The Dink Network

the cost of unknowingly granting access to somebody else or any foreign system, can easily overshadow the relatively minuscule cost of purchasing legitimate software.

It would, if it worked. I see no reason why cracked versions of Windows are much worse than legal versions. Snowden explained that Microsoft passes all your data to the NSA. Windows 10 pretty much works in the cloud, so they have all your personal data. And that's just the ways they intended. Microsoft is known to not care about fixing security problems. Your best bet at protecting yourself (apart from writing your own OS, which is not an option for most people) is to use a system that can be publicly scrutinized. If Microsoft puts backdoors in Windows (and they do; they admitted users cannot even disable Windows 10 spying on you, I'm sure things are worse than they admit), how much worse does it have to get? If you care about privacy, don't use Windows. It's that simple. (The other big US companies that Snowden talked about are obviously no better; don't give your private data to Google, Facebook, or Apple either.)

I will omit my opinions on the copyright perspective except to say I am a working musician.

Actually, that makes me very interested in your opinions. I think the copyright system is broken, and as far as I know regular people don't actually make money from it (which isn't to say that they don't make money from their work, just that copyright is not the reason people want to pay for them). I'm a programmer and could attempt to use copyright to protect my "property", but I choose not to. I'm very interested to hear what your thoughts on this are. But that deserves to be a new topic, so I opened it for you. Please make the title correct.

Also very interested to hear this from a musicians standpoint. No pressure!

Damn good thing there is a way to prevent Windows 10 from installing ever. I and a few others have had updates off for a long time and haven't ever seen a prompt or anything for that piece of shit.

Does everything seriously work cloud-based? I've always had zero support for Cloud stuff and now I have less.

I and a few others have had updates off for a long time and haven't ever seen a prompt or anything for that piece of shit.
Note that for Windows 10 they just admitted that they are spying and that it cannot be disabled; there's no reason that this would only be true for Windows 10. They just didn't admit it for other versions.

Having updates disabled is a bad idea. While Microsoft is notoriously bad at fixing security problems, they do fix some problems, and you are not getting those fixes installed. Using Microsoft software is a bad idea for various reasons including security, but not installing patches only makes it worse.

Does everything seriously work cloud-based?
That's what I heard, but that doesn't mean it's true. In any case, all the big companies seem to move as much as they can into the cloud. If getting access to private data isn't their main reason for that (I believe it is), then at the very least they see it as a welcome side effect.

On the passing of information through our computer systems, I agree entirely that it should be lawfully difficult to retrieve information from any computer system and there should be a stringent process in obtaining authority to do so in the absence of the owner's consent. There may be times that gaining access is preferable but this should be the exception and not the norm. In short, our personal property should be ours alone unless we choose otherwise or, it can be reasonably proven that we may cause a real and urgent harm which is reflected in our data.

However, there may also be a difference between knowing that there are Government agencies with the ability to "listen in" on our conversations and view our data, as opposed to an unknown mechanism injected into the system that can access these same things. I am largely against the notion of a "Police State" and also find witch hunts deplorable, but once a threat has been identified (and not merely imagined) there should be some legal mechanism available to reduce or eliminate any harm that
could result from non-action.

With purchasing legitimate software I have the opportunity to decline that access by not purchasing it and if I do purchase the license to use it, there may be some legal remedies available should my data become damaged or stolen without my permission.

When installing hacked or otherwise circumvented software, it becomes more difficult to determine who is "listening in" and the available remedies are greatly reduced. It clearly is offensive to have law makers granted to ability to listen in at will, but it is grossly more offensive to allow law breakers this same ability to listen in. Simply, We don't know which exploits have been delivered in the payload of an errant software and there frequently is not a corporate image we can hold lawfully accountable, should we be entitled to any remedies.

Copyright, is in a different post.

Why are you writing a forum post like a full article?

Copyright, is the license of ownership of a created work. There have been many attempts to create and alter the true definition of what it actually is, but the precise work itself is sufficient which is simply, "the right to copy".

Copyright does not grant us a blanket restriction of prevent everyone else from performing our work, the only true way to prevent it's use is to not publish or perform it in any publicly accessible form. The moment it has been; seen, heard, experienced, or otherwise brought to the awareness of another individual, it is no longer a private property. However, it also at that moment becomes a commodity of the rental variety in which others may purchase the right to also perform or publish it.

Copyright does not give us the blanket right to determine "who" is entitled to perform it, they do not need our permission to do so. Copy right does give us some influence over how it may be performed or published in that, if the use would tend to contradict our intention behind creating the work or generally disagrees with our personal beliefs, we can limit or prevent it's use. As an example, if I write a song that speaks out against causing a harm, I do have the right to deny it's use to someone for the purpose of causing a harm.

The main benefit of copyright comes into effect when some gain is made from it's use. In short, if another entity is going to profit in some way by making use of my work, then I am entitled to share in that profit or receive some measure of financial benefit, based somewhat on the value of the benefit gained by it's use, though not all values can be easily given a currency value, such as gaining higher grades in an educational endeavor.

My opinion on copyright, if a value is realized from the use of my work, I should be compensated. If the sole benefit of listening to one of my songs is to increase the sense of well being of another individual, then I am content. If however, there are financial gains or savings that are realized because of my work, then I am entitled to a share of that gain or savings, or receive some measure of compensation of equal or comparable value which is reflective of the level of gain attributable to the use of my work in their endeavor. As an example, if I write a song that is used in an advertising campaign which generates an increase in revenue, I am entitled to receive a portion of that increase in revenue. The math is beyond the scope of this posting.

I'm just wordy, I've never been good at writing brief.

there should be a stringent process in obtaining authority to do so in the absence of the owner's consent.
I would go further. Not only should the government have a hard time getting access to the data, it should be illegal for companies storing the data to look at it or pass it through. Not only that, it should be almost impossible to give them that right through a contract. Because these things always work the same way: the law says that unless there is a contract, it is not allowed. Then they make a contract that says they are allowed to do it, and users must choose between giving up their right to privacy and not using the service (which is not always a reasonable option).

For example, mail has very strong privacy protections in the Netherlands, and the postal service is not allowed to read it. However, I think email is not considered "mail" for those laws. And even if it was, cloud-based mail services such as gmail and hotmail simply make you give up your rights in a contract. I think that should not be possible, because many users don't reasonably have the choice to say no to that contract.

there may also be a difference between knowing that there are Government agencies with the ability to "listen in" on our conversations and view our data, as opposed to an unknown mechanism injected into the system that can access these same things.
There is a difference, but it's not very large. The reason is that the government is not infallible, so if software is given backdoors for the government, they will be broken by bad guys and they will get access as well. An example in the physical world are the TSA master keys for travel locks. Those are leaked and now everyone can print them or order them on ebay, making the locks as useful as a sticker that says "please don't open".

there may be some legal remedies available should my data become damaged or stolen without my permission.
Unless they mess up real bad, don't count on any of that working. You have someone to blame, which may feel good, but it doesn't help you at all. I may be wrong, but I don't think that suing Microsoft for selling buggy software would work. Otherwise many people would have done that, and they would be bankrupt.

hacked or otherwise circumvented software
I agree that those are slightly less safe than official versions of closed source software. But both are very unsafe. As far as I can see, open source (while also by no means guaranteed to be safe) is the best bet for people who want control over their own data.

