins
-
Posts
13,416 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Phil Deakins
-
-
Sharing with the group is not the same as deeding it to the group. Sharing means that group members can use it but you still own it, whereas as deeding means that it is actually owned by the group.
-
Freya Mokusei wrote:Phil Deakins wrote:Nobody who doesn't steal has any cause for concern.(the same database where DNA samples for non-criminals (witnesses and victims) are stored.I could go on and on (and on), but I have neither the inclination or the time.--Your position that there's 'nothing to worry about' continues to be ridiculously naive. The links above are examples of other systems designed to catch/deter criminals, and continue to have harmful effects on innocent people. I've given other, more relevant information in this thread for systems that are owned by corporate bodies for the purpose of aiding in digital 'crime' detection, their margin for error is greater.
Of the links you provided:-
The first is about mistakes in the system and not about invasion of privacy, so it's irrelevent.
The second is about a mistake at a lab, so it's irrelevant.
I didn't bother to look at the other two. If the two I looked at are the best you can do, the others are no doubt irrelevant too.
Mistakes happen everywhere, and no doubt more can be done to ensure they don't happen, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a company, or companies, protecting themselves against theft.
People in the thread talk about human rights. What rights would those be? What right to complete privacy does anyone have? Where is it enshrined? Does an individual's so-called right of privacy trump the rights of society? It does according to some people in this thread, but, imo, they are dead wrong. Anyone who wants to live in a society has obligations to that society. You would do better to think about society rather than your own personal individual interest, which is just based on principle (flawed principle) and has nothing to do with the society you live in. Your principle is all about me me me. It's a bad principle to have.
Upgrade your argument.
I don't need to. My argument is sound. Yours is flawed.
-
Alisha Matova wrote:Phil, I don't buy that because the are cameras at my ATM(which are there to protect Me from real criminals), that suddenly justifies tracking my web use.
1. Cameras at ATM machines are not there to protect you. They are there to put a face to anyone who is stealing - using other people's cards, for instance. They are their to catch thieves who steal from banks (the banks return any money that is stolen from you in that way, whether or not they catch the thief, so it's not you who is being protected by them).
2. The topic of this thread isn't about tracking your web use at all. That's not going to happen. It's only about watching for illegal downloads. What's about to happen is nothing whatsoever to do with tracking your web use.
3. If you were mugged in the street, would you prefer that the cameras weren't there, and the muggers got away with it, or would you prefer the cameras to be watching you (and everyone else) in case someone mugs someone - what some people in this thread wrongly regard as treating you as a criminal? Personally, I prefer the cameras, and I see them as a protection rather than an intrusion into my privacy.
-
Dresden Ceriano wrote:I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag. Now, maybe that's fine to most people (people such as Phil), but to me, it feels as if I'm being treated as a criminal when I've done nothing whatsoever wrong. I don't want my ISP checking my receipt, as if I'm some sort of criminal.Just because corporations can get away with such nonsense, doesn't mean it's right or that common, law abiding citizens have to put up with it. I hate being monitored as such in the real world, why would I ever accept being monitored that way on the net? You (Phil) may think it's great to get your freedom sucked away from you in this manner, but don't throw the rest of us under the bus with you....Dres
So you think it's just fine for supermarkets to be stolen from? Frankly, it's an idiotic attitude that says, by all means catch the thieves but don't ever wonder if I might be one.
The other thing is, you weren't being treated as a criminal. You got that entirely wrong. You were being treated as a possible criminal - just as you are every time you board a plane, use an ATM nachine, walk the city streets, etc. etc. etc.
I had a similar experience a few years ago, when I bought a new computer. It was offered with a monitor but I forgot to take the monitor. So I went back to get it. One of the staff sorted it out and I set off for the outside without going via the till. Another member of staff saw me bypass the till with the monitor and asked me about it. I had to wait a few minutes while he checked that what I said was true, and all was well. It would be an incredibly self-centred stupidity for me to be miffed that I was stopped from taking something out of the store without paying at the till and without a check being made. They dared to consider that I might be stealing it. How stupid an attitude is that for me to have?
