In a blog post highlighting his "theory on content value,"
If it's anything like his other "theories", then I think I'll pass. Adams has very strange ideas about how the world works (and how it should work), which make it hard to take him seriously.
'I also doubt that anyone watches a movie and thinks, "Wow James Bond drives a BMW! BMWs must be really cool cars if James Bond drives one!"'
Of course they don't, they just think "It was much cooler when he drove an Aston Martin."
Besides as a non-USAian, I'm not clear on the demarcation here, who has jurisdiction over blogging standards, anyway? (Is the phrase "blogging standards" an oxymoron?)
As far as I know (again, not from there), the FTC only really has jurisdiction over trading standards, and so could only really look at the companies, and not the bloggers, or even a TV show with blatant product placement. That last would be under the jurisdiction of the FCC. Perhaps the two agencies should meet and discuss a consistent approach?
Anyway, I may be completely mistaken with the whole thing. It's hard enough keeping track of our own government agencies.
It's not like it was any secret that Men at Work deliberately used (a small part of) the melody of Kookaburra in the song. It's a traditional Australian folk song (even if it only dates from the 1930s, of which I am not convinced) that every Australian school child learns (and sings, incessantly) at primary school. Plus Down Under has been out for over 25 years (I feel old).
Did the police at least check with the owner of the access point about it? If the owner is leaving it open intentionally, then there's no crime surely?
I have to say that it seems a typical approach to security. No-one wants to do stuff they see as being a waste of time, no matter how important it might be. Encrypting data is one of these. It's much more convenient to just leave it, and worry about losses later.
And if the real reason it wasn't done was a lack of funding, then as Matt said, you have bigger issues. Software to encrypt data is relatively cheap. Otherwise, don't let anyone take the data out of a secure area. An organisation that is chiefly concerned with security ought to already have sufficient resources allocated to protect this kind of data.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Anome.
It's the wrong way around
People seem to keep getting the wrong end of the stick. It's not that the Internet makes you stupid, it's that stupid people use the Internet.
Unfortunately, stupid people also write about the Internet, which is how we get this problem.
If it's anything like his other "theories", then I think I'll pass. Adams has very strange ideas about how the world works (and how it should work), which make it hard to take him seriously.
Re:
'I also doubt that anyone watches a movie and thinks, "Wow James Bond drives a BMW! BMWs must be really cool cars if James Bond drives one!"'
Of course they don't, they just think "It was much cooler when he drove an Aston Martin."
Besides as a non-USAian, I'm not clear on the demarcation here, who has jurisdiction over blogging standards, anyway? (Is the phrase "blogging standards" an oxymoron?)
As far as I know (again, not from there), the FTC only really has jurisdiction over trading standards, and so could only really look at the companies, and not the bloggers, or even a TV show with blatant product placement. That last would be under the jurisdiction of the FCC. Perhaps the two agencies should meet and discuss a consistent approach?
Anyway, I may be completely mistaken with the whole thing. It's hard enough keeping track of our own government agencies.
It's not like it was any secret that Men at Work deliberately used (a small part of) the melody of Kookaburra in the song. It's a traditional Australian folk song (even if it only dates from the 1930s, of which I am not convinced) that every Australian school child learns (and sings, incessantly) at primary school. Plus Down Under has been out for over 25 years (I feel old).
Has anyone asked the Wi-Fi owner?
Did the police at least check with the owner of the access point about it? If the owner is leaving it open intentionally, then there's no crime surely?
Typical
I have to say that it seems a typical approach to security. No-one wants to do stuff they see as being a waste of time, no matter how important it might be. Encrypting data is one of these. It's much more convenient to just leave it, and worry about losses later.
And if the real reason it wasn't done was a lack of funding, then as Matt said, you have bigger issues. Software to encrypt data is relatively cheap. Otherwise, don't let anyone take the data out of a secure area. An organisation that is chiefly concerned with security ought to already have sufficient resources allocated to protect this kind of data.