Posts by Woodgar 131 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jun 2009
"Rental vehicle companies have been doing this for years with on-board GPS."
Maybe if the software only reported back the location of the laptop on a daily basis, then your argument may hold water. But the software did far more than this.
I think the idea was to highlight that using TOR to browse anonymously would not help in this situation as all of your browsing history would still be logged by Ant Video.
The site you visited, such as youtube, wouldn't have access to your IP address as it would appear as the TOR exit node, but the fact you went to youtube, along with the date, time and your real IP, would still be sent to the addon makers.
I believe the anonymous one was viewing this from the point of view of the average apple user who constantly bangs on about there being no viruses on a mac.
This same user, who does not believe viruses exist, sees a pop up saying "Dood!!! Look at all these viruses!!! Dooooood!!!!" and proceeds to click on the link to download and install the anti-virus software to clean up the viruses he claims do not exist.
"Games giant EA, for instance, has taken its titles off OnLive and now offers them through Gaikai."
If I buy an EA game, it's mine to play for ever more. If I subscribe to it via OnLive, it's only mine to play until EA moves to a different service.
"If you asked "Who's that athlete with all the bimbos?" and I couldn't remember the name, I'd probably say to myself "the golfer... black American... Norwegian wife... earns shitloads... silly name... tiger... Tiger Woods." "
That's pretty much the way my brain often works, as well. Interesting observation.
Tony Blair was on the Today Programme this morning saying we should all support Mubarak as he's an important player in keeping neighbouring countries stable.
When asked by the interviewer if Blair was suggesting that the local populace should just shut up and put up with it so that we in the West have an easier time of it, he started on with his usual arrogant, self-righteous smugness.
It's arguable, although not by me, that the site users could be seen as "obstructing police".
<warning=Daily Mail>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html
</warning>
Seems odd that someone who tried to slow down traffic by letting other road users know there was a speed trap was convicted of obstructing the police. Surely the whole point of the speed trap was to slow down traffic in the first place?
Or was it just a revenue generating exercise as many suspect?
"After all the bluster about cross-platform infection, where's Linux in this little chart?"
From the article...
They didn't show any infections on Linux machines. Turner said that Jnanabot attacks on the open source platform weren't able to survive a reboot.
If I was to walk around town with a camera taking pictures of people at random, it wouldn't be long before I got stopped by the local Bobby.
If it happened that some children happened to be in the pictures, I'd no doubt get arrested, my home raided and my name in the paper.
What makes this guy so special he can go around taking pictures of children without their parents permission?
That's not what "Anton Ivanov" was getting at.
You can do all you like to avoid directly giving away information, but you can still be identified by association.
To give a contrived example, if a dozen plumbers have Facebook accounts and they all search for your name, then it's a fair inference that you are either a plumber yourself or that you were recently looking to have some pipes mended. Given enough anecdotal data, I would suspect a fairly detailed picture could be drawn up of your own lifestyle.
As someone has already pointed out, this could end up downloading and caching on my machine something I'd rather not have on there.
On the other hand, if this stops me having to load up a page that turns out to be yet another of those site scrapers or pseudo search engines that just present me with another bunch of links to click on, then it might not be all bad.
Well, the person that found it is actually guilty of an offence, and so they could in theory be arrested, charged and convicted.
The article states that the USB stick was clearly branded, and it was obvious it belonged to The Greater Manchester Police and that they would almost certainly want it back. By taking it home and examining the contents, rather than taking reasonable steps to return the object to its rightful owner, the finder is guilty of "theft by finding".
If I ever found anything belonging to the local constabulary, I'm pretty sure I'd return it straight away rather than risk getting on the wrong side of those with the power to make my life a misery.
Did you actually read the article, or any of the other comments, or are you just another Anonymous Wanker from the Daily Mail?
If you consider a photograph of a fully clothed child is a depiction of sexual abuse, then there is clearly something wrong inside your head.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
