July 26th, 2004, 06:50 PM
A Legal Change in Privacy
This one just killed me:
So website privacy policies now mean nothing -- simply because "no one reads them"? What kind of logic is that?! What's the point in even having them anymore, and now what are we going to do to ensure the privacy of our information?
We have yet to see where this goes from here of course, but I wonder what effect this will have on the security community as it develops.
July 26th, 2004, 08:24 PM
That is what I call a non thinking way to do things. If people don't read the policies then that's their own fault. I guess that goes back to how lazy society is becomming. I wonder when this madness will end? Can we just slap stupid signs on their heads for this kinda non logical thinking????? Then again like you said, "We have yet to see where this goes from here of course, but I wonder what effect this will have on the security community as it develops."
July 26th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Some companies are taken actions against this behavior such as:
- to release acess to certain tools, the user must do an online exam. If he/she doesnt get enough points on it, the software that he/she need just dont get installed/available. And some questions are about "policies.... Use to work (if IT has enough power to implemen it)
FORMAT C: Yes ...Yes??? ...Nooooo!!! ^C ^C ^C ^C ^C
If I die before I sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to encrypt.
If I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to brake.
July 26th, 2004, 09:33 PM
Now that's a good idea.
July 26th, 2004, 09:39 PM
My favourite bit:
I'm hoping that this all 'goes away', however, what happens on the American side of the 'pond' generally makes it over to the UK in time, and when it does..........................
So, if the sharing is "authorized," it's ok, and if it's "unauthorized" it's also ok. You gotta love these lawyers.
55 - I'm fiftyfeckinfive and STILL no wiser,
Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's
come and waste the day :P at The Taz Zone
July 26th, 2004, 10:04 PM
It seems that only the federal govn't can prosecute for violations of the policy.
Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
Now that's a good idea.
It seems that if its not in state court and its a Federal Enitity it can go forward. Still its a poorly thought out ruling and the feds are very slow to act on charges of this type.
First, the court held that when the U.S. Congress deregulated the airline industry, it didn't want the states to tell the airlines what to do, and prohibited states from passing laws related to the "service of an air carrier." Thus, if an airline commits fraud, deception, larceny, theft, invasion of privacy, or any other civil or criminal wrong, the state can't prosecute the airline under ordinary consumer protection or theft laws (or torts) that would apply to other entities. The airlines as an industry are free to deceive without fear of accountability under state law.
If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What\'s more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke
July 26th, 2004, 11:17 PM
using the same logic EULAS are also null and void because nobody reads those either. this could be a good thing if it were used to nail scumware mfgs. their always saying "it was clearly listed in the elua that we'd also install adware, track all you movements and nail your wife"
Borland says in their eula that they can at anytime come into your company and do a license check. of course that only holds if you buy it, if you steal it it dosn't apply.
so if its something nobody reads then its something that doesn't apply, like fbi warnings on cd's and dmca warnings
Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”
July 27th, 2004, 01:02 AM
let's just all read nothing and do anything we want
July 27th, 2004, 08:09 AM
"Personality is only ripe when a man has made the truth his own."
-- Søren Kierkegaard
July 27th, 2004, 09:45 AM
I acturally think that is what Internet.com's policy is, BTW. Which was the main reason I didn't post my Admin of Doom play up on AntiOnline (linked instead). And it would explain why you can't submit information you don't own -- because then they didn't get the required "permission" from the copyright holder to own it and use it in any way they want...