Slashdot Mirror
Feature: US Govt & Invasion of Privacy
Maybe you are not concerned about this because you never expect to come under investigation. I don't either. I've never engaged in any network activity that is even on the fringes of legality. But I probably have and will correspond with people who are possible investigation targets. And the proposed legislation allows the government to sneak into _my_ home and sabotage _my_ encryption programs if the person I'm corresponding with is too hard to get to.
But that's not really the main point. The main point is that there are people in the US government who are worried about the fact that Americans are learning how to better protect their privacy using computer technology. They want to make sure they (the government) always have the ability, with a court order of course, to find out what you are up to. Is this such a bad thing? Shouldn't the government have broad investigative powers to help fight crime?
Yes. I think they should. I'm not a privacy nut or an anarchist. I'm not generally opposed to law enforcement or to legal searches or wire taps. I'm even toward the conservative side on some issues. For example I think court decisions that prevent the prosecution from presenting evidence against dangerous criminals just because of the way it was obtained are heinous. But, I'm completely opposed to any laws that limit the right of people to seek privacy in any way they want.
Let me ask what you think of the following scenarios: A lock company invents a new non-pickable lock. If you lose the key, the only way to get through the door is by removing the lock. The federal justice department is concerned that drug dealers and child molesters will use these locks to prevent law enforcement from sneaking in and bugging their homes. So they get Congress to pass a law that if you use one of these new locks, you have to keep a key on file at your local police station, to be used by court order whenever the government needs to sneak into your home.
Not chilling enough? How about a law that requires you to keep video cameras constantly running in your home with a feed to the local police station. The police are only allowed to monitor the camera with a court order. Maybe they want to find out if you are smoking funny-looking cigarettes or if you are reading _The Anarchist's Cookbook_ (which, by the way, isn't very good) or if you are planning anti-abortion demonstrations.
Is that outrageous? But that is essentially what the justice department wants to do with encryption. They want to make sure that they can read anyone's email without that person's knowledge, by requiring all strong encryption to come with a special key that is kept in the possession of a law enforcement agency. Anything you tell someone else in private, encrypted email could be used against you in court. Don't tell Grandma "I had to spank Johnie today because he won't quit biting his little sister" because someone may arrest you for child abuse.
The government tells us this is to stop "drug dealers" and "child molesters". What they don't mention is that it can also be used against drug users (who may themselves be more victim than criminal), harmless collectors of erotica (you don't always know what you are getting until it is downloaded, and even if you delete it immediately, you will never be able to prove that), tax protesters (the US government has a long and sordid history of violating the civil rights of tax protesters), drug legalization advocates (who are often also drug users), second amendment advocates (who might own illegal stuff), and anyone else who is involved activities the government wants to stamp out.
You think it's OK for the government to go after those people with whatever means possible? Congratulations, you are a part of the majority. People in the solid majority don't have to worry too much about government persecution. Are you sure it will always be that way? Fifteen years ago, cigarette smokers never dreamed that one day they would be social pariahs, that their suppliers would be under massive attack and that they would be forced to constantly struggle with legal barriers to engage in their habit. Are you a drinker? You think that prohibition could never make a come-back in this country? Are you religious? You think the constitution will protect you from the growing anti-religious sentiment in this country? It didn't protect blacks in the early part of this century, and it doesn't protect gun owners and tax protesters today. Do you like to drive fast? Have you heard the growing noises about "road rage" and noticed that all these new police being funded by the federal government to "fight crime" are out in patrol cars with radar guns? You never know when the majority will suddenly turn into rabid haters of _you_ and the government will suddenly be after _you_.
This author hits many relevant points.
At ompages.com a group of volunteers is growing. We aim to make and implement policies and procedures to make all internet activity secure.
We've moved passed the discussion stage and into the action stage. We seek to make internet technology secure, free of charge and advertisement. We are ae not-for-profit unincorporated association of hackers, admins, webmasters, and internet users dedicated to making all internet activity as secure as possible. We intend to proliferate computers and software at-cost and/or free-of-charge. If the government is moving now to control our technology, then the time to counteract their efforts is now. We must act now before laws are enacted that change the networking landscape. If enough of us use services like this, we will have enough of a voice with which to speak out against the adversarial governmental agencies at work to control our computers.
Participate, do you need proof?
Take control of your network! Participating in ompages.com may just change the world.
First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
-- Rev. Martin Niemoller (1945)
Again (or is it still), we find ourselves in a society which demonizes unpopular segments of the population. Law enforcement demands the tools to deal with these demons, because they claim we won't be safe unless they can do whatever they want to fight "for our safety". If we give them what they ask for, and they are successful at wiping out the demons, they will pick a new group to be demons, maybe even a group you are a part of.
Law Enforcement is supposed to be there to serve and protect. By supplying them with the right to spy and invade, they will feel they have the obligation to, and no longer serve or protect. This has been true throughout history, I see no sign that this is any different. They need to be limited.
He who surrenders liberty for security deserves
neither.
-- Ben Franklin
[Note, both quotes are found in many different forms, there is no authoritative version, please don't bother correcting me because the quote I gave doesn't match the way you heard it]
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
The Constitution only affords sufficient protection of individual rights when the insitutional framework it established operates as intended. When the courts and legislature are corrupt, as they are now, it falls upon the citizenry to resist government infringements on their rights individually and peacefully, then and only then, by the use of defensive force, if need be. Many Americans are already resisting by refusing to file federal income tax forms and/or caching "illegal" firearms (which are arbitrarily selected for prohibition based on their appearance or ammo capacity). Whether or not things escelate beyond that is up to the folks who gassed and burned the children in Waco, Texas. We kicked an empire square in the arse over taxes once before, we can do it again, if we have to.
I still hope for peaceful change from the bottom up, and I think the Internet is playing a role in that change, that's why the government and their media machine fear it. I'd guess that they fear the Internet more than our firearms--it's difficult for them to get away with their shenanigans in the light of day. I just hope the Timothy McVeighs don't muck things up and start a war that no one can win.
FWIW, what I find interesting is that the federales are using the same arguments against encryption that they've been using against the right to own and carry weapons since the Kennedy assasination--that all must suffer a diminution of their rights because of the infractions of a few. The same argument, that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, holds true for encryption, just as it does for all proscriptive laws. When a law prohibits a certain behavior, outlaws (who are by definition, law breakers) will continue the behavior while those who wish to abide by the law won't.
slashdot broke my sig
A nice, reasonable response. Thanks.
There's no doubt things seem to be a little "calmer" up north. I don't imagine I'd be too worried about the bad guys if I lived in Canada. However, I live in a country where the cops are hamstrung by courts that routinely give murderers a slap on the wrist but slam people found guilty of the latest high-profile political crime de jur. Instead of going after dangerous criminals, our police departments spend their time going after easy money, like speeding tickets. People caught abusing weapons, like children taking guns to school or armed robbers, are rarely prosecuted to the full extent of the law, while the BATF stage no-knock raids on harmless weapons collectors and confiscate their weapons, often ruining them financially as a result and netting no improvement in public safety.
What am I to do if I come face to face with an armed criminal who wants to harm me or my family and steal our property? Call the police so they can clean up my childrens' remains and take pictures? No, thanks. Blame whomever or whatever you want for the problem, but until things change, my little Glock 19 is going to stay right where I can use when need be, ready to rock n roll.
There is an arms war, but it is not citizen against citizen. It is the citizen against those who should by all rights no longer enjoy the status of "citizen"--criminals, who should be imprisoned, yet are allowed to continue to enjoy the rights they take from others with impunity.
slashdot broke my sig
(Free clue: most /. posters aren't even using *Microsoft* products, much less Office)
Not flaming, just informing.