"Don't you dare treat me like a criminal by checking my luggage for explosives I'm not a bomber! Other people may be bombers, but not me."
"But we can't catch bombers unless we check people's luggage."
"So check the luggage of bombers - not mine!"
"But we don't know who the bombers are until we find bombs, so how can we check only their luggage?"
It's astonishing that some people are so full of themselves that they ..... I don't know what to say. The attitude is so idiotic and irrational. They don't care if Wal-Mart gets stolen from all the time - just as long as Wal-Mart doesn't check their receipts when they are carrying unbagged items out of the store. It's idiotic!
-
The biggest money earner wasn't mentioned in this thread until the post above this one. It's making and selling stuff - or even just selling stuff. The marketplace makes it unnecessary to even have an inworld store, which would cost money for land or premises.
If you take some time and learn to make things, and make them nice enough to be desirable, you can sell them in the marketplace.
-
Freya Mokusei wrote:TL;DR it doesn't matter why you use the Internet. You will still become a victim to this system, and still be treated like a criminal. Phil might be okay with this, I would hope that others are not.
But the only people who will be treated like a criminal are those who perform criminal acts (download pirate stuff) - not the vast majority of ISP users.
You are mistaking being treated as a potential criminal for being treated as an actual criminal. You are treated as a potential criminal when you board a plane (you and your possesions are scanned), when you walk out of a store that scans for tags, when you walk down the street (cameras), when you use an ATM machine (camera), etc. Do you object to those methods too? If not, it's silly objecting to what is just another method of the same kind of thing - watching everyone in a effort to spot actual criminals. Nobody who doesn't steal has any cause for concern.
-
Freya Mokusei wrote:This is absolutely false. Having your ISP checking your data-stream for pirated content is equivilent to having your mail-man check your mail for cash, just in case it was stolen.
That's not a parallel. When you dowload something, you request it. It's your action that causes the download. A parallel concerning mail would be that your outgoing mail is checked, not your incoming mail, because it's your action that causes your outgoing mail but not your incoming mail. It's possible that mail is checked - for such things as explosives and anthrax - and that's a good thing, whether it's done going out or coming in.
Some people seem to be against their actions being checked on but we all accept it happening all the time - in stores, airports, streets, etc. Oddly enough those same people don't seem to mind it happening to them in those places so why this case has their backs up is beyond me - unless they like to download pirated stuff, of course. If we don't do anything wrong, we have no need to fear those cameras, scanners, etc., or checks for pirated stuff.
-
You think there's something wrong with checking what you download for pirated stuff? You have a very strange idea there.
I think that all decent-minded people will be perfectly happy for their ISP to check that. I certainly am, but then I don't download pirated stuff; i.e. I'm not a thief. I can see nothing wrong with it and everything right with it. As I said, it can't be any softer or unobtrusive.
It's nothing more negative than walking through detectors on the way out of stores to ensure we are not stealing something from the shelves. What we carry is checked for tags, and we all go through those detectors. Or what about the detectors at airports. What we carry is checked there too. What about walking in places where there are security cameras - like on the streets. We are all observed, and recorded, by them in case we commit a crime.
It seems to me that some people would like the theft to be stopped as long as nobody looks at me - on principle. That attitude doesn't make any sense at all.
-
Romanadvoratrelundar Ghost wrote:so how many computers is this person using!!!???
People who run bots don't use viewers.
-
I'm not defending corporations (or criticising them). I'm saying that they have a right to protect themselves against theft, and that the topic of this thread is simply protecting themselves against theft - and without using a heavy hammer to do it. It doesn't involve locking anyone's equipment, and it doesn't involve underpaying anyone, or any other such negative thing. All it will do is stop people from stealing from them, first by a warning, then by another warning, etc. It can't be any softer or unobtrusive than that.
