The Insider News - CodeProject

That just makes me sick.

Bill Gates is a very rich man today... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions.
Dave Barry
Read more at BrainyQuote[^]

Information is everything and information is king.

I've never studied the CodeProject T&C but does CP sell or give away the information about its almost 10 million subscribers? I'm sure there's a lot of information in there that other companies would like to harvest and tap into.

Cisco is but one facet of a multi-faceted information diamond mine.

"I do not have to forgive my enemies, I have had them all shot." — Ramón Maria Narváez (1800-68).
"I don't need to shoot my enemies, I don't have any." - Me (2012).

PHS241 wrote:
I've never studied the CodeProject T&C

Oooo! You checked a box when you signed up, stating that you had read and understood the conditions... Did you not send an email first requesting clearance to join without clause 17.14.2.8(iii)? The one handing CodeProject all your worldly goods? Everyone else did!

The site TOS are pretty clear: "Registration information becomes the non-exclusive property of The Code Project and may be used by The Code Project for market research, marketing, improvements to our Services, and for such purposes as may be set out in our privacy statement." http://www.codeproject.com/info/TermsOfUse.aspx[^], section 5

Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water

You also get your very own Bob[^].

In this usage, what is the definition of "non-exclusive property"? And how can my "personal and demographic information as prompted by the applicable registration form" ever be anyone's property but my own, whether exclusive or non-exclusive? Is my name and/or username now the property of The Code Project? My home or email addresses? If so, that's very disturbing. Can I terminate TCP's claim by closing my account?

If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.

Welcome to the future, where goods you buy also track you for your own sake (hold on i believe i have seen this before, start with A and end with pple), what the hell is Cisco thinking of?, it is dealing with technology professionals that recommends their products, if we don't it will simply vanish from the picture.

CEO at:
- Rafaga Systems
- Para Facturas
- Modern Components
for the moment...

PHS241 wrote:
I've never studied the CodeProject T&C but does CP sell or give away the information about its almost 10 million subscribers? I'm sure there's a lot of information in there that other companies would like to harvest and tap into.

But CP is also a "free" service. We don't pay to use it, but the money to maintain it has to come from somewhere, and I'm fine with that, it's a trade: my information for CP's service.

On the other hand, you have to pay Cisco for one of their routers. This is a one time payment for a physical item. You do not incur and additional cost to them after that (besides perhaps customer support, but for a good product the majority of customers will not need it, and some small bandwidth charges for software updates). There is no trade going on here, they are simply taking your data and giving you nothing in return. Personally, I find that to be unacceptable.

Some clarity here..

First, you have to dig a bit.. this doesn't apply to ALL Cisco routers, only their 'App Enabled Routers' that have automatic updating turned ON. I own a Cisco router (not an App Enabled one) and I didn't get auto-updated and have not been forced to sign up for the cloud.

This seems a lot like a knee jerk reaction on some folks part to an ill-considered move on Cisco's part. There is no doubt that this is a seriously stupid move on Cisco's part. No doubt at all. But I'm not personally prepared to go full-paranoid on Cisco as of yet. Cisco has a reputation that must be maintained to continue to sell products. And plenty of competitors that would love to see it trip badly.

Keep in mind that the internet is a giant echo chamber. It tends to magnify things due to herd behavior.. If you read the comments about this carefully you'll see that many folks don't even own Cisco.. they are just expressing their confidence that this is 'evil corporations at it again'.. a paranoid response.

I've lived in the 'belly of the beast' of large corporations for more than half my career. I've never seen signs of overt evil, but I've seen PLENTY of mediocrity and outright stupdity.

The writer of the original article, in my opinion, is showing an extreme lack of judgement.. none of the details around how many customers are affected/type of routers/conditions of update are even listed. Its just a 'Cisco did some evil stuff' hit piece. In a word, typical stupid reporting/commentary (something I've seen so much lately it makes my head spin).