Saying Chrisitianity is good for science because polytheism is worse is a bit like saying navy blue is a light color because it's not black.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If ___________ are outlawed, only outlaws will have _________________. .plural noun . . same plural noun
There, you have just made a magical phrase that can be used to argue against every single law ever made at any time in any place.
The gun advocates need to be more careful. Stop using such shoddy logic if you want to win people to your cause. This won't work. (Yes I know this wasn't about gun control, but you are borrowing their phraseology.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It looks like it's time to write to your Congress(persons) and your Senators.
I am going to take a little time to compose a well thought out and rational letter to my representatives (sp?).
I think that all of us who choose to write in owe it to ourselves to stay as rational and composed as possible. What we (I) want is to be taken seriously. Coming off half-cocked and pissed off is only going to detract from the message and make us (oe "me" if I should act this way) look like a nut (or a criminal).
It is sad how so many Americans have just gone along and allow the Federal Government (both Republican and Democrat) turn this country into a Police State.
(Don't blame me, I voted for Alice Cooper.)
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Well the idea of not allowing evidence in court
is to make the search futile...so theoretically it
protetcs a person from the search happening.
Hows this. Give the prosecutor discretion on using
the illegal evidence. If he does use it, then
he and the officer who obtained it illegaly
should be charged with "Conspiracy to violate
the rights of a citizen" with a mandatory
minimum sentance of 4 years. They should be
charged whather the evidence wins the case or
looses.
-- Steve
>I've never engaged in any network activity that
;)
>is even on the fringes of legality.
Wow, you must be one bad mofo.
Yes, I know it was a typo. But I still found
it amusing.
I have no desire to force everyone else to live according to my religion. However, I oppose efforts by those of other religions, including humanism, naturalism, and atheism, to force me to live by theirs.
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.
Not only prosecuted, but condemmed to hell until 1994 when the Pope accepted that the Earth did in fact revolve around the sun and issued Galileo an official pardon.
Well, at least they're quick to admit their errors. It took them only, what, 350 years to admit that the earth revolves around the sun. Can you understand why I don't want people like that having any control over my life whatsoever?
This suffers from the logical flaw that only things in favor of God are religious. If I say, "There is no God," surely it is as religious a statement as if I say, "There is a God." And surely the separation of church and state should prevent the state from requiring both the teaching of the former and the teaching of things which assume the former.
My disbelief of your God is founded in lack of scientific evidence of same. If you want me to believe, then pony up the proof. I don't believe in anything that doesn't have some scientific basis. Sorry, but using that criterion, your God falls into the same category as Thor, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, and The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
If you are going to claim that application of science in this manner is religious, then I'm thinking one of us doesn't know what "religious" means.
Points that need to be repeated over and over again until the unthinking majority realise why it affects them and start complaining too.
But I think your lack of objection to the use of illegally obtained evidence is odd. Where the law is broken in regard to the rights of the person later found guilty some justify that on the grounds that they sacrificed their rights by breaking the law. This ignores the fact that at the time the police broke the law obtaining evidence the criminal was innocent.
But what about when that evidence is obtained by infringing the rights of others? The cops need some tape of the drug dealers doing a deal, so they break into someone's house to set up a camera (no time to get a warrant). Don't know about you but I don't want police tramping around my house uninivted, thanks.
And what if the police decide to just find the drug dealer's girlfriend and torture her until she produces incriminating photgraphs? Would you be happy to convict on evidence obtained like that?
-----
"The government that was instated in 1776 has died long ago. "
/. guys kinda state the obvious sometimes :_)
Well, yeah, I mean they'd be around 245 years old otherwise.
Boy, these
-----
Would Canada even admit a barbarian like me who doesn't speak French?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The problem with this "cure for the epidemic of sin" is that it needs to be applied to individuals, not governments.
Giving people a reason to voluntarily obey God's laws is the job of the church, not the job of a police-state.
If you read the Bible, somewhere in there, around Judges, Kings, Samuel, etc. is described a culture, God's chosen people, in their heyday of greatness, under the greatest leaders of their time, and even then, there was not 100% compliance to God's laws.
Individuals sin, individuals are saved. Not entire nations.
I think this is what most people resent, having a code of morality imposed on them that they may or may not agree with (how do you want to interpret scripture today?), and they know damn well that those in power and privilege will place themselves above the law anyway.
If you want to save someone, you need to talk to their heart. Not put a gun to their head.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
hm. I guess that everything you need in your life is produced in your local area.
You've never bought something that is either from, or made from parts that came from other parts of the country or of the world? How do you think your local stores get stuff to sell, or local factories (=local employment, =local economy) gets parts to assemble into finished products?
I think you need roads, and you need to fund them. Otherwise, grab an innertube, and hop into the ocean and don't come back.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
God, I hate suburbanites...
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
Read my initial post, moron. Specifically the bit about indirect payment for road costs through the price of goods I consume.
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
This is so stupid - it's OK because they're all your friends, is it? Well they're not MY friends, now are they? I'm sorry, but while the majority of police and other court officers no doubt are Fine People it's really not unknown for ambitious cops, FBI agents or DA's to go too far in an investigation. A few cops were caught snooping into the database of a local drug-testing firm because hey, if they test positive we're going to stake out the house and bust 'em, right? It didn't matter to them that the data was supposed to be confidential medical information. When I was a kid people were routinely framed for drugs - they'd just palm some evidence from the last guy and drop it in your back seat. I've had cops come to my car door with their guns out supposedly because I had a taillight out. Did they need to have the guns out to tell me that? Or did my ratty old Honda and the long hair indicate terrorist leanings?
Just wait and see how you feel when they cart away all your machines and shut down your bank accounts because you unknowingly correspond and exchange files with a pedophile they're watching.
As far as the Founding Fathers go, the philosophy holds, even now. They were used to having British soldiers come to the door and take them away, so I don't think they'd be too quick to toss their beliefs (and our rights) over drug-dealers and pedophiles. Oh, and are we trying to stop people from making nukes in their garage? Is that a *real* risk?
What percentage of the population do you think drug kingpins and pedophiles are that the govt should be able to bug everyone's house to catch them? What difference does it make if we're a "superpower"? It's OK to treat your citizens like residents of a gulag if you're a superpower? If we were the size of China, I'm sure we'd be taking Falun Gong members out for re-education too, all in the name of social stability.
It's people like you that frighten me most.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Washington is all about power. The Law Enforcement Establishment wants the power to do it's job. Their idea of the right amount of power is total control. If they can see every bit of communications between anyone, anywhere, they can control crime to a greater degree than they ever have before.
The key-escrow encryption bill and the sealed warrant secret break-in bill are point of the infrastructure they need to achieve this power.
They have other planks, as well. Read Title 18 of the federal statutes. There's some reading. It's possible to obtain a warrant for general seizure of assets on the suspicion (not any evidence) of Child Pornography. There is no requirement in the law for due process in getting seized goods returned. There is no requirement to even press charges.
At some point you can expect the police to start conducting random identity checks. Those without proper ID would be immediately arrested, supposedly until their identity could be correctly established.
Next we will have to swipe out ID through a scanner to purchase any of the currently legal vices, such as cigarettes and alcohol. Later you'll need to have your ID to get gas or ride interstate mass transit.
These planks will give them Law enforcement agency the means to enforce the law more efficiently.
Over time their power will grow, partly from "needed" additions to combat new crimes.
Their power will grow to be close to absolute.