"They did it wrong" is a very good conclusion to make about anyone or any entity that oversteps the bounds. I didn't say it as an "excuse" because it doesn't excuse anything. Just because some entities have done things wrong does not mean that entities should not take any steps to protect themselves from theft. They should take steps, of course, but not in ways that are negative or harmful to innocent people. The topic of this thread is such a step that isn't negative or harmful to anyone except actual thieves.
Nobody, including you, has suggested any way(s) in which the topic of this thread will impact innocent people. I'm still waiting to hear any such ways. I'm not going hear any because none exist but, unless anyone can show any ways, the step being taken is perfectly good - and desirable for all - except thieves, of course.
-
Rather than quote each of your three statements, I'll respond to them in the order that you wrote them, so it should be clear.
1. Corporations act in the interest of themselves. They don't exist for other people's benefit. All for-profit entities work for profit, including the company/business you work for if you have a job. If you are self-employed, you work for your own personal interests too. You seem to putting across the idea that there's something wrong with it. There isn't.
2. Of course theft has already been commited. The problem is, it continues to be commited and that's what the companies are trying to plug. Doing it by "'whack-a-mole" merthods is an effective way of doing it, especially if they can whack a lot of moles. It makes other potential moles think twice before stealing from them. In other words, 'whack-a-mole' can work very effectively and is, therefore, a good measure to take. It's not a negative measure as you seem to imply.
So far, the victim companies have been very heavy handed with thieves they caught, costing the thieves dearly. This new method is a hell of a lot softer because it warns thieves instead of taking them into the legal system where it can be very costly for the thieves. If I were a thief, I'd much prefer this new method to be used against me than the other one. Wouldn't you? You'll probably say that it's not the thieves you are concerned about, and that it's the rights of everyone else. But you haven't specified any rights that anyone will lose. And you can't specify any because there aren't any.
Your rights aren't being "sold off". You are absolutely wrong about that. If you imagine you are right, please tell me what rights you are losing. You can't, because there aren't any.
3. As I said in #2, nobody is losing any rights. People don't have a right to steal, and catching thieves does not infringe any rights.
You exploitation of a company's digital products example is irrelevant because it's not a parallel to this case. But, since you mentioned it, there is nothing wrong with companies putting theft prevention measures into their software, and there is everything right about it. I don't know anything about the Sony case but if what they did left security holes, then they did it wrong, that's all. Microsoft has been doing it for years (Windows Genuine Advantage), as have probably all for-profit software companies. Any that don't are idiots.
-
I'd make sure that I got all my money out.
-
Freya Mokusei wrote:Phil Deakins wrote:That's garbagee. I shouldn't need to explain why but, if you can't see it, just ask and I'll explain it.
Please do.Ok. You rewrote what I wrote to say, "You only need to be worried about corporations working together if you're doing something that corporations don't like. Such as not helping them make money."
First, you made no suggestion of what the corporation may do that should cause us to worry.
Second, the steps that are about to be taken are nothing to do with "making money", in the way that you used the phrase. They are to do with preventing theft, which is totally different.
Third, in the context of this thread, which it is, the corporations are about to take steps to prevent the theft of their products, and the only people who have any cause to worry are those who continue to steal those products. I.e the worry is specific to the thieves.
Hence, your rewrite of what I wrote was garbage.
-
Freya Mokusei wrote:Phil Deakins wrote:The only people for whom it is good news are those who download pirated movies and music. Your attitude to this matter is astonishing - unless you are one of those thieves, of course.
Equivilence is:-Phil Deakins (abridged) wrote:You only need to be worried about corporations working together if you're doing something that corporations don't like. Such as not helping them make money.
That's garbagee. I shouldn't need to explain why but, if you can't see it, just ask and I will.
Freya Mokusei wrote:Consumer rights are important. As is the prevention of allowing market forces to be twisted and allowing consumers to come to harm caused by corporations' predatory greed.