But even with that many things are now moving to the cloud, and then it doesn't really matter anymore. If your client is broken it is still slightly worse, but you can expect the server to be intentionally broken (unless you host it yourself), so your data is accessible to people who really want to see it.

Thanks for your reply.

Your description of copyright doesn't entirely match the law as I understand it, but it's probably close enough. The main difference is that you talk about intent, while the law (AFAIK) doesn't; the copyright holder has the right to restrict making copies (including performances), no questions asked. The copyright holder doesn't need to justify why person A is allowed to make copies and person B isn't. (Also, making copies for personal use is not covered by the law, and is therefore always allowed, but let's ignore that.)

if a value is realized from the use of my work, I should be compensated.
That sounds reasonable to me. But it isn't how it works now; if I want to make copies of your work without making money (for me or anyone down the line), I need permission from you. Would you be in favor of changing that, so non-commercial use is no longer covered by copyright (and therefore always allowed)?

if I write a song that is used in an advertising campaign which generates an increase in revenue, I am entitled to receive a portion of that increase in revenue. The math is beyond the scope of this posting.
I don't think the math should be in the law. It is perfectly reasonable to leave that to the artist, as it is now: you need to make a deal with the artist, and if you can't work it out, you can't use the work.

I will keep this post about copyright only, and answer data points in another post.

Much of what I write about copyright is not merely my opinion, unless I specifically say it is my opinion or desire.

Simply, according to the Berne's convention, once a work has been published, it can be used for personal use to some extent, the definition of "some extent is varied depending on the work and the purpose of it's use.

Using portion's of a work to write a review or news report on the work is permissible, IIRC upto 30 seconds of audio or video is acceptable, unless a complete section is required to retain the actual message conveyed by the creator.

Using a complete composition for the purpose of Parody is also accepted, such as Weird Al Yankvich, as it is both obvious that the derivative work is not an attempt to mislead the audience as to who created the original work, and it would also tend to increase exposure of the work to a larger audience.

Public performance is generally accepted, at least in music, where there is no attempt to claim ownership to somebody else's work. Most minor performances are likely to be small enough in scale to not detract from the earning potential of the copyright holder, larger scale performances are required to either belong to a Performance Rights organization or perform at a venue that is required to pay a the yearly usage license fee, which is collected into a fund and distributed by a formula based largely on average radio play lists, for example. For the most part, performers do not contract directly with the owner of the work, though there are some exceptions such as an act portraying a specific artist or band. Bon Jovi, Bryan Adams, AC/DC, and ELVIS are a few examples of this where there is a flat fee licensing arrangement but it is more of a "right to portray the likeness of" the artist, and does not require keeping track of number of performances, and the such. I do work with an Elvis impersonation act, I can only presume the the other acts have similar licensing arrangements.

However, "educational use" is not always free either and is not always limited to properly crediting the copyright holder in the performance. As well, it is not limited to realizing a monetary benefit that makes the use become a payable performance, receiving a higher grade or standing because of the inclusion of the work, can be considered realizing a gain.

The copyright holder does retain the right to not allow their work to be presented in a way that is different that their intention when creating the work and also they can prevent their work from being used against them in an effort to damage their character. The example used by BMI, if an artist writes a song that speaks against cruelty to animals, they can prevent a performance of their work that is aimed at promoting cruelty to animals. A more recent example is the hit song, "Eye of the Tiger", owned by Survivor. They claim they wrote the song to promote an individual overcoming their own weaknesses and becoming a champion of who they are. They are currently offended that their work was used to promote the exercise of a religious concept, that places some peoples beliefs lower than others. This message is completely contrary to their intent of creating the work, and they are seeking compensation.

I will clarify, copyright does not grant the holder the ability to prevent the use of their work in all situations. Copyright is largely a Capitalistic document that demands the holder is entitled to realize gain from their work when a gain is realized from their work being performed, and to limit the use of their property when that use could tend to reduce their future rightful earning potential from that work.

The restriction of making copies is not entirely etched in stone. For any recorded material, such as audio, video, computer softer-ware; it is permissible to make a "working copy" of recorded medium with the intent of keeping the original as a "Master", that will only be used to create a replacement working copy, when the physical media becomes worn through use.

It does not imply that you can purchase 1 copy and use it simultaneously on 2 devices. It does not imply that you can purchase 1 movie and charge your neighbors to come over for movie night, even if that rental fee is their supplying the popcorn and beverage. It does not imply we can buy 1 music cd for our home, and make a copy for our vehicle or friends. At the same time, we can install most computer software on multiple computers in our home, with the restriction that if we purchased 1 copy, we can only be using it on 1 computer at any given moment. Some software includes copy protection mechanisms to prevent multiple installations, attempt to circumvent that is not permitted.

On how copyright applies to recorded media, it can make sense to think of it as, we have purchased the physical media as though it was blank and we have rented a license to use the recorded material for personal use only.

I don't think the math should be in the law.
For the most part, the math is administered by a handful of Performance Rights organizations. The have predefined membership fees for Authors, Performance Artists, and Venues (which includes elevator/restaurant/telephone background) and other uses. My leaving the math out was to avoid trying to define how they calculate how much each artist will receive for a single use of an individual work, relative to the historical patterns of previous performances of their collective work.

Data ...

I agree with most of the points you make here, we both seem to agree that our personal information should remain personal. I won't speak to European law, being a Canadian IT tech, I am partially familiar with some of the American policies and would expect much of Europe to be at least comparable.

I will comment on e-mail in that in most democratic nations, email is now "expected to be" treated the same as paper mail, in that it includes specific information that is considered a part of our Identity, in the same light as a Passport and other Government issued Identification, as well as our telephone conversations.

In Canada, requiring a person to "give you their login password" is a criminal offense, and it is not lawfully obtainable even through Court Order. Even requesting to prove whether a specific document exists or not, is not legally enforceable, though once you have admitted a "specific document" does exist, they can issue an order of the court requiring to provide that specific document. I won't bore you with links to case law unless you ask.

If it was legal pry that deeply into the average citizen's private and personal life, there would be no need provide access points to our data nor to compile reports of all Meta-Data to be processed by those that do so. If there are laws that prevent them from listening in on our telephone conversation without proper authority from the court, they should not be collecting meta-data either. It is the sheer volume of the data they are routinely collecting, that makes it difficult to impossible to prevent.