And of course, power corrupts.
All the technology in the world won't hide your lack of vision, talent, or understanding.
Hey, don't be bagging out the Invisible Pink Unicorn! It's been a great source of comfort whenever I start to think there could be a God, and TIPU pops into my head and I suddenly realise what a load of bullshit it all is. (Religions in general)
Comics:
Sluggy.com - Poing!
Schlock Mercenary.
#1 overwhelming culprit is guns?
*laff*
It's TV you fool. Look at that thing. Idiot box is a nice way to put it. Country of fat lazy fuxs who jack in and are fed babble like what you just spit out.
"The most overweight country on Earth." A CLUE maybe?
Semiauto handguns have been around a long time. Longer than since the 1960s when the whole thing started going to hell. Which is right around the time TVs per household reached about 0.5.
Just wake up for a minute, eh?
-kabloie
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Religious people aren't "banning the teaching of evolution." They are simply not requiring that it be a part of the curriculum; there's a radical difference. It is true and good that Christianity is not the state religion of the United States, but it is also true and good that naturalism isn't either. Evolution is only the best naturalistic explanation for the origins of human and other life. There are fundamental problems with evolutionary theory, such as the fossil record and the information content of single cells. The only reason evolution survives as a thory is that there are no better naturalistic explanations. That is, there are no better explanations that assume there are only natural causes. Assuming that there is no God involved is not the same as proving it. And requiring the teaching of a theory based on the assumption that there is no God is substantially equivalent to an establishment of naturalism and/or atheism as a state religion. As for the anti-religious sentiment; I'd say your post demonstrates that well enough. Christians and other religious people merely muster enough power to oppose the un-Constituional establishment of atheism/naturalism as the state religion, and you're worried about "anti-anti-religious persecution."
In case you're worried that our children won't be learning enough science, I'd like to de-bunk the argument that Christianity is anti-science. Christianity is pro-science, where that menas natural science, and not naturalistic science. What follows is taken from a BreakPoint commentary I received by email:
The article was excellent. We need privacy for all the reasons Dave described, and you've provided a demonstration of how some of the sentiments can be so engrained in our society that people don't even realize when they hold those ideas or why people should be allowed to hold opposing ones.
If you're a US citizen, please call or write your congressional representatives and ask them to oppose this legislation.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I disagree with the stance that the Catholic Church took toward Galileo. Persecution is bad, whether it is being perpetrated by individuals, governments, or religious institutions. That's why we need the protection of our privacy that Dave's article supports.
As for the insinuation that Galileo's treatment is evidence that Christianity is anti-science, I thoroughly disagree. Galileo was also opposed by the scientific establishment of the day. Fear of change is common, and not limted to religious people. When Louis Pasteur began to champion changes in hospital practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes, he was opposed by the medical community and branded a lunatic. But Pasteur has been shown to be right. Does this mean the medical community is also anti-science and anti-hygiene? Rubbish. The fact that some people from a particular community, at some times in history, oppose a particular idea is not evidence, for all time, that all people of that community are similarly disposed. The naturalists have no monopoly on science nor any right to the state establishment of their religion.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I have no desire to force everyone else to live according to my religion. However, I oppose efforts by those of other religions, including humanism, naturalism, and atheism, to force me to live by theirs.
A lot of people think that when Christians evangelize they are trying to force others to their views. Sometimes this is true, and for that I apologize. However, many Christians are simply interested in sharing what they believe is the cure for the devasting epidemic of sin. If I were a doctor with the cure for AIDS and I didn't share it, I would be labeled as cruel. If I am a Christian and I don't share my faith, I'm guilty of the same thing. If people dismissed the claims of the doctor, it would be appropriate for him to deliver an empassioned plea, with evidence, in the hopes of saving their lives. In the end, for both the doctor and the Christian, the decision has to be left to the individual. When that doesn't happen, it is a bad thing, but please have some tolerance for the empassioned plea of someone who loves you enough to face your wrath because they believe they are vying for your life.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I find it interesting that in this "Age of Tolerance," bashing religious people is still acceptable. I don't believe non-religious people are (necessarily) stupid. Who's the tolerant one now?
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
> > muster enough power to oppose the
> > un-Constituional establishment of
> > atheism/naturalism as the state religion
> It is impossible to establish a system of belief
> which denies the existence of the beings that
> form the basis of a religion as a religion
> itself much less as a state religion!
This suffers from the logical flaw that only things in favor of God are religious. If I say, "There is no God," surely it is as religious a statement as if I say, "There is a God." And surely the separation of church and state should prevent the state from requiring both the teaching of the former and the teaching of things which assume the former.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
> assumption: If I teach a theory that does not
> require the existence of God, then I am teaching
> that God does not exist. I have to say that
> IMHO, that does not follow.
I agree with your logic as you have stated it. I disagree that it is an acurate representation of my underlying assumption.
I believe that evolution only holds up as a theory in the presence of the assumption that there are only natural causes, i.e. that there is no God. I realize that there are neo-Darwinists, but they're still holding to the conclusions drawn by Darwin, long after the assumptions and scientfic bases for his conclusion have been surpassed and overturned. For instance:
The list of problems with Darwinian theory and neo-Darwinist synthesis goes on and on and on. But, it's hard to get scientific paper published if you say things like, "Genesis was right," and nobody has another naturalistic explanation, so the theory stands. A theory that only exists because supernatural explanations have been declared to be outside the rules can be said to oppose the existence of the supernatural even if for political correctness its proponents say that it does not.
Neo-Darwinists say, "If you don't believe in evolution what's your alternative?" If I say, "Creation," I'm mocked mercilessly. While mocking may win the argument in front of a crowd, when those neo-Darwinists are intellectually honest with themselves, they'll realize that their belief in evolution and disdain for creationism arise in large part due to their underlying assumption that there are only natural causes. When that assumption is removed, another theory is capable of explaining more of the evidence.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I agree 100%! It's hard to tell, sometimes, in a post, but it sounds like you're saying this in disagreement with me. If anything I said contradicts what you've said in the above, I hereby retract it!
However, I do disagree with some of what I believe you might be implying in the above. Are you implying that I or a significant number of Christians want a "police-state" or to "put a gun to your/their head" or to "impose a code of morality on you/them that you/they may or may not agree with"? In what ways do you see these kinds of behavior and attitudes? For the record, I want to state that I am categorically opposed to such things.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
Perhaps they're just excited about their faith, or perhaps they're merely hoping that you'll change your mind. Perhaps they're well intentioned, but have poor execution. Please make allowance for such things, and please don't make decisions about such important matters based on them. After all, from their perspective, there's a lot on the line.
Have you ever tried to convince someone of the benefits of Linux and/or Open Source Software? Did you ever continue trying to convince them when they resisted, perhaps over several conversations? I have. I believe there are significant advantages to Linux and Open Source Software, and I believe the question of faith is far more important. I don't want to offend people, but I'm willing to risk that I might.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
Perhaps it is a misuse of the word "religion" to say that atheism, humanism, or naturalism are "religions." However, I do believe that to say, "There is no God," is a religious statement. My point is that just as it is inappropriate for Christians to force their views on others through a state establishment of Christianity, so it is inappropriate for non-Christians to force their views on others.
I know someone who was investigated by the FBI (wiretapped and his neighbors questioned) for several reasons (mid 60s):
1. He questioned the federal policy of continuing to work in a building which the state had condemned as unsafe in an earthquake.