Of course consumer rights are important, but the topic of this thread isn't about consumer rights. It's about the prevention of theft. If you're suggesting that we have a right that what we do on the web isn't known by our ISPs, you're very much mistaken. By connecting to the web via an ISP, we necessarily accept that what we do on the web can be seen by the ISP if they want to see. Anyone who really doesn't want it to be like that can become their own ISP - but it's far from cheap.
-
Alisha Matova wrote:I'm not so sure. Yes I agree that pirating is bad. But, RIAA's power play is disgusting. It shows just how powerful these corporations have become. They go to congress and get denied, so they pass some cash around and do it behind closed doors, instead.I think it is that, and the perceived loss of more freedoms that are causing discontent here. At least for me.
I don't see anything negative or wrong about companies asking other companies, that are used for downloading pirate stuff, to help prevent it. I still have the view that the only people who have any cause to be disappointed with it are those who download or stream pirate stuff. The only "freedom" that's under threat with this is the freedom to steal, and that's a freedom that nobody should have.
Are you in the UK Phil? I ask because the UK is far ahead of the US with surveillance and other Big Brother feeling practices. Is it possible you have become numb to privacy invasion and over powered government(or business) tactics? I certainly dont mean that in a bad way. I'm just wondering if it's a mater of perspective. In the US we are just starting to deal with new cameras and techie privacy issues now, and have our guard up. Maybe in a few years we will have no choice but to put up with it as well.
Yes, I'm in the UK, but I haven't become numb to privacy invasion. I never see it, so it's not a matter of perspective. I don't mind our government making crime more risky by so-called 'Big Brother' methods - cameras, et al. The only time that such Big Brother methods would be wrong is when they are used in ways that aren't against crime.
I honestly can't understand anyone's objection to a company doing what it can to prevent its goods being stolen. I suspect that there may be some misunderstanding of the way this will work. Some people may imagine strangers sitting watching what they are doing on the web - monitoring them. But that's not the case. It would be absolutly wrong if it were. I don;t know the way it will work, but I imagine it will be a case of logging the names of people who download/stream from specific websites, and then checking what they downloaded/streamed. Simple as that. I can't see any objection to that at all. It's not limiting freedoms, and it's not spying on people.
-
Locke Nider wrote:Phil Deakins wrote:Consequently this thread is a waste of time since it's premise is wrong.
Then why reply?If I hadn't replied, the OP wouldn't have known how wrong his/her premise is.
-
You're premise is flawed. There were no MMOs back in the 80s or at any time in the 90s. There were MUGs/MUDs back then - the M meaning Multi- as in Mulit-user. - but no MMOs - the first M meaning Massively. I.e there were no Massively Multi-user ones at all. Consequently this thread is a waste of time since it's premise is wrong.
-
It's normal for the AR team to fail to do what they are paid to do, and you are right. Nothing has changed over the years. The only time I've seen quick action from them was when someone was using Linden-owned land for particle griefing. That happened a couple of times recently, and the AR team were quick to deal with it.
Other than that, the AR team has been a complete washout as far as doing their jobs is concerned. I've had results from them by contacting their boss - twice - but not until I did that. Not even repeated ARs worked. I was at the point of ARing once an hour when I decided to contact their boss directly. Minutes later, the thing was dealt with. On one occasion I could have got a Linden to deal with it but I insisted to myself that the AR team will deal it, because they are paid to do it. And they did as soon as I contacted their boss. My attitude is that I pay for that service and I insist on receiving it.
These days, nobody (users) seems to know who the AR team's boss is and, if I need to do it again, I'd contact the top (Rodvik) after giving the AR team a reasonable time to do their job. That's what I've recommended doing several times in the forum.
-
-
Since the "Breedable" category is only recently added, it's likely that at least some of the sellers of breedable don't know it's there, and anyone who flags breedables that are in the the wrong category would be doing them a favour because people who are looking for breedable horses, and see the "Breedables" category, won't look in the horses category. The only way that listed a breedable horse in the Horses category is beneficial is if it also listed in the Breedables category.