To presume that 90% of the population should be overly policed in such a manner in hopes of catching a few of the 9 percent that may not be honest citizens and the less than 1% who are foreign entities possibly wishing to do us harm, may largely be a "make work" project with the benefit of serving also as a distraction from other events.

Unknown mechanisms:
Most mobile phones/tablet these days, include GPS capabilities as well as wireless or Bluetooth functionality. They also include a digital gyroscope which is primarily used to determine orientation and localization, on the scale smaller than what Gps speaks to. The Gyroscope acts as a transmitter to the device, but oddly, it has a wider reception range than most Bluetooth implementations. Much work is being done to reduce the power of this system to make it more difficult for intruders to realize our system exists on the network, with the intent to remove it from the list of known access points.

I don't think that suing Microsoft for selling buggy software would work.
Largely due to "economies of scale", and not merely rights and responsibilities.

I think open source may be a more viable option for those technically inclined, but not necessarily for the average person. The reason Microsoft has done so well is their early realization that most people don't want to care "how" their devices accomplish their task. As long as they can get on Netflix, do their banking, watch porn, book air fare, etc. etc., they are content. The largest reason Windows 8 is doing so well is, the average person doesn't want to have to remember where to click and how many times, they want to click on the picture of their aunt and start chatting, so they don't have to actually dial the telephone. I agree that open source provides a way to see if malicious code has been injected, but the majority don't know how to understand even rudimentary code, nor do the care to.

I think that having things "in the cloud" simply provides more access points for someone to steal your information, but anything wireless is already in the open air and can be picked up by anyone choosing to listen. Hardwired networks can be somewhat protected through masking but the fact that there is a wire at all, means there is still a potential connection point. The fact that NIC's aren't designed to pick up packets intended for them but rather, to reject all of the other packets that were not intended for them, shows where the real weaknesses are in the system.

Fortunately, another key ingredient to someone wanting to steal your data is, they have to be aware that you exist and that you have data to steal. Some of that has been under attack through social engineering practices, which is the mechanism used in 95% of all data theft. This is fortunate because the best protection is simply to educate the masses into becoming conscious of how they are giving themselves away.

... may largely be a "make work" project with the benefit of serving also as a distraction from other events.
What other events are you referring to?

The Gyroscope acts as a transmitter to the device
It does? I'm not familiar with the technology; how do they work? Are there moving parts involved?

Do I understand you correctly that the gyroscope only emits the information that it is present? Most of the time, I would not be worried about that, but in some cases it is of course a concern.

I think open source may be a more viable option for those technically inclined, but not necessarily for the average person.
One feature of open source is that everything happens in the open. A downside to that is that it gives it a reputation of not working, because people have used it before it was ready for them. (It doesn't help that people who see the potential are usually too quick with recommending it to people.)

And while there is always some software that is not ready for the average person, the basic stable system certainly is. Ten years ago, it was normal for people to try it and be disappointed. I haven't heard that for quite a while now.

Windows 8 is doing so well
Is it? I've heard almost only complaints about it. The only "positive" comment I've heard is that it doesn't crash all the time (which of course if more of a negative comment about previous versions).

I agree that open source provides a way to see if malicious code has been injected, but the majority don't know how to understand even rudimentary code, nor do the care to.
This is a common misconception about why open source is better. It's a misconception, because people's ability to inspect the code is only half of what's happening. The other half is that everything is open, so that when someone finds a problem, it is normally shared with the programmers and fixed in the official code. Because of this, people who don't do any coding themselves still benefit from the fixes that other people do.

But we shouldn't get too excited: this system works well for big projects with many users, but not for small projects with only a few users. For those, open source still gives users more freedom, so I prefer it, but it doesn't magically fix bugs.

anything wireless is already in the open air and can be picked up by anyone choosing to listen.
Not if you do it right. If you use good encryption, only the sender and receiver of the data can understand it. For example, a network attached storage device that connects over WiFi to a local network is not unsafe (if it uses good encryption). The difference between that and cloud storage is that the NAS is under your own control, while the server in the cloud is managed by some unknown person who probably passes your data on to the NSA, and possibly (knowingly or not) to criminals. Of course it is possible to use encrypted storage (where the encryption and decryption happens on the client), but none of the cloud services make it easy to use that, because they want to look at your data.

the fact that there is a wire at all, means there is still a potential connection point.
If you run a good operating system, there is no danger in a connection point. It's the same with a door in a house. You can say that a house without doors is safer against break ins. I say that if you have a good lock on your door, it protects you just as well.

This is fortunate because the best protection is simply to educate the masses into becoming conscious of how they are giving themselves away.
You are more optimistic than me when it comes to average people's intelligence.

I completely agree that education is often a better solution than technical measures (and many times, a combination is best). I'm not too hopeful about the effects of education though.

Your statements about copyright seem to be a mix of the law and common practices in the music industry. My own perspective is software, so I only know much about the law.

So thank you for explaining things. I do have a question though: as far as I understand the law, it doesn't prevent personal use at all. That means that once you have legally acquired a copy of a work, you do have the right to make a copy for your car and a copy for your home. In software, the only way to prevent that sort of thing is by using a contract instead of a license: instead of paying for a license which allows you some things that wouldn't be allowed under the law, you make a deal with the copyright holder in which you promise to not do certain things that you would otherwise have been allowed to do, in exchange for a license to the work. I don't know if this is also common practice in the music industry, but from your text I conclude that it is.

Another thing I know is happening, is the laws regarding copy protection. At least in the US, it is illegal to break such a protection. Which leads to the strange situation that you are legally allowed, but technically unable, to make a copy (for personal use), and solving the technical problem is illegal. (I think the EU is exactly opposite: you are allowed to break such protection for the purpose of being able to enjoy your legal rights, and you can't waive that right with a contract. This is just my memory though, and I may be completely wrong about it.)

what I write about copyright is not merely my opinion
This is interesting, but I'm more interested in your opinion as someone who works in the field.

You're explaining that watching a movie with friends is illegal under copyright law. I hadn't thought about this before, but it seems to be a correct interpretation of the law. Do you think this is how it should be? Or would you want to see the law changed? Are there other changes you would be in favor of?

And do you think that leaving much power for making the rules with the recording industry is a good thing? Or should there more laws, such as the one I talked about above from the EU (regardless of whether it actually exists ). (A danger of giving them the power is that other sectors, such as software, don't have such organizations, so everyone can make their own rules and personally I dislike most EULAs.)

Copyright:

...it doesn't prevent personal use at all.
No you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices, if you bought 1 you can only use 1 at a time. A "Master" copy is not a performance copy. You can use your purchased copy solely for the purpose of producing your performance copy, which will wear out through time. The license to use, applies to the recorded material and not the media it is stored on and does not expire when the "disk wears out". To clarify, you cannot purchase 1 copy to use at home and duplicate it to have one in your car as well. Theoretically, you can't be in your house and car at the same time but twiddling bits is not always favorable.