2. He started a union.
3. He raised so much flack over LBJ's proposed "volunary" $100/month war bonds that it was withdrawn.
It makes my blood boil to think of the sheer arrogance that someone has to have to think this activity makes you fair game for a full blooded investigation. As a human being, a relative, and even as a taxpayer, I resent this.
Then there; sthe forged Martin Luther King Jr. tapes or letters (I've forgotten now). This government simply has a track record which makes them unfit for snooping, yet they are so focused on more and more big brother power. I imagine psychiatrists must have a name for their disease.
--
Infuriate left and right
We do have a lot of public cameras. They're in the city center of most major towns and cities now. I hate to put words in the mouth of the majority, but I don't think people here see this as a civil liberties issue. The cameras are actually quite popular because they make city centers safer, especially in places where there were a lot of fights at night.
Personally I actually don't see the strong link most American libertarians make between privacy (especially in public places) and liberty.
Yes the UK is as directly involved in Echelon as the USA. This is a Bad Thing. Our secret intelligence services are just as much a rule unto themselves as anyone else's.
We also have a voluntary (but doubtless eventually essential) photo driver's license in the pipe. Once again I'm not sure this is a problem.
Britain is a hard country to rate when it comes to things like this. I'm reluctant to hold it up as an exemplar of civil libertarianism, because we lack any written gaurantee of anything at all. OTOH we seem to have maintained a generally better record than almost any other large or medium sized power when it comes to domestic affairs. A puzzle. Possibly the fact that executive power technically lies with the legislature, and is therefore subject to public debate, has had something to do with it. If so, the fact this has been eroded over the last twenty (or two hundred) years is a Very Bad Thing.
The problem with arguing religion (as well as politics most of the time) is that someone has to be wrong. Not everyone can be right...the belief systems contradict that.
Both parties can even be wrong. Both cannot be right, but will believe to the death that they are. Such is the nature of faith.
It's a tender subject, and I've found that while many agnostics and atheists and even Buddhists/Taoists can adopt a "Live and let live" policy for their beliefs, most western (and some eastern) have a hard time with this, because, by nature of their theology, non-belief is heresy and punished by eternal burning, damnation, and wedgies in the gym-class of the afterlife.
In short, it's an attempt in futility. Once someone has made up their mind on their belief system, it's a rare event that they change. It's like admitting to being sucked into a really bad scam.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
I highly doubt that this country would drop a nuke on one of it's own cities. There are some fucked up politicians, but what soldier is going to follow THAT order? No way.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
I just cant understand that you Amercans can take this 'Big Brother thing' without hitting back in some way! Just dont vote for those stupid politicians that are pushing for these no-crypto-and-total-control-over-the-people stuff!
;-)
US and China is almost on the same level in controling the people.
I thought they called USA the 'A free country' but i've must have heard wrong...
It's feels great livning in Sweden times like this!
There are many organizations that want to save us from the epidemic of drugs, non-whites, or responsibility (yes it cuts both ways). I personally see these organizations as an epidemic that I sincerely wish to save others from. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
They're not so much anti-religion as anti-theist. Taoism is totally non-theistic, being little more than a nature-oriented metaphysics. Buddhism is only quasi-theistic in that it does not worship Buddha, pays homage to several historical (as well as mystical) Buddhas, and believes any can attain Buddha status (Buddha is a title meaning "enlightened one"). This doesn't quite apply to the Therevada branch which is a bit closer to its Hindu origins, but that's going even further off-track...
Atheism and Buddhism are quite compatible. But yes, there's also the poseurs who just like to be into something "eastern" because it's exotic and isn't so "western" (this division being a distinctly "western" view of the world, ironically enough).
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> I can certainly envision a future where every packet you send must first be routed through the Fed's computer system before it's sent off to it's destination.
Actually this was mandated years ago by a voice vote called the Digital Telephony Act. Requires phone companies to install enough ports for the FBI to tap from a central location as many phones as they want. Currently they want enough capacity to tap one home on every single residental block in America.
Got any more fears I can assuage by showing you how they already happened?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
You'd be neither the first nor last pro-choice advocate (assuming you are) who believes Roe.v.Wade was decided on a rather shaky interpretation of privacy rather than a firmer grounding in equal protection under the law. This is relevant to the privacy issue here, as it's the basis of civil rights cases against "profiling". The dragnet process of gathering evidence against a certain class of criminal (terrorists, drug dealers, etc) wherein suspicion (and thus monitoring) of every single contact is its own sort of profiling. Witness how open-ended investigations tend to creep (can we say "Monica Lewinsky"?)
The 21st century will be marked by the word "privacy" entering the lexicon of newspeak, joining the ranks of "family values".
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
No, it's because scientists cannot find empirical, verifiable evidence that better supports an alternative theory. Scientists are empiricists, and results that are not repeatedly verifiable are not good enough to be accepted as "science".
Many of the early scientists--Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus--were Christians.
Many of the earlier ones weren't. And several scientists were considered heretical for their beliefs by the Christian institutions of their time ( including Copernicus ) The Christian states were firm believers *against* questioning the "official" beliefs , in stark conrast to the (Athenian) Greeks ( who were by and large atheistic relativists ).
The idea of laws in nature came from one source: the biblical teaching that God is both Creator and Law-Giver.
Plato conceptualised similar things around 400 BC. Aristotle went on and fixed a lot of the things that Plato screwed up. For example, Aristotle moved from the idea that the universe is based on an "ideal" form to the idea that one can model the physical universe based on ones observations ( ie Aristotle was more an empiricist, while Plato was something of a theorist. ) Other Athenians conceptualised things such as the "law of particles" ( ie existence of atoms ) even earlier.
For example, when Galileo wanted to find out whether a 10-pound weight falls to the ground more quickly than a one-pound weight, he did not argue about the concept of weight, as was typical among the philosophers of his day. Instead, he dropped cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and watched what happened.
And boy, did that piss off the church of his day. Galileo was summoned before the inquisition and sentenced to life imprisonment ( after a lot of recanting and begging )
Perhaps this is because the theory of creation is not backed up by enough scientific evidence to hold water. The imperfections that you point to in Darwain's theory pale in comparison to the flaws in the theory that creationists propose ( moreover, the limitations of Darwins observations and accuracy are not astounding when you compare him with other scientists of the same era, whose theories were also imperfect )
It's not good enough for you guys to find flaws in the theory of evolution - because that theory being wrong doesn't make you right.
For example, the fact that Newton's laws left a lot ( ie reletavistic phenomena ) unexplained would not mean that another scientist proposing that heavier objects fall faster is correct. Your theory of creation needs to stand on it's own merits, not in slight demerits of an alternative theory
> Would Canada even admit a barbarian like me who doesn't speak French?
Just don't come to Québec. Elsewhere, they'll be glad to have another bloke...
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
If I'm not mistaken, it's the U.K., with its unparalled number of public cameras that is thrusting the entire civilized world into the paradigm of the surveylance society. I'd be real surprised if a national ID system and DNA cataloguing aren't just around the corner. And wasn't the U.K DIRECTLY involved with Echelon? As far as government invasiveness is concerend, the U.S. is no picnic, but I'd be at least as worried if I lived in the U.K.
Ugh. What rock did you crawl out from under?
Why don't you go form your own country then? The Federation of Aristocratic Assholes
I've spent most of my life in Canada, and I was pretty shocked to come down to the US and find out how much harder it is to protect privacy here than in Canada. So much for the `land of the free'; I find I prefer `socialist' Canada.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
This is a really good point. Another thing to note is that the UK is one of the few European countries (well, it's not really European--I guess that's part of the point :-)) that has managed to avoid a national ID system, and this is a achievement that they're proud of. The US, on the other hand, practically has one right now due to the number of institutions that demand your social security number, despite having nothing to do with your taxes at all.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
>You can carry a shotgun to church, but you cannot export strong encryption.
