Slashdot Mirror
Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices
djembe2k writes "Score one for civil liberties. The NY Times is carrying a wire story (free reg. required, yadda) reporting that the Supreme Court of Washington state ruled today that a warrant is required by police to use GPS tracking devices to track suspects. A warrant actually was obtained in the case at hand, but the prosecutors argued that they hadn't really needed one, and they lost on this point. Here's the full text of the ruling."
FP
Neener, neener! :)
For over two years now, my colleagues and I have contended that the Bizarre style of Open Source programming has produced a technically inferior product, Linux, that is only permeating the commercial market due to the industry's attempt to appease the cyber-political forces of GNU. Even the most outspoken, die-hard advocates of Linux concede that other Unix-based operating systems (i.e. FreeBSD, BeOS) are superior to Linux. Yet, unlike the concessions given when comparing Linux to other Unix-based operating systems, the zealots in the Windows vs. Linux Wars have made their positions quite clear, each believing in the superiority of their own operating system and each demonstrating that neither side is willing to budge on the issue. However, what if one side admitted that the other side's operating system was better? What if one side surrendered to the other? That's exactly what happened. On February 13, 2003, Red Hat conceded defeat to Microsoft in the category of operating system security.
Adversaries of Linux, including myself, have for years argued that Linux is not secure. Our strongest line of reasoning points to the Linux operating system's lack of adherence to TCSEC (Trusted Computer Security Evaluation Criteria) and CC (Common Criteria) standards. (Please note that I said adherence and not certification, because an operating system can still be secure by voluntarily adhering to TCSEC and CC standards without being officially certified.)
In a press release issued on February 13, 2003, Red Hat announced that security in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP3 is provably and certifiably superior to security in Red Hat Linux. Well, ok, Red Hat didn't say that with words , but it most certainly said that with actions.
What Red Hat actually did say with words was that it is pursuing CC certification for Red Hat Linux Advanced Server at Evaluation Assurance Level 2 (EAL2). That's right, EAL2, the second lowest level of security assurance. Remember, higher numbers are better. Just to put this into perspective for you, Mac OS X is CC EAL3 certified, Sun Solaris is CC EAL4 certified, and Microsoft Windows 2000 SP3 is CC EAL4 certified.
Those are some pretty loud actions, and they're saying some pretty interesting things. They're saying that Linux is two levels of security behind Sun Solaris, a Unix-based operating system. They're saying Linux is two levels of security behind its arch nemesis, Microsoft Windows 2000. They're saying Linux is a full level of security behind Mac OS X, an Open Source operating system based not on Linux but on BSD. They're saying that Linux is the epitome of mediocrity, that Linux, in its current state, simply isn't up to par when it comes to operating system security, and here's the clincher: they're saying that all those Linux evangelists who have been preaching about the so-called "superior" security of Linux have been lying to you.
You don't have to take my word for it. This is straight from the mouth of the beast. Well, perhaps it would be better to say that this is straight from the actions of the beast. While the beast tries to put a positive spin on this blow to the credibility of Linux by saying that it hopes to be at EAL4 sometime in the far, distant, unforeseeable future, the beast's hazy vision does not negate the lack of security in the here and now.
The old axiom is right. Actions do speak louder than words, and they're saying, "Linux sucks."
I rule more because I got the third post. Neener, neener! :-p
Dumbass.
Yadda's are plural, you can't have one without - AT LEAST - an other. Preferably they appear in triplets: "Yadda, Yadda, Yadda."
( ) ???
(*) Profit!!!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
I'll motherfucking show you motherfucking ascii art you fucking motherfuckerfuckers.
Ascii art your motherfucking mother, motherfucker.
No, I did not read the article.
It is just some backlash against a corporate agenda.
May these backlashes wash over my body like waves on a beach.
Sweet.
Why they require registration at the NYT.