Computer software differs slightly from music in that with recorded music, the delivery system is generally the same for all copyright holders whereas with software, the delivery system is an integral part of the work but potentially could also be considered a separate work. In software, some components may be sub-licensed from a third party, such as the MP3 format, whereas in music there is not similar arrangement for software operating on digital effects, for example. For the most part though, the copyright treatment is the same for music and software, save for determining who owns the rights to which parts.

Another difference between Music and Software, the general intention for the average listener is personal enjoyment with no gain other than their state of mind, whereas with software there is the intent to generate something. That is, a music recording does not produce any derivative work where as most software does produce some form of output, such as a printout, saved file that was not part of the original installation, etc. This then relates to the notion that, if my work creates a gain then I would be entitled to be compensated for that gain.

You're explaining that watching a movie with friends is illegal under copyright law.
Not exactly, it depends on whether it would be considered a "public performance". Prior to the Rentrax system for tracking movie rentals, the cost of a theater ticket and purchasing a movie from retail was about the same, renting a movie was about 20% of that cost whereas the cost to purchase a movie for rental service was about 5 times. i.e. If a theater ticket was $20, the retail purchase price was also $20, rental price was $4, where the rent-a-movie store paid $100. Other than titles produced by Disney, there was a period where the movie was only available to theaters, followed by a period where it was available only to rental stores, then it was released for retail purchase. Disney had a habit of releasing it to rental and retail at the same time, but generally the cost to rental stores was slightly less, but not by much.

I say that to qualify that, inviting your buddy over to watch a movie would not necessarily be considered a public performance, but playing the movie for your local service club meeting would be, in the same way that playing the movie for a school class or during a sporting event would constitute a public performance. It is reasonable to expect that your family members are likely to be present when you watch the movie, but not several acquaintances or even all your fraternity brothers/sisters.

Reverse engineering, deals with both Copyright and Patent protection and reflects the delivery mechanism I mentioned earlier. Most things in music "performance" are not completely original and cannot be covered by a patent, it is the specific arrangement that becomes the protected work as each one should be unique in some way. With software, again it's not so much the wording that is the unique creation but the specific system used to deliver it. Some of these systems are considered "technology" and can be patent protected, which is only a little bit different from copyright.

In music, there has been a growing shift to attribute ownership to the actual creator of the work, and to discourage some of the habit of forcing the transfer of ownership in exchange for other considerations. Specifically, if I have written a song, it may be unreasonable for a Record company to force me to say that they paid me to create it, in exchange for their producing a hard copy of my work for resale. This is further hampered by the fact that a performer is not able to sell their work through major distribution channels, example Walmart, as there are agreements that they will only purchase through the consortium that is all of the major record producers.

There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy. The record companies have been lobbying for a substantial share of that revenue, whereas the Performing Rights groups that work on behalf of the artists have managed to have some of that attributable to the actual music that is likely to be copied on it.

I say this because, I think it is becoming questionable on what the record companies should be able to charge their performers when compared to who was doing the work. 30 years ago, a major portion of Label revenue was earned through "Artist Development" contracts. Simply, the major labels were able to expand our audience from our local friends and family, potentially millions of people all around the globe. Certainly the artist would be earning less of the proceeds from a single ticket but significantly more from the combined listener base. Consider, selling 1, 000 records at $10, compared to selling 1 million records at $1.

Justin Beiber is one example that makes us question how much work the Label must do to expand the market from several hundred thousand to a mere million. His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views whereas he has only sold 44 million actual records and only 10 million actual albums. I say "only" because it is a mere pittance compared to his hits on youtube for even 1 song. His share of the advertising revenue would be substantial and much of that viewership was gained long before the record companies noticed his work.

And do you think that leaving much power for making the rules with the recording industry is a good thing?
I think, so long as we live in a capitalistic society, the actual creator of the work should be entitled to at least share in the revenue earned from the use of their work. I think also that the writers and performers should be entitled to a larger voice than the record companies, and it should more reflect paying for the combination of the work and risk taken to produce it, as opposed to simply allowing the wealthy and affluent to continue to profit from something that is not originally theirs, without paying the creator for the product that is being sold.

I accept that is I work for a song writing company, any song I write there is owned by them because it was my duty as their employee to create that song. Any songs I have already written before being employed there, should remain my property and I should not be required to forfeit ownership in a proven property, in exchange for some contractual arrangement. Certainly they would be entitled to commission for expanding my market, but not at the rate of 90%++ commission.

To answer better then, I see the music industry as including the authors and performers, they are not all to be considered mere employees where the only result of that is to falsely shift ownership of the created work.

Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of music, which would allow us to compose and perform for the sake of self achievement as opposed to gaining radio play points and increasing future residual revenue streams. I doubt this will change substantially in my lifetime.

Data:
The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion. As a transmitter/receiver, it broadcasts the existence of the device and provides a portal of access. Breaking through the security measures can be accomplished remotely in mere minutes, using brute force methods. This is why Corporate networks should not embrace BYOD policy as the cost of providing a secure device is cheaper than recovering from an aggressive intrusion.

One feature of open source ...
Yes, but the average user is more likely to use "open source", simply to rebel against Corporate monopoly. This is not entirely a bad thing, but anyone could insert malware into a distribution prior to hand it off to a non-technical end user. If we could ensure that all distributions were malware free then the cost vs quality would lean even more heavily in favor of open source. What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks, which allow potentially thousands of opportunity to inject unwanted artifacts into the application?

For us geeks and even most near geeks, open sources certainly has it's place. Personal security is still a potential risk for the Mom & Pop who only use their computer to read email, view facebook, and do their online banking.
*n.b. being in Europe, you would call me a nerd and not a geek. Simply, I don't wear cologne named eau-de-bike courier.

Windows 8 is doing so well

The average person doesn't have the time nor technical desire to try to install something to replace Windows or OSX, depending on the platform. They just want to turn it on, click at most 3 buttons, then be on facebook (for example). Windows 8's biggest feature is that it resembles the same interface used on mobile devices, and finding the "App" you need does not require remembering what the icon looks like. You tap the screen, start typing "face" then select facebook from the list of 2-5 items in the list, and in moments you're sharing photos and getting angry or depressed at everyone's rants.

I have worked in IT since the late 80's, many years as a desk-side technician, added in network objects as far as the Lan/Wan interface, with some cisco, and currently I am working POS projects for several national scale retail entities. I have learned that the average end user is more focused on accomplishing the tasks they need to and care little about how the computer accomplishes it. I remember one client, it was an Os2 environment using warp server.

I attended her desk and listened to her issue, then asked "is it okay if I use your chair?

She answered, "I won't be able to get any work done".