Aside from work, I carry a firearm most places that I go. So what? I also used to keep my entire HD encrypted way back when. So what?
Even though I think that it's stupid, I understand the reasoning for restricting crypto exports. The rules are made up by a bunch of fat old white guys who still believe that "EVERYTHING GOOD" comes from this country. According to that logic, if we stop strong crypto from getting out then, it won't exist outside of this country.
>The government has let the red herring of the gun debate captivate the public while it destroys all personal privacy.
Red herring?
Ask the Indians and white people in Angola if it's a red herring. Ask the Christians and educated people of Cambodia if it's a red herring. Ask the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals of Nazi occupied europe if it's a red herring.
Oh, I forgot, you can't ask them, their governments took their guns away and killed or expatriated them.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
>How can you bypass blowfish encryption on the passwords, PGP for emails etc?
Keyboard sniffers. A device that records or broadcasts every keystroke you make can be used to gather all of your passwords. When they feel that they have enough of them, they can go get a "proper" warrant, take your machine and have access to all of your goodies.
A rather low-tech solution to all of the high-tech encryption out there.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
>Right - because a few more handguns and they would have certainly defeated the German army.
The Jews in thw Warsaw ghetto kept the German army at bay with 10 cheap handguns. The Nazis had to burn it to the ground to get them out. If Afghanistan the soviets were kept at bay by people on horseback who had AKs and a few shoulder mounted missiles.
>This is the largest fallacy of the gun nuts - that guns can protect you against your goverment.
Anti-gun nuts seem to think that it's better to roll over and die rather than fight the good fight.
Didn't work at Waco. Wouldn't have worked in any of the instances you mentioned.
The FBI didn't murder EVERYONE at Waco, so yes it did work.
>Ask Randy Weaver how well guns protected his family against the government.
I've corresponded with the Weavers before. Randy, Rachel, Sarah, Elisheba and Kevin Harris are alive, and the Weavers are millionaires.
When Kevin put a bullet through Bill Degan's chest he was legally justified. Hence his aquittal.
It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
>Yes, and the #1 overwhelming culprit is guns. Anarchy in the US isn't working...and yes, when any moron can walk around carrying a semi-automatic handgun, that's anarchy.
This statement is only true if...
You mean someone who is physically capable of carrying one. Because not all states permit people to carry firearms. Fortunately my state does, and it has a rather low violent crime rate as a consequence of that.
But, by your reasoning anyone in the world can carry a semi-automatic handgun. After all, even if it's illegal it's still physically possible.
So according to you the entire world is plunged into anarchy.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I read this off of a teacher's wall. It was written by a Protestant minister about WWII. It's been a while so it's not perfect:
"In Germany, first the Nazis came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then, when they came for me, no one was left to speak up."
Basically you can't just say, "Well I don't use drugs or collect kiddie porn, so it's ok." Someday you just might be the one who is subject to persecution.
-matt
As an atheist I have to say I've never felt any persecution for my beliefs (or lack there of). Maybe that's because I am very quiet about my beliefs because I normally think that they really aren't anyone else's business and that no one else gives a crap. I have met my share of athiest-supremisists who feel all things religious are inheirently dumb. These people, imho, are no better than the christian-supremists who feel that it's their mission to save the world or destroy it trying.
Being an athiest wasn't a choice I came to easily, I actually thought about it, and in my mind there is no such thing as any type of god. Could I be wrong? Definately, but I also happen to believe that if there is a god, he's not going to damn someone an eternity of suffering just because that person didn't believe in him. I prefer to think that he would look at the person's character and how he lived his life.
Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, but in the end does it really matter what I believe or what you believe? Maybe if people spent a little less time praying for the homeless and went out and made sandwiches for the poor, or donated clothing to the salvation army, the world would be a better place. I once heard a catholic preist say something along the lines of "prayer is only the begining" meaning that, yes you should pray for people, but god isn't going to help them for you, you have to do that yourself. I also once heard a catholic priest say that if you help the homeless because it makes you feel good then you are doing it for the wrong reason, and that you should only help the homeless because god wants you to. Now if you ask me, if helping the homeless makes you feel good, you are a generally good person.
I think there was a point somewhere in there...
-matt
It's people like you who give the religious-supremists reasons to yell. Maybe in your opinion religion is stupid. I personally am an athiest too, but I don't think religious types are stupid. They just have a different belief set than I do, I hope most religious feel the same way about me. Live and let live.
-matt
Ok, christianity helped science by persecuting people who said anything that disagreed with the catholic church? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Also, evolution in no way denies the existance of god. It does deny the accuracy of genesis, however, which IMHO was never meant to be taken litterally in the first place. Evolution (and science in generally) do not deny the existance of god, they just assume that god doesn't interfere in the way things work. Besides, do you really think that if god created man and all and it was such a huge party for him, that he would have put us on the 3rd planet from an insignificant star, in the arm of a rather unimpressive galaxy?
Evolution may not be fact, but it's the closest thing we have to fact.
P.S. the gaps in the fossil record are do to the fact that fossilization only occurs in very specific and rather rare circumstances.
-matt
Hmm... the control of information is a key factor in the definition of a Totalitarian State.
... you've fought so hard for the "freedom" of other countries - yet you haven't concerned yourselves with the freedom of your own people!!
It seems that US citizens just can't seem to escape from their Gov't wanting to keep control of their information.
In a modern sense by definition, the US is part Totalitarian State. Scary huh? Do you American's remember fighting a few wars against the "evil communists" - who were also examples of Totalitarian States. I'm confused
I don't live in the US, but the thought of such intrusive Gov't powers frightens me. I'm actually quite glad that I'm not an American citizen and subject to such blatent invasions of privacy by my own Gov't.
I wish all of you US citizens good luck with opposing further constraints of your freedom by your Gov't.
Micro$oft are an evil company who want to hurt computer users everywhere and Linux Tolvards. The Department of Justice are now fighting to save all of us from evil M$, so I'm not surprised to see all this FUD from you MicroShaft supporters. Face it, the Department of Justice are right and when we have World Domination they will make sure that all software are Open Source and GPLed.
Go Linux!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It shoulda at least been a Score 2: Funny! Damn moderators are always screwin' me! :P
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Well said. The issue, of course, is that of verifiability , the notion that a scientific hypothesis can be disproved. Something the overly religious tend to conveniently ignore.
:-)
And when will these people actually read a bloody text on Genetics or Evolutionary Biology, instead of getting their information second-hand and sullied by the nearest tireless enemy of Reason?
Sorry, I guess I'm just tired of hearing so many half-truths coming from the mouths of these pontificates of credulity. When the story of creation as outlined by Biblical fantasy is put forward as a hypothesis testable by weight of impartial evidence, I'll take notice, rest assured. But I do not expect this to happen any time soon---religious people have far too much to lose. More importantly, those who maintain the culture of credulity which permeates our nation would have a lot of explaining to do...
This, of course, is the error the original author makes---the onus of proof is on the person proclaiming the existence of a fanciful (and literal) deus ex machina to explain away our current level of biodiversity. And attacking Darwinism (which no one teaches anymore to begin with---biologists have been doing a lot of work in the past century!) by no means serves as evidence of divine intervention. I wish more people would realise that...
Ultimately, you must take the chance of being demonstrably wrong to have any chance at all of glimpsing the Truth. Ask any scientist
Respectfully,
Michael
Amen, brother. I always though this was the best way.
