It seems reasonable to require a licensed "DMCA agent" to be registered for each work. Much like a Sarbanes-Oxley attestor, a registered DMCA agent must be a human citizen domiciled in the USA (not a corporate or other non-human entity).
For fraudulent or erroneous takedowns, registered agents should incur automatic statutory penalties (w/o restraining the right to be sued for civil penalties). Further, all reversed takedowns accrue and after X their license is revoked (either for Y years or permanently).
It's large investor reps on the earnings calls, not journalists. Given how important access is to them, there's zero chance they're going to ask anything embarrassing in that call, especially when they already know most of the answer. The next general shareholder meeting is hopefully another story....
I suspect the root issue is the hardware lasts for years, and like most growth-obsessed public companies they're flailing for a way to move to recurring subscription plans. Garmin fitness watches are great hardware, but the app is terrible and always has been. The moment they lock up data pushes to other platforms (e.g. Strava) behind their paywall is the moment I get a Coros.
I wish they would just create a general law for all products and services that any "fee" that can't be removed/waived has to be included in the base, advertised price. They can break it down however they want elsewhere as long as the real price is 50% larger than the fake breakdown. Solving cable leaves a million others that use this same trick.
First, in my opinion you're not in keeping with the spirit of the "real name" request (and, in my opinion, you know this).
Second, you called me "a special kind of narcissist." Technically you only implied it, I suppose.
Shared training credentials leaking via the CNN report is a total red herring. There are so, so, so many reasons not to have training accounts on production systems and to not have real data on training instances that anyone who does this (company prohibition or no) is lazy and unprofessional. The bonus is, if this is done, there's no reason to worry about training credentials being revealed.
Really, what's the alternative? Create unique training accounts and high-entropy passwords for every user for every class? How will these credentials be transmitted to the user? If it's in writing, you know some third party would eventually get their hands on that and blow it out of proportion too (even if these unique accounts were deleted at the end of the training session since the bias on the internet seems to be to assume that everyone who is not you is a complete moron).
Michael, name calling isn't very productive. It's an easy thing to do while cloaked in the anonymity of the internet (and while disregarding Techdirt's request to use your real name), but I wonder if you would speak to someone like that in person.
Back to the LAPD: Why do you assume it isn't dummy data? In addition to leading classes, I have also attended dozens and NEVER ONCE has the training system had real data. We don't even use real data in our dev environments-- only UAT and production have real data. AFAIK, this is industry standard. If they have real data on a training instance, THAT is the REAL mistake.
Who cares? I have run IT training many times where I put the shared login up on a whiteboard. It's pretty standard practice to have an isolated training instance and to load dummy data so you don't have to worry about specific user rights.
Save all the hate for real security screw-ups. Piling on to this one just looks like petty cop-hating.
Sheesh-- did you guys even read the letter from T-Mobile? It wasn't a cease and desist. It was bringing up their concern and asking Weblogs if they'd be willing to change the logo color. T-Mobile and Engadget MOBILE *are* similar in that they are both in the wireless space, although obviously not the same business.
I agree with the sentiment that Engadget Mobile needn't change their logo color, but everyone is really over-reacting. I thought the letter was quite civil and professional. The Engadget (and blog) response, however, was childish.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by GatorHeel.
Registered DMCA Agents
It seems reasonable to require a licensed "DMCA agent" to be registered for each work. Much like a Sarbanes-Oxley attestor, a registered DMCA agent must be a human citizen domiciled in the USA (not a corporate or other non-human entity). For fraudulent or erroneous takedowns, registered agents should incur automatic statutory penalties (w/o restraining the right to be sued for civil penalties). Further, all reversed takedowns accrue and after X their license is revoked (either for Y years or permanently).
No Journalists on Earnings Call
It's large investor reps on the earnings calls, not journalists. Given how important access is to them, there's zero chance they're going to ask anything embarrassing in that call, especially when they already know most of the answer. The next general shareholder meeting is hopefully another story....
I suspect the root issue is the hardware lasts for years, and like most growth-obsessed public companies they're flailing for a way to move to recurring subscription plans. Garmin fitness watches are great hardware, but the app is terrible and always has been. The moment they lock up data pushes to other platforms (e.g. Strava) behind their paywall is the moment I get a Coros.
No one has to agree to the annual contract. You can always get the higher, month-to-month price.
Need this universally, not just cable
I wish they would just create a general law for all products and services that any "fee" that can't be removed/waived has to be included in the base, advertised price. They can break it down however they want elsewhere as long as the real price is 50% larger than the fake breakdown. Solving cable leaves a million others that use this same trick.
Reading Comprehension
Did you even read the article you're replying to? You seemed to have missed the point entirely.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't Cheapen Real Security Screw-ups
First, in my opinion you're not in keeping with the spirit of the "real name" request (and, in my opinion, you know this).
Second, you called me "a special kind of narcissist." Technically you only implied it, I suppose.
Shared training credentials leaking via the CNN report is a total red herring. There are so, so, so many reasons not to have training accounts on production systems and to not have real data on training instances that anyone who does this (company prohibition or no) is lazy and unprofessional. The bonus is, if this is done, there's no reason to worry about training credentials being revealed.
Really, what's the alternative? Create unique training accounts and high-entropy passwords for every user for every class? How will these credentials be transmitted to the user? If it's in writing, you know some third party would eventually get their hands on that and blow it out of proportion too (even if these unique accounts were deleted at the end of the training session since the bias on the internet seems to be to assume that everyone who is not you is a complete moron).
Re: Re: Don't Cheapen Real Security Screw-ups
Michael, name calling isn't very productive. It's an easy thing to do while cloaked in the anonymity of the internet (and while disregarding Techdirt's request to use your real name), but I wonder if you would speak to someone like that in person.
Back to the LAPD: Why do you assume it isn't dummy data? In addition to leading classes, I have also attended dozens and NEVER ONCE has the training system had real data. We don't even use real data in our dev environments-- only UAT and production have real data. AFAIK, this is industry standard. If they have real data on a training instance, THAT is the REAL mistake.
Don't Cheapen Real Security Screw-ups
Who cares? I have run IT training many times where I put the shared login up on a whiteboard. It's pretty standard practice to have an isolated training instance and to load dummy data so you don't have to worry about specific user rights.
Save all the hate for real security screw-ups. Piling on to this one just looks like petty cop-hating.
Echo Chamber Over-reaction
Sheesh-- did you guys even read the letter from T-Mobile? It wasn't a cease and desist. It was bringing up their concern and asking Weblogs if they'd be willing to change the logo color. T-Mobile and Engadget MOBILE *are* similar in that they are both in the wireless space, although obviously not the same business.
I agree with the sentiment that Engadget Mobile needn't change their logo color, but everyone is really over-reacting. I thought the letter was quite civil and professional. The Engadget (and blog) response, however, was childish.