I said, "respectfully, you can't get any work done until I correct your issues.". (yes I smiled gently here).

Not if you do it right. If you use good encryption, only the sender and receiver of the data can understand it.

Respectfully, it would make it 'nearly' impossible for the average citizen who happens on the signal to gain access before their conscience talked them out of it, but for someone intent on gaining access it does not. The needful things to gain access to a system are, 20% knowing the system exists, 60% gaining a physical connection, and 20% circumventing the intrusion detection ans security measures. Wireless transmission is considered a physical connection, so at that point you have only the 20% that relates to the logical connection left to deal with.

Defcon and Cyberlympics would be worth researching, if you are convinced that encryption alone can completely secure a wireless connection. It can slow them down a bit and make it a little awkward, but once there is a physical connection, authentication is only a hinderance. Social engineering may be the weakest link in any network security system. In fact, providing a wireless network access point allows more potential to intrusion than using a hardwire (including FOC) connection.

Also, having both a fax-line or dial-up connection as well as a physical Lan connection attached to the same device at the same time, provides opportunity to bypass authentication protocol ... this should be avoided. Simply, if there's a wire (even if it's air) there is a physical connection.

Comparing to your house analogy, if they know you exist they can try to find out where you live. Once they know your address, it comes down to simply waiting until you are not home and finding a way in, even if that amounts to simply smashing a window.

Copyright:

you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices
That's not what I understood. Do you have a link to the part of the law this is in, so I can read it?

There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy.
I don't think that's the reason. As far as I heard, it's because the assumption is that people will make copies from things they don't own. Which brings up an interesting question: if I'm paying for making that copy, does that make it legal? I think it should. But I don't think it does. It's really just a way to extract money from people. Especially given that most people who still use CDs that I know are using them for backing up research data or something like that; it has nothing to do with music, still they are paying the "tax".

His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views
You seem to make the same mistake that the record labels often make (but they do it on purpose, I hope you don't): they suggest that every person who was interested enough to make a copy of a song (at zero cost) would have been interested enough to buy the CD. These numbers cannot be compared (except to find out if there is a ratio between them that is semi-constant; I have no idea if there is).

I understand and agree with your points on record companies.

Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of music, which would allow us to compose and perform for the sake of self achievement
Yes, that would be nice. To me, copyright just feels wrong as a principle. I understand how the rules work, but I look at them from a different perspective:

Without the law, everyone would be able (and allowed) to make as many copies as they want of anything that they have. Copyright was created for a specific purpose. There are different reasons for different countries. One is that the creators deserve profit from their work. Another (that was cited by the founding fathers in the US) is that the public benefits from having more productive artists.

I like that second reason: it says that having a lot of art in the public domain is the goal. In order to reach that goal, for a limited time, the people give up their natural right to make copies. This allows artists to make more money, so they will make more art.

This trade should be reevaluated now that making copies has effectively become a zero-cost operation. There is a big difference between paying a tax on a purchase and paying it on doing something trivial. Given that lots of people like making art so much that they do it without compensation, I think it makes sense to rethink this deal where people give up their rights; there doesn't seem to be much value in it anymore. In fact, copyright seems to stand in the way of a lot of art. For example, George Lucas is known for suing people who make Star Wars fan art.

On the other hand, I think you make a reasonable point that if someone makes money with your art, you deserve to get a part of that money. Then again, what if artists are compensated for their work in some other way (in particular, not by counting users), and then the art is in the public domain and anyone may use it for any purpose? I think that would be a very nice society to live in.

I doubt this will change substantially in my lifetime.
In Finland they seem to be implementing a Basic Income. That would be a good start. So it may not be as distant as you think.

Data:

The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion. As a transmitter/receiver, it broadcasts the existence of the device and provides a portal of access.
A gyroscope is a sensor that measures orientation. It is connected to the CPU through I²C or SPI, I assume, and it gives the CPU some numbers which it may pass on to programs. The numbers that it passes are not run as code. How can such a sensor possibly be used to break into a device? That's like saying you can do brain surgery by showing people a painting, because the optical nerve goes into the brain.

That is, unless the sensor and the operating system work together to provide a back door. In other words, if the sensor can pick up radio signals, and the OS uses those to allow access, you have a point. But in that case, I would argue the danger is in the OS, not in the sensor.

the average user is more likely to use "open source", simply to rebel against Corporate monopoly.
That is not my impression. Personally, I use it because I want to be in control of my computer. And I want things to be easy. On proprietary systems, I may not be allowed to do everything I want. Most software for it also costs money, or is crippled or contains ads. If I want to install something on my system, I have a package manager which has almost everything I want, prepared for fitting in with the system. And I get it through a trusted channel. On Windows, my experience is that for anything except Windows itself, you generally have to download it from some random website and hope they don't destroy your system.

What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks
My guess is approximately 0%. The open source community is very concerned with security, much more than proprietary vendors. This is partly because of the types of people that want to be part of the community, but partly also because everything is open: if someone does it wrong, lots of people will complain on mailing lists and in other public places.

I think you may be confused about the terminology. That's not surprising given that there is big money behind a campaign aimed to confuse everyone. Here's a clarification of some terms:
- Free software: Software that gives you freedom (to use, modify, redistribute). The main organization in this community is the Free Software Foundation. Their flagship is the GNU operating system, which is used in combination with the Linux kernel. Many people call this system simply "Linux", even though there is much more in it than that. Other famous free programs are Firefox and Apache (the world's most popular web server).
- Open source software: Exactly the same thing; Eric Raymond gave it a new name because when people hear "Free software", they think of "no money". Also, "Freedom" sounds a bit scary to corporations. Raymond started the Open Source Initiative to bring the free software ideals to the corporate world.
- Freeware: Proprietary software that doesn't cost money. This is often not free software, and I trust it less than I trust proprietary software. Nowadays mostly famous as "free to play" games.
- Proprietary software: Software which uses copyright as it was intended. Windows and most programs that run on it are proprietary.
- Copyleft: the use of copyright law to do the opposite: allow redistribution to anyone as long as you give your users the same right you received. The idea is to guarantee freedom to all users. (This is contrary to public domain, which you can modify and then redistribute under a non-free license.)

The software that is sent over P2P networks is mostly illegal copies of proprietary software. That has nothing to do with free/open source software, and I agree that those are very likely to be dangerous.

Personal security is still a potential risk for the Mom & Pop who only use their computer to read email, view facebook, and do their online banking.
Microsoft and others have shown time and time again that they don't care about their users. I don't trust them with my security; I have much more trust in a program that can be inspected by many people.

The average person doesn't have the time nor technical desire to try to install something to replace Windows or OSX, depending on the platform.
Oh, if you mean by "doing so well" that many people have it installed, sure. I was talking about user satisfaction. I've talked to quite a few people who have Windows 8 because their computer came with it. I don't think I've seen even a single one of them that was happy with it. But indeed, it doesn't bother them to the level that they replace it.