Dirty Harry sees punk, and gets an uneasy feeling. "That punk is up to no good," he says, "and I aim to find out what." So he breaks into the punk's apartment. There, under the bed, is a box of stolen guns, which the punk sells to pay for his heroin habit.
Later, in court, Dirty Harry testifies that he found the stolen guns under the defendant's bed. Maybe Dirty Harry's partner corroborates. The jury believes that Harry is telling the truth. They are convinced that the event really happened, and the punk really was in possession of stolen guns. The punk is convicted and goes to the big house.
Later, the DA looks over the testimony, and see that Dirty Harry admitted under oath that he found the guns under the punk's bed. Harry didn't have a warrant. What was Harry doing in the punk's apartment?
It looks like a confession to Breaking and Entering. Either that or perjury. Either way, Harry is screwed, and it's a direct result of his disregard for due process. He's a criminal. Let him be the punk's cellmate for a few years, and justice will have been served.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
These aren't some crazy hacker computer criminals that are getting free access to your computer, it's the government.
I fear the government more than I fear "crazy hacker computer criminals".
Just imagine how it would feel to bust some drug dealers and get their computer hardware and browse through their files and see that all the files are encrypted.
Well, since the drug dealer has not done anything wrong I don't see the problem. In this hypothetical situation, I'd feel like the good guys won a battle -- the evil nasty feds have been stopped by the underdog hero.
Stop the drug war!
(And no, I'm not a drug dealer or even an "illegal" drug user. Hell, I don't even smoke nicotine or drink alcohol. But the war on drugs and the war on privacy are just two of the abuses of power that the US government has taken upon itself. These things have to stop.)
The cops where I live are fairly nice anyway. It is rare to see someone get pulled over going 10 mph over the posted limit.
Unjust laws cannot be tolerated. Just because they're not enforced doesn't mean that they should be left intact! Years later, someone may actually be prosecuted (or persecuted, depending on your point of view) under an unjust law that's been on the books for a very long time.
The most egregious offenders in this category are laws governing sexual conduct between consenting adults. In many states, oral sex is illegal. In many other, anal sex is illegal. The list goes on and on and on....
I also feel that many of the speed limit laws are unjust. The speed limits are set too low and don't take into account important factors such as time of day, density of traffic, etc. While 25 MPH may be a reasonable upper bound on speed on a given street at 11:00 AM, when all of the businesses are open, it may be completely unrealistic at, say, 7:00 AM when there are no local businesses open and one is simply driving along this numbered state route in order to get to the highway to get to work in another city. (I don't drive along that road any more. Now I go a different way, even though it's longer.)
The police use these low speed limits in order to maintain their power over individuals. Everyone who drives speeds -- the speed limits are so low that you can't not speed! That makes everyone who drives a criminal. Now that everyone is a criminal, the police can selectively choose which "criminals" (read: helpless citizens) they will terrorize today. And you've heard about "driving while black", I hope. What will we have next -- "driving while atheist"? "driving while carrying a gun"? "driving while being a nerd"? "driving while smoking"? You can see how our rights are eroded, slowly but viciously, over time.
Cryptography has the same power. The US government is trying is damnedest to make crypto illegal. That way, you will have to be a criminal in order to have any privacy in your communications. In the near future, the majority of communications channels will be encrypted (I can't see cleartext transmissions continuing as the standard for more than 10-20 years from now -- there's just too much that can go wrong, especially when considering e-commerce), and so once again (if the USA succeeds in outlawing encryption) everyone will be a criminal and thus subject to the terrorism of the government.
If anyone can think of any way to stop this nightmare, please let me know. I write letters to Congress, etc., but I don't think it will be enough.
yours is the sort of point I was wondering about as I read the threads from this article. As we have recently seen, the American law enforcement community, particularly at the federal level, seems woefully behind the curve where internet/information control is concerned. Part of the problem is public perception, since all will agree that the relevant technology is evolving faster than the lawmaking process allows for, so that the law enforcement community ends up looking silly when they have standards in place that are outdated when the are adopted. But a greater part of the problem really is a stupidity problem, but not stupidity at the technical level (as posters noted here recently, everyone believes that certain branches of the govt are waaaaay out front on REAL strong encryption) but on a political level, cause the right hand not only does not know what the left hand is doing, it is patently uninterested until it becomes politically profitable to become interested....and by then it is, by default, too late. I would suggest that the specter of required 'breakability' in encryption/privacy technology has roughly the same chance of actually affecting society as the current 'anti-evolution' movement....the respective genies having long ago left the bottle.
I drink to make other people more interesting
Probably be easier to screw the LEAF (Law Enforcement Access Field) so the key-recovery doesn't work. Nobody would know unless they tried to decrypt...
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Just stop and think for a moment. These aren't some crazy hacker computer criminals that are getting free access to your computer, it's the government. With A LOT of revision to this, it may be a good idea. Such as, for NO REASON whatsoever would they be allowed to access it through the internet, thats just asking for trouble. Maybe some type of key built into any encryption programs that would allow the goverment, while on the premises and with a search warrant or something, to recover keys for encrypted files. Just imagine how it would feel to bust some drug dealers and get their computer hardware and browse through their files and see that all the files are encrypted. Those could be the names and addresses of thousands of drug dealers and users, not to mention other very bad things. This is only as much of an invasion of privacy as when the police get a search warrant and come into your home and look through your sock drawers. Nobody ever whined about that. Just take a moment and think about that before you flame the life out of me.
---------------------------
---------------------------
I believe the reasons most religion-haters don't have anything against Eastern Philosophies (Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc) are thus:
1. Although this is easily argued against, these are philosophies, not religions.
2. There aren't as many people who follow these belief systems as there are the other major religions in the US.
3. I've never had a Buddhist tell me I'm going to hell for what I don't believe or how I live my life. I've never had a Hindu try to convert me or tell me I'm evil for eating a cheeseburger. If Hindu's had the same mindset as christians, eating meat would be punishable by death.
At least, that's my personal take on it... I'm probally wrong. I usually am.
Oh, and if you think religious people are persecuted, try being an Atheist sometime.
Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
You said:
Everytime you take libertarians to task over privacy issues, they call you a Nazi. Fact is they probably never carried a M-16 in defense of the country; so go figure....
Sounds odd.....
Wasn't Jesse Ventura a former Navy seal? I am pretty sure he carried a few M-16's in his time...and I am not a fan of controls on crypto, but no one's ever called me a Nazi for it either.
Don't tell me that's all there is! I WANT MORE!!
This guy writes good stuff, don't stop now!
No kidding!
And what about the persecution of, well... different individuals...
I'm starting to wonder where I should move to! (as in, another country.. or preferably, my own island in international waters, but I'm willing to bet even the smallest have been claimed)
Sure, a revolution...
But this will likely mean bloodshed, even if its only people freaking out and killing others because they think they need to defend themselves to the death because there is no longer a government...
More likely, we'd end up something like Snow Crash (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but.. hell, Uncle Enzo for President!!!)
The Constitution is both symbolicly and physically the soul of the US of A, or at least, what the forefathers wanted it to be. Also, many beleive the Constitution will protect them, no matter what - especially those who don't even know what and how many amendments there are. It is true that the whole system of government is set up around the Constitution and the ammendments, but this has in reality lost meaning.
:D
:)
Today it is more a symbol that we like to look to and say, that is what will take care of us, even though it does not specify that it should do so in most ways it is assumed to do so.
For instance, many take the phrase about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to mean that nothing can stop us from being happy, and if it does, big brother government will fix it for us. This is of course not the case - it just says that everyone is given a chance, however slim.
