I'm also pretty sure that's the case with her. "Infringing" comes naturally to all humans, regardless of background. It's just something we do. It's how our culture expands, improves and grows. The medium that this takes place on isn't as important. So to try to suppress it is really height of ignorance. It's going to happen whether or not they want it to, and that's a GOOD thing.
I think we need to distinguish between downloaders and uploaders here. I think this arrangement wouldn't work against pure downloaders. But if they download and then upload to others, as is what happens when you use P2P, they might be liable.
I'm not very knowledgeable about encryption, but I believe I read once of a product that can easily create an undetectable encrypted partition. So basically, even if you were looking for it, you'd still never find any evidence of it. I can imagine that if someone *really* wanted to get something across the border, they could do that and the searchers would never know.
Except the banks job should be to verify IDENTITY, not simply that you have the right "keys". Even if someone stole someone else's credentials, the fact remains that the bank incorrectly IDENTIFIED the person and released funds (or whatever). However you spin it, the bank still shares responsibility for that specific incident.
I'm not saying that users aren't responsible, they are. And there are a lot of stupid people out there. And they pay for it through the hell you have to go through to sort everything out (sometimes takes years). I think that's punishment enough for someone to learn from their mistake.
The problem is that many banks don't take their own security seriously (at least when it comes to customer security). If the bank does EVERYTHING reasonably possible to ensure customer security, goes to every length possible to resolve reports of fraud, then at that point if a breach occurs I will say the bank is clear. However, most banks don't even come close to this. And as the backbone of the country's financial well being (maybe lol), they have a responsibility to be that secure.
What evidence do you have that Nintendo actually used Hillcrest's work to create the technology for the Wii? That's right, none. Because they didn't. Nintendo developed their tech without using anything from Hillcrest. The problem was simply that Hillcrest got a patent earlier. That's it.
Why should anyone have to pay up to someone simply because they had the same idea, but just later? It makes no sense. Hillcrest contributed nothing to Nintendo's success, so they should not be able to profit from it.
Well, unlike a financial institution, Ford has nothing to do with your car's security after you purchase the vehicle. Now, if Ford was required, somehow, to verify the owners identity every time the key was used to open the door or start the engine, then yes, Ford would be at fault if someone other than the owner stole the car.
Oh absolutely, I agree. The bank is holding my money. I don't care if it's my damn twin... they give my money away THEY should take responsibility. Of course, if I was negligent, then I share responsibility, but now days with how sophisticated scammers are, that's not usually the case.
For the web,
-customer selected image to help identify the correct website (prevents phishing)
-password for identifying your computer (needed when you use a computer for the first time)
-Then your regular username/password.
Every banking website I've used (not credit card sites though) has used this process. I don't know about you, but I take great comfort in the fact that my bank requires those measures... I mean, you can do pretty much ANYTHING to your account once logged in, so I don't really think it's and inconvenience.