Windows 8's biggest feature is that it resembles the same interface used on mobile devices
Except it doesn't, because most people don't have a Windows phone. My limited exposure to it had me frustrated that it doesn't seem to understand that it is installed on a laptop as opposed to a tablet. I think I'm not alone with that either.

Respectfully, it would make it 'nearly' impossible for the average citizen who happens on the signal to gain access before their conscience talked them out of it, but for someone intent on gaining access it does not.
What are you trying to protect against? If you have the NSA or a similarly resourceful entity after you personally, I'm not sure if anything can help you. Most people aren't in that situation. The threat is from entities (government or otherwise) that try to get access to as many systems as possible. Taking your computer off the internet (as you seem to suggest) would still be an effective defense, but it gets in the way of getting angry and depressed.

Good encryption is something that hasn't been cracked yet. Of course you never know if it really hasn't, but it's the best we have. If encryption works as intended, people sniffing the line cannot decipher the messages that are sent.

However, you are not talking about this now; you are talking about breaking into the computer. That's a whole different beast. Windows is known for its vulnerabilities and once you have a connection you shouldn't have a hard time getting in, unless there is a very good administrator on it. But if there is, it's unlikely that they are running Windows.

Now I'm not claiming that free software can protect you against everything. Operating systems are so complex, that it's almost impossible to make break ins impossible. But a lot of free software users care about it, and quite a few of them can and do audit the parts of the code that are sensitive. Also, lots of code is read just to learn from it, and if someone finds a problem while doing that, it is also reported and fixed. That system gives me a lot more confidence than "the vendor doesn't care much about you, and if there's a problem, you have to wait for them to fix it and until that happens you're screwed".

Copyright:

His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views
You seem to make the same mistake that the record labels often make

Read the entire section please, I specifically stated that much of the claimed cost to a record label is in "Artist Developement", which is partially in grooming the artist to better serve the potential market but largely, it is to increase awareness of the artist and encourage the masses to buy that artists music instead of something else.

When Elvis started out, he had recorded 1 of the 2 songs he ever wrote and was heard recording them at Sun Studio. The claim was he was recording it as a present to his mother. The record company did invest a large amount of time and resources in transforming him from an complete unknown into something known around the world. It's worth noting he never played outside of North America and only a handful of times in Canada, yet he is known the world over as "The King".

Bieber, on the other hand, already had a large following which means he already had a "potential market" ready to buy, and they were buying through the advertising revenue generated on Youtube. My argument here is largely against Corporate Labels being paid for things they don't have to do, and allowing the artist to be appropriately rewarded for their own work. The purpose of my numbers was to show that it becomes harder to justify some of the cost the artist has to forfeit to the labels, when the artist has already accomplished some or much of the work.


you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices
That's not what I understood. Do you have a link to the part of the law this is in, so I can read it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Performers,_Producers_of_Phonograms_and_Broadcasting_Organisations

There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy.

I don't think that's the reason. As far as I heard, it's because the assumption is that people will make copies from things they don't own.

You just said the same thing I did?

Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of ...
I rephrased this portion of my post, it is only because we live in a capitalistic society, that Copyright has a need to exist. The unfortunate part is that the artist does much of the work and does possess the raw talent, but they don't share in the revenue in a manner that reflects output as compared to input and risk.

In the days that Vinyl records where the primary distribution medium, the labels would typically forward some of the future proceeds to the artist to allow them to focus solely on their music, rather than requiring other employment to survive. The labels also provided access to recording facilities and all that goes along with that. The down side was that these were actually loans against the future earnings of the artist and not of the total earnings from the music.

With respect to distribution specifically, the artist was automatically back charged with 50% of items claimed to be shipped, to accommodate for breakage, returns, and any other reason that all product could not be sold. Even if 100% were ultimately sold, this 50% back charge did not diminish.

For clarification only, presume 100,000 copies were pressed and sold wholesale at a cost of $5 = $500,000 potential revenue. The labels took of their 10% fees for Management, Artist Developement, risk, and a few others. Net projected revenue would now be at about $300,000 - $250,000 for "Breakage", leaving the artist $50,000 to pay back the loan of the living allowance, prepaid cost of recording in the Labels studio, advertising and promotion, and other frivolous charges included in the contract.

So far then, the artist has generated a Debt of 2-5 times the amount they were loaned as a living allowance while the Label has received their commissions and retained earnings for back charges, "in the event a record was not sold". Even explaining only this part of a record deal, It is understandable why I say that the Artist has not traditionally been compensated fairly for their work and property, as compared to everyone else involved.

Ownership of the several Royalty streams is also an area where the artist typically has been deprived of their rightful share where the Corporate labels have generally continued to profit, even on acts that have been a complete bust.

It is worth mentioning that several of the Huge labels are getting out of the record making business, and are focusing greatly on securing their future earning potential on the recording medium itself. Worth researching, imo.

Data:

The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion. As a transmitter/receiver...
A gyroscope is a sensor that measures orientation.

The gyroscope beacons a signal which is returned from neighboring cellular antenna. Using 3 towers in a triangle arrangement, measuring the distance from each one the middle can be identified, which is the location of the "transmitter/Receiver" which is the Gyroscope. I am not suggesting it is a potential access point, I am saying it is a known circumvention point.


the average user is more likely to use "open source", simply to rebel against Corporate monopoly.
That is not my impression. Personally, I use it because I want to be in control of my computer.
You are not in the majority group, which is the average user. Most people don't care if they are in control of their computer or not. They may be offended if they believe somebody else is controlling or invading their system but as long as it does what they expect it to do, when they click, they don't care about anything else going on.

What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks
My guess is approximately 0%.

http://www.ubuntu.com/download -Alternate download includes Torrents, which are P2P.
https://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/

2 to start. I won't say these are risky, but certainly they are P2P.
I think you may be confused about the terminology.
I played the Lord11 Door game at 14,400 Dial-up on several BBS. I'm sure I get get confused about some things, but I've been around awhile.

What are you trying to protect against?
I work in IT, Intrusion Detection is a small part of the scope of my current responsibilities. My younger brother is also CEO of Lyrical security.

No, I am not ranting on about the boogey man trying to hack into my computer. As I mentioned, they would first have to know I exist, believe I had something worth taking, then locate my system. Encryption is functional in slowing down the speed at which a file integrity can be circumvented. PGP seems to still be the leader in this front, even after 25+ years, and it was still freeware last time I checked and I believe it too is open source.

Copyright:

I specifically stated that much of the claimed cost to a record label is in "Artist Developement"
Ah, I misunderstood the reason you brought it up. Thank you for clarifying.

As for the Rome Convention: it says on that page that exceptions in national law are allowed for "private use". That would certainly cover making copies for personal use. That means the rules in that regard will differ per country.