In a way the Constitution has no more real value than the local (american) football team to most people. They may root for the team, and they may brag about them, but most don't really care. As long as no one beats the team... then we get mad.
But, I digress.. I've written quite a bit more than I intended and I really need some sleep
I've had about 4 hours of sleep in the past day, does that mean I'm addicted ? (Doh! Wrong article!)
Anyways, I hope you get my point(s), if I have/had any.. at this point I can't even remember all I've said..
"The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems slip through your fingers!" - We all know who, from we know what movie :)
Uh... Reality check.. Many great scientists may have been christian, but if you check the history books you'll find that most of the time the religious establishment(s) completely stood against many of the early discoveries/acheivments/inventions...
i.e., the idea that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and that the starts were not big chandaleirs or somesuch but actually more suns like our own..
Software authoring is like authoring a book - it is a form of free speach. If anyone argues against that, take their asses to the supreme court and get a lot of TV coverage in your favor.
Even worse:
Look at the percentage of voter turnout: Lowest ever!
Make your vote count!
Sorry, off on a rant in the Fascist State of Harrisland, oops, I mean "Ontario"
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
> but the secret panel of FBI judges still exists
Man, I'm gonna have to get around to watching my copy of "The Star Chamber" tonight.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
in the novel _1984_, the government redefined words to mean exactly what they wanted them to mean. this was called newspeak.
since 1973, privacy has meant that the government may not protect the life of a fetus, skirting the issue of just what sort of non-person a fetus is.
soon, privacy shall mean that the government can snoop into one's records or communications whenever it wants.
a government that can redefine words' meaning to give to one group can later redefine words' meaning to take from others. (please don't take this as an anti-abortion polemic as much as an observation of the downside of legal positivism.)
...Yes, governments worldwide are scared of the web, and cracking down. But it's like nailing jelly: the tighter you try to grip it, the more of it will slip through your fingers.
Their desire to keep the vast syrupy organism of government alive will only hasten its demise. Yes, many of us will be hurt in the process; many martyrs will be created. But in the end, the net will win and government will die, irrelevant, unneeded, and unloved. Give it ten years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Read The Microsoft Matrix at chrisworth.com
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
FWIW, the US government happened to wage a bombing campaign on a lot of Cambodia and then proceeded to support the Khmer Rouge. In the eighties, I believe the Khmer Rouge got something like 50 million a year from the US.
In any case, guns even something like an assualt rifle does little against a laser guided bomb or artillery fire.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
The Viet Cong had the support of virtually all of the population in rural areas. The US had to "relocate" the people in villages to hamlets in order to "protect" the populace. Of course, the villages then had to be bombed to prevent the Viet Cong from using them (nevermind the fact that some of the villagers were still living there).
Vietnam isn't really a good example since in that case most of the populace supported the Viet Cong (in an UN sponsored election the Viet Cong recieved 80-90 percent of the vote,of course the US managed to ignore this). It's a little hard to wage war in a country when no one really supports your side.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
By the way, Galileo never did drop balls off the leaning tower of pisa. In fact, if he did it would have created the opposite conclusion than what he came up with. What he did was a thought experiment; he imagined balls of different weights attached along a rope. This rope was then dropped. He deducted, rightly, that if objects of different weights fell at different speeds the rope would be pulled apart by the balls. Since that cannot, and does not, happen Galileo came to the correct conclusion. The whole Tower of pisa thing is a popular myth.
But there's still some, even now, who aren't exactly tolerant of atheism.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I hope that your posting was submitted using strong encryption, or posting anonymously will bode you no protection. You think that the government doesn't monitor this hotbed of individualism? Don't look out your window, they will know by now that we are on to them...
If the government finds nothing of interest after investigating me secretly... Will I ever be informed that they broke into my home/computer? Or is it just another sunny day in America?
Are you religious? You think the constitution will protect you from the growing anti-religious sentiment in this country?
:)
I think most anti-religious sentiments come from other religions.
In light of this sentiment, the rest of your article makes absolutely NO sense. Why bother to complain about the legalization of new evidence gathering methods if you don't think the government should be held to any law in this area? Why be upset over the possibility of a court order if you think the cops sould be able to just break in to somebody's house with no probable cause and examine their computer? After all, they might be dangerous!
Do you think that your personal standard of what criminals are "dangerous" is going to be used to decide who gets due process and who doesn't?
They only way protections like this work at all is if everybody recieves them, all the time. No individual or group of people should be allowed to declare an individual or group "dangerous" and void their rights. That's what the whole idea of the Bill of Rights is about.
The consequences of moving the direction you tacitly propose are far more terrifying than any creeping expansion of the idea of "due process", as that will always have the static text of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court as checks. Throw that out for anybody and you lose everything for everybody.
A good response, but I do have a caveat about one part of it: Mr. Johnson wrote: "Assuming that there is no God involved is not the same as proving it. And requiring the teaching of a theory based on the assumption that there is no God is substantially equivalent to an establishment of naturalism and/or atheism as a state religion." Both these statements are quite true. What I jibe at is what seems to be an underlying assumption: If I teach a theory that does not require the existence of God, then I am teaching that God does not exist. I have to say that IMHO, that does not follow. It is rather like saying that if all the laws that I obey have been created by Conservitives or Liberals, then I am proving that the New Democratic Party does not exist. I also submit that nowhere in the thory of evolution is it posited that there is no deity. The question does not arise, to be sure, but that is not equivalent to saying that there is none. I have a fairly firm belief in God. I just don't expect to be able to prove it. And even if everything I saw was explainable in terms that did not require the existence of God, my belief would not diminish. I think the only thing required to allow a belief in the Deity, is a belief that life has more meaning than simple existence. Your mileage may vary. I think his advice to all you Yanks is good tho.
Get real, buddy. Mental illness exists, I'm sorry to say, and sometimes the mentally ill are dangerous. My first bit of advice to you would be to stop reading scary books and reader's digest articles and take a look at how mental illness is treated in the REAL world. My second bit of advice would be to read a few medical journals about the _actual_ effects of CNS drugs like the ones you mention. Reading your words, I would like to call you abnormally paranoiac and delusional, but because it's the nineties, and because I'm not decieved by hype and sound bites as you are, I think I'll just diagnose you as silly.
This looks to me like a standard Vigenere(sp) cipher - "rotating" each letter of the plaintext by the numerical equivalent of the corresponding letter of the keyphrase, looping over the keyphrase when necessarry.
Unfortunately, long Vigenere ciphertext with the same keyphrase is succeptible to the same kind of lexical attack as normal rotation encryption.
IIRC, the difficulty of breaking the ciphertext increases linearly with the length of the key. Perhaps if we used a really *LONG* key (like an entire iso9660 disk image parsed as ascii) it might be usable for a special-purpose crypto system, but it would be unweildy for genereal use.
A scheme like the one I described was used in Cryptonomicon, where two of the characters had identical copies of the same "white noise" records which were used to encrypt/decrypt a telephone conversation.
Man, this is really off-topic, but this kind of slippery rhetoric really irks me.
By your logic, all science, not simply evolutionary theory, is "atheistic".
That contradicts the fact that you attribute the success of science on it's Christian influence.
Science makes no assumption the existence of the supernatural, but it does assume is that the laws of the universe do not change. It does not make any claims against the existence of God, but it does assume that God does not fiddle with the universe. Otherwise, no scientific measurement or observation could be trusted because there would be no way of determining if the result was affected by "outside" influence.
