Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Assuming no other device costs (installation is assumed), $500 is a small price to pay to have the most kickass security system on the block.
"The block" of course referring to the subdivided neighborhood where the only "hoodlums" are the kids who play on the grass, there's never any music playing loud enough to travel the ten feet between each house, and doors on both cars and homes are left perpetually unlocked because the only people approaching the door are "magazine salesmen" and the watchman for the homeowner's association here to inform you that your mailbox requires a new paint job or you will be fined $10/day.
Anywhere else, facial recognition doesn't stand a chance at keeping out anyone with a crowbar.
I guess I have to download and archive all my juicy e mails from Yahell to protect them. $60 would be a very low price for all the dirt thats in there.
The only thing I really use Yahoo for is the email address that I get all my spam sent to. I guess they can have that if they want. Sometimes there is pron. Maybe they will like that as well.
@Crimson33: The article twists the meaning somewhat. Yahoo isn't really "selling" information. When law enforcement agencies subpoena a company (Yahoo, Google, MS, whoever) for information, there is nothing much that they can really do about it. The numbers above just say how much Yahoo is reimbursed for using its resources to provide this information.
Meaning - Yahoo is probably not the only company with a chart of prices like this. It just so happens that Yahoo's chart got published here. I was sort of joking in my first comment.
So, can I give them sixty bucks to not give away my information? Clearly Yahoo is willing to whore themselves out for cheap, but I am curious if they will take any customer, or if they have some element of discrimination.
@Robotronic: I'm pretty sure that the Five-Oh needs a warrant to get this information, but if you like the look of a tin foil cap that much by all means don't let me stop you.
@NorwoodIsMyHero: @bleek: Oh neat! More people who didn't read the fucking document. It says right in the paperwork that Yahoo isn't required to provide this information to authorities, but does so voluntarily (for a price, no less). They even provide authorities with a template on how to request information. I bet a simple forged subpoena could easily get that information to anyone.
Oh, but I'm just paranoid. I just sit around on my ass all day, tripping on acid, watching A Scanner Darkly, listening to Timothy Leary, and re-reading 1984. Get a grip, assholes.
@NorwoodIsMyHero: The danger is that they probably make money on these requesets. It's not like it costs $60 to give them account access. When its profitable to give away your account information to law enforcement, that means they're not going to scrutinize any requests all that hard. Warrant expired? Wrong Name? Oh well, we're making money here, give it to them anyway.
Forged subpoenas? Expired Warrants? Do you understand how easy it is to win cases when cops do this, and how easy it is to make a boatload of cash from it?
Defense attorneys and trial lawyers pray for these things to happen as they equate to a judge tossing out a case and for a person getting a big pay day. Stop watching so many movies about cops doing crap like this and getting away with it, because in real life it doesn't work.
They may try it in but even a public defender has the two neurons required to blow up the case and make their client a boat load of cash when those things happen.
@NorwoodIsMyHero: I meant non-authorities doing it. As in someone trying to steal your information, identity, etc. If these companies are making money by selling your personal records to people, what comes first; one person's privacy or a failing company's bottom line?
@Robotronic: Well, none of that is discussed in this article and whatever Yahoo! does or does not divulge to private sources is between you and them based upon whatever you agreed to when you created your accounts with them. I used to have a Yahoo! account but I do not recall the wording of the agreement I agreed to when I clicked the checkmark box "Yes, I agree."
If they retained the rights to sell your information, then who's fault is it that you put private information there?
If they did not retain that right, then they won't do it as they would get caught and a bunch of trial lawyers would get a nine figure or more payout from Yahoo! in the ensuing law suit. If they did not explicity state that they could divulge the content of your accounts, they'd probably lose the ensuing suit because of right to privacy precedents. Either way your information is probably safe from dirty corporations willing to shell out the bucks.
@NorwoodIsMyHero: I'm just saying, it's not that hard to make a convincing looking subpoena form on the computer and fax it over to Yahoo along with 60 dollars. A lot of people use Flickr's premium services, and that means credit card numbers are on the line. Is it likely? Maybe not. Is it possible? Definitely. Seems like a big enough security hole to cause some damages. I'm not sure why you're so quick to abdicate Yahoo of any responsibility in a situation like that. Yahoo's FIRST priority should be the protection of its own user base, and these documents certainly don't illustrate that.
Compare this to when the RIAA was sending out blanket subpoenas to ISPs demanding the information of their subscribers, with Verizon (I think it was Verizon, anyway) putting its foot down and refusing to provide that information blindly. That's the kind of behavior I expect from a company that handles sensitive data regularly.
12/10/09
[source for pic: [tmgivler.deviantart.com]]
12/10/09
"The block" of course referring to the subdivided neighborhood where the only "hoodlums" are the kids who play on the grass, there's never any music playing loud enough to travel the ten feet between each house, and doors on both cars and homes are left perpetually unlocked because the only people approaching the door are "magazine salesmen" and the watchman for the homeowner's association here to inform you that your mailbox requires a new paint job or you will be fined $10/day.
Anywhere else, facial recognition doesn't stand a chance at keeping out anyone with a crowbar.
"Locks only keep honest people out."
12/10/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
Meaning - Yahoo is probably not the only company with a chart of prices like this. It just so happens that Yahoo's chart got published here. I was sort of joking in my first comment.
12/07/09
I'm the commissioner in name only!
TwoHandTouch(myself)Football is runnin' the thing!
I swear!
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
Oh, but I'm just paranoid. I just sit around on my ass all day, tripping on acid, watching A Scanner Darkly, listening to Timothy Leary, and re-reading 1984. Get a grip, assholes.
12/07/09
12/07/09
Forged subpoenas? Expired Warrants? Do you understand how easy it is to win cases when cops do this, and how easy it is to make a boatload of cash from it?
Defense attorneys and trial lawyers pray for these things to happen as they equate to a judge tossing out a case and for a person getting a big pay day. Stop watching so many movies about cops doing crap like this and getting away with it, because in real life it doesn't work.
They may try it in but even a public defender has the two neurons required to blow up the case and make their client a boat load of cash when those things happen.
12/07/09
12/07/09
If they retained the rights to sell your information, then who's fault is it that you put private information there?
If they did not retain that right, then they won't do it as they would get caught and a bunch of trial lawyers would get a nine figure or more payout from Yahoo! in the ensuing law suit. If they did not explicity state that they could divulge the content of your accounts, they'd probably lose the ensuing suit because of right to privacy precedents. Either way your information is probably safe from dirty corporations willing to shell out the bucks.
12/07/09
Compare this to when the RIAA was sending out blanket subpoenas to ISPs demanding the information of their subscribers, with Verizon (I think it was Verizon, anyway) putting its foot down and refusing to provide that information blindly. That's the kind of behavior I expect from a company that handles sensitive data regularly.
12/07/09
They will lose, as many other companies before them have lost for doing similiar things, and they will lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
The odds of it leaking that they are selling information are simply too high for Yahoo! to be able to take that chance.
12/07/09
12/01/09
"You open it."
12/01/09
12/01/09