>>> There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy.

>> I don't think that's the reason. As far as I heard, it's because the assumption is that people will make copies from things they don't own.

> You just said the same thing I did?

No, I didn't. You said it's about making a second copy of something they own. I say it's about making copies of things they don't own. In particular, putting songs that were (illegally) downloaded from the internet on the CD.

the Artist has not traditionally been compensated fairly for their work and property
Yes, I understand that, and I've heard it from other sources as well. It seems to me that working without the labels entirely (which I hear some artists are doing) is a good way to go. But if they're using their monopoly in deals like the one with Walmart you described, that has its own downsides. Aren't those sort of things abuse of monopoly and therefore illegal?

It is worth mentioning that several of the Huge labels are getting out of the record making business, and are focusing greatly on securing their future earning potential on the recording medium itself.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Can you use a few more words?

Data:

[Gyroscope]
What you describe is called triangulation. It's a method for the network provider to locate a phone with more precision than "closer to this tower than to any other tower". It requires no hardware in the phone (other than the hardware for making phone calls) and also no special software in the phone. In other words, the phone cannot prevent it except by disabling its phone service.

I am not suggesting it is a potential access point
No? Then what does this mean:
The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion.

I am saying it is a known circumvention point.
To circumvent what?

Most people don't care if they are in control of their computer or not. They may be offended if they believe somebody else is controlling or invading their system
How is that not a direct contradiction?

By the way, I know I'm not the average user, both in general or of free software. But I don't think I know anyone who cares enough about rebelling against Microsoft to use an inferior system. You suggest that the average user does that, and then follow it up by saying
as it does what they expect it to do, when they click, they don't care about anything else going on.
Doesn't that imply that they don't care at all about rebelling?

I think almost all users of free software use it because they see it as better software. Reasons for why it is better may vary, but laziness or fear that they are on their own in case of problems (two main reasons for people using Windows or MacOS) are certainly not among them.

What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks, which allow potentially thousands of opportunity to inject unwanted artifacts into the application?
From this statement I concluded that you were talking about things like The Pirate Bay or other sources where the integrity of the file cannot be guaranteed. So I ignored the fact that there are other P2P systems (technically, the entire internet is a P2P system). So please, if you want to support your statement that free software is more dangerous than things you can buy from Microsoft, for the reason that you get it over an untrusted channel, give examples which actually show an untrusted channel. Not random other things which you then agree are not a problem:
I won't say these are risky, but certainly they are P2P.

I played the Lord11 Door game at 14,400 Dial-up on several BBS. I'm sure I get get confused about some things, but I've been around awhile.
14k4? That's lightning speed. My modem didn't do more than 1200/75.

Anyway, I'm not impressed by just "being around" (nor do I expect to impress with it). If you show that you know what you're talking about, you have my respect. As you could probably see from my reply, so far I don't get the impression that you do. But please don't take that as an attack. I hope I'm just misunderstanding you, and welcome your explanation on how your statements weren't meant to cause confusion.

PGP seems to still be the leader in this front, even after 25+ years, and it was still freeware last time I checked and I believe it too is open source.
Not exactly. I don't know much about PGP, but it is certainly not open source. There is a free software clone, called GPG. It is compatible, so communication between them works. Everyone I know uses GPG, not PGP, but that's because all contacts with whom I use encrypted communication are from the free software community. Several new cryptography protocols have been added since they started; the only thing from the original PGP that is still used is the file format, as far as I know.

It's also not the leader for encryption in general, but only for encrypting e-mails. For other systems the same cryptographic methods are used, but without the PGP file format. For example, HTTPS is a very popular way to encrypt web traffic.

I love this, please continue.

You just said the same thing I did?

No, I didn't. You said it's about making a second copy of something they own. I say it's about making copies of things they don't own. In particular, putting songs that were (illegally) downloaded from the internet on the CD.


When you purchase a record/CD/Cassette/Download; you do not own the song/program that is on it, you own the piece of plastic and a license to use it on one device at a time. If you want to own 2 or say 100,000 copies, the presumption is you would purchase 2 or say 100, 000 copies. Either way, it's still not legal to make a free copy to enable you to use it as if you had purchased 2. The fee for blank media reflects that people are willing to break the law, knowing they aren't going to be fined for such a small amount, whereas a several million people each stealing $5 worth of product, is still a lot of lost revenue.

The exceptions for personal use relate partially to the fact that it would be cost prohibitive to sue somebody for making one illegal copy which they gave to their brother, for example. There are also some things that "could" be considered a public performance and personal use, depending on which side of the money you are on. Having a family reunion could be one of these where a family member playing a cd would not be trying to earn a profit from doing so, but if a hired DJ or Band played the music, it would be a payable use.

Aren't those sort of things abuse of monopoly and therefore illegal?
Yes, but comparing the cost of enforcement to the lost tax revenue is part of the problem. Also, where the big corporations have a well funded Legal team on staff, it doesn't take long to out spend someone of "modest means".

Warner Brothers and Sony Entertainment, are getting out of the business of making records. They have also realized that there is a significant revenue stream from on-line sources, including Vevo, Itunes, and their competitors. Because the Lables typically own or control 2-3 of the possible royalties earned from an artist's song being performed, they have contractual arrangements with all of the Online providers that assures them a portion of the revenue from every purchase that can be attributed to their catalog of Artists.

Data:
Before you further comment that I have an inherent lack of knowledge in network security, and how it applies to mobile devices, perhaps you could answer 1 question.

It is clear that the average person wants the ability to use their GPS to know where they are and how to get to somewhere else, and they also want the ability to allow some other people to find them and some others to not be able to locate them. For this reason, GPS has been coded as a protected act and should not have access to requires explicit user permission, in both Android and IOS devices.

On these same devices, neither the accelerometer nor gyroscope are considered as restricted services, and both permit remote access to background services.

My question then, which is likely to yield more personal information, your physical location as reported by the GPS sensor, or the fingerprint scan potentially captured, simply swiping your tablet or phone, or even combining that with the accelerometer to measure decay rates to determine the order you tapped in various areas of the screen while typing in your password?

Perhaps a second question is worth asking. If "Near Field Communication" can be used to transfer downloaded music, do you believe that sound files are the only thing accessible?

I'm merely suggesting that the majority of your arguments against my comments on Mobile data, read like they are coming from the average phone/tablet owner and not someone who works in IT. While I suspect you do have a higher understanding than you let on, it isn't showing in your responses here.

14k4? That's lightning speed. My modem didn't do more than 1200/75.
O M G, you're "That Guy" who used to hit the Chat button on my buddies BBS, and I knew I had time to make toast while waiting for the first sentence to arrive.

Seriously though, it's cool meeting someone that may have actually had a Fidonet ID.