Caveat Emptor doesn't apply just to retail goods.. it goes for news too.

Just my 2 cents..

modified 9-Jul-12 13:34pm.

When a corporation willfully violates laws that most common people understand to be in affect, that corporation is evil.

It is unlawful to install software on a device that prevents that device to be used as intended. CISCO may have utilized their auto update program to do this, but they still violated the law in doing so.

In addition, by requiring those affected to create a cloud account in order to utilize the devices that they already legally purchased and own, CISCO has taken unlawful possession of the processing power of those devices. They in affect have taken possession of the device and are requiring owners to pay a fee to regain the use of their legally owned property.

Regardless of user licensing agreements, CISCO did not and does not have a legal right to corrupt and disable a device that they received consideration for; from the purchaser of the device.

This is corporate greed gone a muck. Not only should the CISCO executives have known better than to do this, the developers who participated in this criminal activity should have know better and refused to participate in said criminal activity.

Scott A. Tovey

"Willfully" requires proof which I'm pretty sure you don't have. Was it intentional, or a mistake that was released? You *may* be right. But *may* don't cut it in a court of law (and I'm putting it this way SPECIFICALLY because you are making a *legal* type argument). I stand by my original statements. I might be what you are saying, but it also might be the result of bad process/ineptitude. You do NOT have proof either way, unless you are materially involved (which I seriously doubt).

If its proven that this was with malice and forethought, I'll be behind your statements all the way. But *until* it is, I'll wait for a determination of the truth rather than jump to a conclusion, which is what everyone is basically doing.

modified 9-Jul-12 16:59pm.

satovey wrote:
It is unlawful to install software on a device that prevents that device to be
used as intended. CISCO may have utilized their auto update program to do this,
but they still violated the law in doing so.

I doubt any of that is true in general although maybe it is true in your jurisdiction.

As a commercial transaction, a sale is usually only beholden to whatever commercial protections are explicitly in place.

In terms of such protections (where I live) if they exist at all, then it is up to the consumers to take action to enforce those rights.

satovey wrote:
the developers who participated in this criminal activity

There are certainly jurisdictions where there are no protections at all and there are probably very few if any at all where it is "criminal".

So when does the class action lawsuit begin?

This is clearly an act of fraud and theft. CISCO sold equipment to individuals and businesses and then without informing the owner of said equipment, took possession of that equipment against the wishes of the rightful owner.

While the owner may still have physical possession of the equipment, CISCO installed software that prevents the owner from utilizing the equipment as originally purchased. This action violates a number of Federal and State Laws.

1. CISCO installed software onto a computer that damaged the computer. Such actions violate Federal Laws against hacking and no doubt a number of State Laws.
2. By making the device unusable as originally purchased, CISCO breached the sales contract which it had entered with the customer.
3. CISCO is violating contract law by placing owners of these devices under duress by demanding compensation (more like protectionism here) in the form of spying on owners of the devices and demanding the ability to disable the devices without due process. This is a violation of the Constitution itself.

All owners of affected devices should file suite against CISCO demanding a full refund of the purchase price in addition to damages that resulted in loss of business and internet access due to CISCO infringing upon the rights of device owners.

This should effectively put CISCO out of business. Anyone who thinks that doing so is to harsh a punishment of a corporation that treats them like property (slaves) in this manner, needs to have their heads examined.

These actions are so contrary to liberty, freedom and the American way, CEO's and other executives should be imprisoned for their crime.

For those who think that these actions are not illegal, you should consult your States contract laws as well as computer hacking laws.

What is truly sad, is the fact that programmers actually went along with what is clearly criminal computer hacking.

<edit>
When suing, injured parties should also demand that CISCO pay for a replacement product that IS NOT a CISCO device (IE. a device manufactured by a CISCO competitors).

Scott A. Tovey

modified 9-Jul-12 14:45pm.

