Cracking the Secret Codes of Europe's Galileo Satellite

[IronBits]

Newswise — Members of Cornell's Global Positioning System (GPS) Laboratory have cracked the so-called pseudo random number (PRN) codes of Europe's first global navigation satellite, despite efforts to keep the codes secret. That means free access for consumers who use navigation devices -- including handheld receivers and systems installed in vehicles -- that need PRNs to listen to satellites.
The codes and the methods used to extract them were published in the June issue of GPS World.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/521790/?sc=rsla

[jasong]

Newswise — Members of Cornell's Global Positioning System (GPS) Laboratory have cracked the so-called pseudo random number (PRN) codes of Europe's first global navigation satellite, despite efforts to keep the codes secret. That means free access for consumers who use navigation devices -- including handheld receivers and systems installed in vehicles -- that need PRNs to listen to satellites.
The codes and the methods used to extract them were published in the June issue of GPS World.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/521790/?sc=rsla
I've never used GPS, but I would think it would be a good idea to pay the fees, if there are any, rather than cheat the system. In my mind, we'd be discouraging innovation(and encouraging DRM) by not paying.

Maybe I'm being conceited, but I consider this to be different from some huge band making recordings for less than, say, $50,000, and then getting pissed because instead of making 100,000% profit, they make 50,000%.

I'd say more, but I think I'm already off-topic enough. :D :blush:

[Paratima]

I don't think you're OT, jasong.
:rant:
For many years, there has been a huge public debate over protection for innovation / artistry / just plain hard work - whatever it takes to do something for the first time or something truly unique. We have a whole array of laws to protect inventors and artists, and it's certainly fair game to question where to draw the lines, and that includes the music industry.

I'm a professional photographer and very much in tune with copyright laws that are designed to protect my exclusive, marketable right to control copies of my work. If people try to use the images I live on without paying, I get really uptight. The flip side of that is that I have to be very careful about what I include in my pictures. People's faces, trademarks and certain buildings are protected as are the works of other artists. It's a two-edged sword!

Then there's the medical companies. How much protected profit is fair return for spending the millions of dollars to develop, test, market and distribute new drugs? What do you do about the desperately poor nations where they can't afford the drugs?

I think your position on paying those fees is perfectly reasonable. If innovation doesn't generate profits, where's the incentive? Doing stuff for the "good of humanity" is a fine idea, but it doesn't pay the rent for the people doing the real work. Discussing it is good. A continuing debate is needed to correct these forces and keep improving the model. Let the debate continue.
/rant

[IronBits]

That means the DATA can be received by good or bad folks to be used for good or bad purposes.
It's a security problem...

[jasong]

I don't think you're OT, jasong.
:rant:
For many years, there has been a huge public debate over protection for innovation / artistry / just plain hard work - whatever it takes to do something for the first time or something truly unique. We have a whole array of laws to protect inventors and artists, and it's certainly fair game to question where to draw the lines, and that includes the music industry.

I'm a professional photographer and very much in tune with copyright laws that are designed to protect my exclusive, marketable right to control copies of my work. If people try to use the images I live on without paying, I get really uptight. The flip side of that is that I have to be very careful about what I include in my pictures. People's faces, trademarks and certain buildings are protected as are the works of other artists. It's a two-edged sword!

Then there's the medical companies. How much protected profit is fair return for spending the millions of dollars to develop, test, market and distribute new drugs? What do you do about the desperately poor nations where they can't afford the drugs?

I think your position on paying those fees is perfectly reasonable. If innovation doesn't generate profits, where's the incentive? Doing stuff for the "good of humanity" is a fine idea, but it doesn't pay the rent for the people doing the real work. Discussing it is good. A continuing debate is needed to correct these forces and keep improving the model. Let the debate continue.
/rant
Okay, since I'm on-topic :D tell me what you think of the following:

While there obviously needs to be finer granularity to the concept, I believe there are basically two types of labor, and therefore, profiting. I work at Kentucky Fried Chicken, they pay me a certain amount of money for a certain amount of labor. I earn that money by doing the job. There's a direct corollary between what I do, and what I get.

But there isn't always a direct corollary. If I make a cd, and I'm small potatoes, I may print out those cds one at a time to sell. the labor to make 1,000 cds would be significant. On the other hand, if I were Metallica, everything after the music is actually made is out-sourced. the cds are printed thousands at a time and the cost is measured in pennies. So, obviously, there's a difference in the total labor for someone who has 1,000 fans, as opposed to someone who has 1,000,000 fans. I believe the RIAA is behaving in an ass-backwards fashion. As with American colonial times taxation, the paycheck that truly needs protection is the one directly corollated to amount of labor. That's the reason why I believe they should tax stocks and bonds, but people like me should be able to collect 100% of their paycheck unless they've actually struck an actual face-to-face deal with the government(like my medication situation, although things like FICA really piss me off)

[Paratima]

:umm:
Sorry, but you need to clarify and maybe concentrate your thinking a bit. My point was that it's fair game to question and periodically re-evaluate the boundaries between originality and patent/copyright protection by the government. Oh yeah, and that if it's the law, we should respect it.

I can't tell whether you're honked about the unfairness of Metallica's success or the economies of scale in CD production or the stock market or the Social Security Administration or the RIAA or the minimum wage. Or all of the above.

I enjoy a good debate, but you need to figure out what it is you're for or against and make a coherent case. :)