-
That's bad news. The only people for whom it is good news are those who download pirated movies and music. Your attitude to this matter is astonishing - unless you are one of those thieves, of course. Those are the only people who have any reason to be concerned, and the way you've gone on about it does project an impression.
-
Pussycat Catnap wrote:Consider the price you paid originally as something worth it if you were able to enjoy it for the time you did.
That's the only sensible attitude these days. Most of us paid a fortune for land when we bought it, as compared to its value now. If it's provided an enjoyable passtime while it's been owned, then it was very worthwhile.
-
I saw the introduction of Linden Homes a bit differently to the way you saw it. I know that LL said that it was intended for people to get used to having homes and move on to other land, but I put that down to LL trying to appease landlords. Imo, the sole reason for Linden Homes was to attract more premuin accounts. The idea of people moving on to other land was a sort of excuse and not in any way even a part of the reason for doing it - imo.
Also, imo, it was a good thing to do, even though it had a negative impact on those in the landlord business, because it offered more to premium account holders. Unfortunately, that's where it stopped.
-
GothGirl Demonia wrote:As I have said Copyright infringement in Games like Second Life I find to be very bad and actually harm people. Sadly the past week I have seen a lot of it and it just absolutely makes me sick, however what people are talking about is Copyright infringement to the big industries like RIAA, SONY, and all these other game companies that are way bigger and make more bucks than any creator in SL at least to my knowledge.
Are you suggesting that, because companies like Sony make a lot of money, it's ok for their stuff to be pirated? And that, because SL business owners make very little money by comparison, it's not ok for their stuff to be pirated? I hope you're not meaning that, because, if you are, you are dead wrong.
GothGirl Demonia wrote:If you watch this YouTube then you will understand likely where I am comnig from, ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA must be stopped as a LAW, because it is plain out just stupid if I share that recipie with my family tell my young teenager how to bake a cake I would be thrown in jail for it. If I bought a music CD at store but made a copy of it, not to sell it make profit or give it away but for my family member I would be breaking the Law. If I used a license across two computers for any program that I only had rights on one of my computers let my family in the same house watch netflix on an account or anything like the such I would be breaking the LAW, and therefore could get years in prision for nothing.
I don't know about the recipe bit but your CD example is correctly illegal, and shouldn't be done. You can't go around making copies of CDs and giving them away. It's piracy and is rightly illegal. It's not clear what you mean in your computer example but, if you mean that you have a license for one computer only and you use the programme on two computers, then you are breaking the law. If you want a license for two computers, buy it. Who uses the programme (watches a movie) on any computer you have a license to run it on doesn't matter.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting July!
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Then stop trying to correct me. There's nothing to correct. You want privacy and you can't have it in the society you live in. Learn to live with that fact.
If you don't want anyone else to have the ability of knowing what you do on the internet, don't use the internet because, when you do, other people have the ability to know what you do. It's always been like that.
If you don't want your actions to be recorded anywhere, don't leave your home because, if you do, you are sure to be recorded.
If you don't want to be scrutinised for potential theft in stores, don't shop in stores where they do it.
The problem you have is that, in the society you live in, you don't, and can't, have as much privacy as you would like. You don't have that right, and neither should you have that right. Get used to it.
Oh, and stop bleating about. You link to reports of errors and it's shown that they are irrelevant. You have no argument against that so you ignore it and carry on regardless. You don't have any arguments to stand on. All you have is that you don't like others having the ability to know what you do, and that's no argument at all. The only way you can avoid that is go and live alone on a desert island but, as long as you live in the society you live in, you have a responsibility to the well-being that society, and one of the ways of doing it observing people in an effort to catch criminals and prevent crime. Live with it. The bottom line is that the only people who need be concerned about being observed are criminals and, to be perfectly honest, I strongly suspect that there are people who knowingly download pirate stuff participating in this thread.