Cisco backpedals....[^]

Never In Doubt[^]:
Ward Bell produced a short video introduction jsFiddle, one of his favorite free tools for JavaScript developers. Spend a few minutes watching to learn about this great tool for prototyping and experimenting HTML, CSS and JavaScript in a real-time environment.

Ward, you rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard....

Riagenic[^]:
Today, you’re spoiled for a choice of technologies to help you produce some user experience namely for mobility. Since the introduction of the iPhone and iPad it’s arguably put something we’ve all kind of known into the mainstream hands, which is “experience matters”. Businesses are now keen to ensure that the next piece of software they produce works like it would on an iPad or iPhone. But which platform presents the best opportunities for the future?

What mobile platforms do you think will succeed?

TechHive Beta Blog[^]:
802.11ac devices communicate exclusively on the 5GHz frequency band, which is much less crowded than the 2.4GHz band where older wireless networks compete with baby monitors, microwave ovens, and Bluetooth headsets for bandwidth.

It's also based on an incomplete IEEE standard.

Barkeep[^]:
Barkeep is "the friendly code review system" — a fast, fun way to review code. Engineering organizations can use it to keep the quality bar high. With it you can watch commits made to any Git repository, see diffs, write comments, and have those comments emailed to your fellow committers.

Two coders walk into a bar...

.net magazine[^]:
The challenge of making a website work well in every browser through which it might be viewed has become much harder. The key to ensuring that this challenge doesn't leave the web designer pulling out their hair is defining what we mean by 'work well'. Don't resort to workarounds to make your site look pixel-perfect in IE6, says Jack Armley. Instead, it's better to try to understand what your users need to achieve from it.

Friends don't let friends fret over IE6.

Terrence Dorsey wrote:
The challenge of making a website work well in every browser through which it might be viewed has become much harder.

Because the people who make browsers don't really seem to care much about following W3C standards.

=====
\ | /
 \|/
  |
  |-----|
  |     |
  |_    |
   _)   | /
   _)  __/_
   _)  ____
  |    /|
  |   / |
  |     |
  |-----|
  |
=====
 ===
  =

Resulting in developers who don't care much about browsers and find more interesting ways to waste their time.

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

Stephen Wolfram[^]:
The announcement early yesterday morning of experimental evidence for what’s presumably the Higgs particle brings a certain closure to a story I’ve watched (and sometimes been a part of) for nearly 40 years. In some ways I felt like a teenager again. Hearing about a new particle being discovered. And asking the same questions I would have asked at age 15. “What’s its mass?” “What decay channel?” “What total width?” “How many sigma?” “How many events?”

With Mathematica, I may have been able to make some small contribution to what has now been achieved.

Macstories[^]:
Rumors of a 7“ iPad have been rampant for months, but this week they’ve really picked up steam as stories at the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg have all but confirmed it. But despite everyone calling it ”the iPad Mini“, I remain unconvinced. A 7” iPad has never made sense to me for one reason and one reason alone: interface.

Mini-iPad, you complete me!

Terrence Dorsey wrote:
A 7” iPad has never made sense to me for one reason and one reason alone:
interface

Anyone who's used a 7" Android tablet (I have the Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus) can attest to the usability issues of trying to cram a tablet UI tuned for a 10" screen into 7". It's awful. Truly painful.

Scaling up to provide a thin, light device that's a larger iPod is the only way it would work. All I want is a device that works in exactly the same way as my iPhone but with more screen space. I don't want a cramped iPad.

cheers,
Chris Maunder

The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP

Watch out for further discussion of device sizes in tomorrow's newsletters.

Director of Content Development, The Code Project

TechPinions[^]:
By trying to combine what people do on their PC with what they want to do on a tablet, Microsoft feels it is offering the best of both worlds.The problem with that, as I’ve said before, is that people interact differently with a tablet than they do a computer. So, in reality, you don’t get the best of both worlds, but rather a mishmash of each.

Surface doesn't redefine the tablet, it merely presents a different interpretation.