Before you further comment that I have an inherent lack of knowledge in network security, and how it applies to mobile devices
Be careful what you wish for. I currently see two options: either you don't know very well what you're talking about on this subject, or you are intentionally deceptive. You may not want to convince me that the first option is incorrect, unless you have an extra option ready that I didn't think of.

perhaps you could answer 1 question.
I can, and I will. However, I would very much like to hear how your statements that I quoted before can all be true. I see some pretty direct contradictions.

So, on to your question. There are three entities at play here: the sensors, the operating system, and the apps. The sensors, as I wrote before, do not run code on the main CPU. That means they are not a threat themselves. They do of course give information to the OS that in most cases can be considered sensitive in terms of privacy, and sometimes in terms of security.

You seem to imply that the OS is trusted, but the apps are not. I challenge that assumption; I haven't ever seen a mobile phone (in any form factor) on which I trust the OS. Apps are usually worse, but I'm quite confident that the phone providers work with the government to spy on their users. Especially in the US. If that is acceptable to them, I don't see why I should trust them to limit it to the government.

But indeed, if you would trust the OS, then all of the sensors should be considered sensitive. I don't think you argue that the GPS should be made available to all apps, and I agree that the accelerometer, compass, gyroscope, thermometer, microphone, camera, touch screen sensor, and whatever else is present in the device should all be protected in the same way.

If "Near Field Communication" can be used to transfer downloaded music, do you believe that sound files are the only thing accessible?
I do not. That has nothing to do with me trusting the hardware; it has everything to do with me not trusting the OS. Of course the OS can transfer anything it wants over a network connection.

While I suspect you do have a higher understanding than you let on, it isn't showing in your responses here.
I'm trying to understand why you write this. I have been trying to find out what you think, and when I saw contradictions, I've been trying to get them clarified. If your point is that I haven't been showcasing my awesomeness enough, that would be because I'm not interested in that.

I'm probably completely missing the point, though. Can you explain why you wrote this?

O M G, you're "That Guy" who used to hit the Chat button on my buddies BBS, and I knew I had time to make toast while waiting for the first sentence to arrive.
Haha, I suppose I could have been. But no, I've only used BBSs from my MSX computer (those were pretty popular in the Netherlands at the time), and the BBS I mostly visited also ran on an MSX. The hardware for those allowed three speeds: 1200/75 (mostly download), 75/1200 (mostly upload) and 300/300 (symmetrical). I think the limit was in the MSX computer, not in the modem. It simply couldn't handle a higher data rate. So everyone there was limited to that speed.

Seriously though, it's cool meeting someone that may have actually had a Fidonet ID.
I was there at the right time for it, but I never heard of FidoNet back then. What probably was the main issue, was that all calls cost money (I understood this wasn't the case in the US at least), and I know the SysOp at my favorite BBS didn't have money for making regular calls to synchronize.

Data:
I do not. That has nothing to do with me trusting the hardware; it has everything to do with me not trusting the OS.

Proof we are not on the same page here, is in your comment above. When it comes to connecting through your mobile device, it doesn't matter whether "you" trust your O/S or not, nor whether "you" trust the hardware or not. It is entirely about whether the "O/S" trusts the "hardware" or not.

During the design stage, it was determined by the concept team that the end user would want some influence over what could access GPS generated data with the human notion that sometimes we just want to remain hidden. In this regard, the GPS has been deemed a critical component and has restricted access to background processes, unless the user relaxes this restriction.

In the Implementation phase, there were no prior conditions identified to require security to other sensors, such as gyroscope, camera, mic, etc. As such, those devices are seen as trivial components and have unrestricted access to background processes, unless the user can implement restrictions, which is not likely to occur and especially in rooted/jail-broken devices.

When you consider that authentication occurs between the Session and Presentation layers, where it can serve to elevate Transport and Network privilege or not, while these unrestricted components exist in the Hardware layer, we see the problem. Though we tend to see the Camera and Mic in the same relationship as we see the + and - button on a calculator, it makes more sense to see the device as a private network, where each component is a node and they are either critical and have restricted access or are trivial and have unrestricted access.

Personal research will show that I am not speaking my hypothetical notions. I must admit though, that this has opened the market for security appliances to trap some of these device intrusions, before they can traverse our networks and reach our sensitive data. Sadly though, it is difficult to eliminate the threat of Social engineering and challenging to prevent social media from being accessed through mobile devices, which we have also allowed to connect to our networks.

Mm

You two should start some sort of show where you just go back and forth like this for a thousand hours per episode.

Despite the cheers from the audience (which surprised me; I didn't expect that anyone would want to read our walls of text), I'm afraid this topic is nearing its end. I don't have more questions about copyright; I understand your position. I don't agree with every part of it, but that's okay; it wasn't my intention to reach agreement, and I don't think yours was either. Thank you for answering my questions.

About the data, I am now convinced that you are a troll. Feel free to try to change my mind.

You are not answering any of my questions, and in this last post you just produce a flood of jargon which may suggest that you know what you're talking about, but I know enough about it to understand that you don't. And it wouldn't work even if I didn't; this tactic makes me suspicious: why wouldn't you use normal words instead of sentences that I can't understand?

I didn't expect you to be a troll, because old timers here know you. So you have a reputation to lose. But it is the only explanation I can come up with.

But just in case I am wrong, here's what you should do: answer my questions. If I am wrong, your answers will surprise me, and may change my mind. As long as you don't answer my questions, I'm done with this dialogue.

*bows to the audience*

Despite the cheers from the audience (which surprised me; I didn't expect that anyone would want to read our walls of text), I'm afraid this topic is nearing its end.

I uh...I haven't actually been reading this. There's just a lot of text and it's amusing.

You two should start some sort of show where you just go back and forth like this for a thousand hours per episode.

Intriguing idea.

I will go over each of the posts to see if I actually neglected your questions, but I feel that your perspective is different than mine and you aren't hearing my comments as answers.

Specifically, your answers suggest that you believe that Software alone determines how secure a device is. Certainly, software can stop many attacks and severely cripple others but the software can only stop an intrusion that is already in progress.

More specifically, you keep referring to software whereas I am speaking to hardware. The sensors may require some software to convert the data they generate, into a form usable by the end user or even internal apps, but even without software, the sensors can still be powered. The microphone, for example, does not require software to generate an electromagnetic field from sounds in the environment, and this field can be detected, regardless of only being a mere few millivolts...but I'm getting wordy again.

I'm sure you've heard the term, "Intrusion Detection" but not "Intrusion Prevention". Once a device is active, there is no way to completely prevent an intrusion, we can only detect an intrusion and attempt to remove the threat, or at least limit what it can accomplish.

While I read over our past comments, perhaps this will enlighten you as to how insecure our mobile devices really are or at least lead you to further research.

http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2012/10/05/eusecwest-mobile-pwn2own-2012-recap

Mm.