Sounds like a situation that could be polluted with something like what Moxie Marlinspike did with googlesharing, in an effort to bury the signal in the noise.
The myth is always that either one illegally downloads or pays for it through channels. However, most people I know will pay for some content and not others. It's a question of value. Just because the illegal download costs $250 does not imply that people will pay $10 or $20 instead. The third (and oft-ignored) option is that they will simply find other content that is worth the expense (both monetary and effort).
i can't offer an internship or any really sound advice, but my email is in my profile, and i can offer mentorship and answers to questions from a software developer of over 20 years. feel free to contact me if that will help.
My age probably shows in this statement, but it seems odd to me to suggest that someone else change their behaviour so the poster does not have to rtfm. We're coders. When we don't understand something, we read the manual, then the source.
I wonder how this correlating data can be used in cases of copyright infringement where the alleged infringer is only identified by IP address. Could a correlation between IP address and real-world identification be made by subpoena of FB records?
What concerns me is that I doubt the average user will understand the potential ramifications of entrusting a copy of their ID to a third party. If these documents are not well-protected or the user does not bother to or is not capable of covering up information that can be used for the purposes of identity theft, this could be catastrophic for some users.
With business customers, even if we ask for ID to confirm larger contracts, they'll send everything. Full IDs, credit card scans, etc. Technical customers regularly just email root passwords to financially-valuable systems when they have the slightest problem.
Also, try this: run an ad on Craigslist offering $500 a day for whatever. Ask for personal info and photos. You'll be deluged with people ready to hand every detail over without second thought.
"Clearly show your name, picture, birthday"
"Cover up any personal information we don't need to verify your identity (ex: address, license number)"
Most Facebook users have already given their name, birthday and profile photo. For most users they wouldn't be giving anything else than those pieces of information on a ID card.
Now, that doesn't get into the secondary requests as the article states, but it certainly isn't "entrusting a copy of their ID to a third party."
Up-front disclaimer: I don't use facebook, but the precedent of this upsets me.
It seems to me that a website can define the API by which you access their site (some subset of HTTP), but can they really make a definitive claim to how data is rendered on the client side once that data is fetched through legitimate targets?
It strikes me that an ISP preparing a "test" page for a court order suggests they already anticipate the direction the court will take, an action they are content with so long as responsibility doesn't fall on them.
Isn't spyware you don't have to use and can uninstall just software with a feature you do not desire? I'm completely against the feature, but I don't see why something must be done about it? Feel free to add whatever features to your software you like, so long as nothing requires me to use it. There are plenty of linux distros, desktop environments, etc.
I run a simple djbdns setup locally with a caching resolver that passes specific domains to my dns server proper and the rest up the chain. Took about seven minutes to configure properly. This seems overly complex.