A theory that suggests things that contradict your religion is not itself a religion. Otherwise, most all of science is a religion, because I'm sure there are elements in every religion that contradict some well established theory of science.
Now, are you suggesting we stop teaching science completely? You can't pick and choose which theories fit your worldview which ones don't. The fundamental principle of science is that nothing is assumed with 100% certainty. That means you can't entirely discount theories with little evidence, but you'd be downright foolish to ignore those with compelling evidence, even if you have reasons to disagree with them. For this reason it is disingenuous to deny children knowledge of evolutionary theory because it inadvertently steps on the toes of a few religions.
I'd hate to suggest that you might be wrong, but I think you haven't really looked at the rest of the world very thouroughly. Australia is at least as (if not more) "multicultural" as the US, but we have violent crime rates an order of magnitude lower. The UK is also extremely culturally diverse (despite what the rest of the world might think), and has similarly low crime rates.
I could cite many other countries in the same situation: this suggests to me that the US is the anomaly, not the norm. I wouldn't blame it all on guns, or drugs, or the poverty of black americans, or any of those nice easy targets, but there is _something_ that's disfunctional about the US. Simply saying that it's because you're bigger, badder, meaner, whatever seems to be arguing from the symptoms, rather than the cause.
My 0.02 A$ . . . but if people put enough of them in, it might add up to something useful . . .
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Lotek---
I think that, even if the relationship isn't all that direct, speed limits are a good and frighteningly well accepted example of the same kind of mentality that lets the government take all sorts of things away from people, even if they shouldn't be taken away, and his example was a good illustration of that.
If the reason speeding is bad is that you're more likely to have an accident if you do it, thus either injuring someone or damaging their property, why do we need a new law against speeding? Isn't it already illegal to injure other people or damage their property? It's (roughly) attacking a symptom rather than a problem. That's bad, because a symptom is not necessarily proportionate to the problem.
It's the same mentality that lets them dig around looking for symptoms in order to prevent the larger problems, thus saving the children and all that crap. That digging around being what's in question here...
And as for the "the cops are nice anyway" idea, I just can't finish up without expressing how much I hate that one.. If you see it as a good thing that nobody gets pulled over for going 10 over the limit, isn't there something wrong with the limit? Nobody minds because, like you said, the cops are "nice" and don't fine you, but of course you're all convieniently breaking the law, just in case they ever decide they do want to fine you. Maybe you looked at them funny or something...
I haven't really got much interest in the rest of your comment, but I did think it'd be fun to point out that nobody called anybody a Nazi.. You were the first one to use the word, except the guy who said "Ask the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals of Nazi occupied europe if it's a red herring," but the only people he was calling Nazis were, well, Nazis.
Although I did notice you calling people pinheads.. hmm.. go figure..
God help us if we trample on the sacred rights of smokers even if they can cause cancer in others or cause a host of respiratory ailments in their children. Or the God given right of the Freemen to pass bad checks. Maybe it's just me but it seems like religion has been getting stronger, not weaker.
I agree that the government should not be in the bedrooms of the country. However, that belief does not justify the actions of the Tax Evaders, or Corporate Tobacco, or some gun extremists.
If nobody paid taxes, there would be no way of enforcing law - the law would be made by the person with the biggest gun or the fastest draw. Common defence would not exist - militia just doesn't cut it in this day and age. Roads would be a hell of a lot more expensive. There would be no recourse to the law if some large company was dumping toxic waste in you drinking water - after all they could hire more goons than you could.
But the only way any of this has anything to do with privacy is when it has become apparent that someone has broken the law. The tobacco companies did something wrong and were investigated. The freemen did something wrong and were investigated. Gun dealers will sell to anyone and their brother - including recent escapees - and deserve investigation. And hey, people have been killed in road rage incidents. But in all these situations privacy was not broached until a crime -or civil tort- was commited. There are exceptions like Ruby Ridge, but the people involved have recourse to the law. And while I agree that the volk at Ruby Ridge have a case I definitely would not want them as my neighbors with the arsenal they have.
Anyway, my point is this. If you do something wrong you should be investigated. By "something wrong" I mean doing something that harms another. That includes blowing smoke in their face, not paying your fair share in taxes, and selling poisonous products to kids.
Laws exist to prevent people from hurting other people. Maybe they are good laws, maybe bad, but that does not give us the right to ignore them. What's interesting is that every example quoted in the last paragraph of the article resulted in some harm being done to individuals and society. I cannot have any sympathy for those who arbitrarily cause harm to others.
Oh well, no point in steering now.
One of the things that make living in this country great a guarantee of privacy. Europe has learned what we have already forgot in 215 years. That a person home is his castle and you just can't go in and invade it just because they kept their shades shut. If I encrypt something on my computer and the police can't decrypt it well tough what reason should they ever have to look at my files. Ninety percent of the computer users in the world do nothing wrong and will be punished for the ten percent. And the 10% that use their computers for illegal activities would never leave a copy on a harddrive anyhow. So what is the point of this bill?? It is just a few paranoid, power hungry, egomaniac's that are using people's fears to control everybody. Remember that the people that vote this bill in will be the one's who put the judges onto the bench who will sign the warrants. And a final question who will watch the watchers??
Don't panic - Hitchhikers guide 2 the galaxy
The government that was instated in 1776 was there to insure that the white, male, land owning aristocracy would retain their own liberty as well as control of the government. Ordinary citizens were considered too stupid to vote or be given any responsibility in governement.
You have to understand that our police trying to make their jobs easier is not a massive government conspiracy. Out police, FBI, etc. try want to make their jobs easier (a privacy-free police state looks very good in their eyes). But, that's not the view of the entire government. In fact, Congressman want to pass any bill that will keep them in the spotlight for another week or two. (You see, they want to be Senators.) This means doing what the people want, even if it's not the right thing to do. If we get everyone rallied behind an operation to smash the moon into china, they'll do it! Then of course, you have the president. Somehow, a figurehead with power. He's just there for spin control. His job is to say "No! Personal barcodes on the citizens is a good thing! Anyone who disagrees is a radical." Other than these few government officials (police, congress, president), our government is pretty much how it should be.
The US is chock full of dogs (eg. Bill Gates) and pigs (Tipper Gore) as well.
:-)*
Though that can be said of any country, it seems easier to apply it to the US than many other places.
I assume you're a Pink Floyd fan and understood that first sentence
Absolutely great album.
This is only as much of an invasion of privacy as when the police get a search warrant and come into your home and look through your sock drawers. Nobody ever whined about that. Just take a moment and think about that before you flame the life out of me.
/. article.
The whined about it years ago. Now the Net is a hot topic. Illegal searches are already quite accepted.
With the sealed warrant provision it's straight out of KAFKA, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ACCUSED OF.
For the smart asses: That provision is in a previous
Just imagine how it would feel to bust some drug dealers and get their computer hardware and browse through their files and see that all the files are encrypted. Those could be the names and addresses of thousands of drug dealers and users, not to mention other very bad things.
If I didn't know better I'd say you were an aspiring flame artist. Very bad things. I love it.
Very bad things indeed. Lose all your freedoms for an infinitesimal amount of marijuana, but you get to scare the hell out of your domestic abuse victim when you get out.
Until I see a fed who can crack into a box without hiring a cracker and then can tell me how to block the hole and then have him/her crack it again and tell me how to close that hole real tight. No thank you. Then again, perhaps crackers with a conscience can slow things down a bit. Don't tell me crackers don't send people suggestions to fixing their boxes. Doesn't the gov't do crash tests?
Bullshit.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I'd love to see their faces when they find a harddrive with Luke! I'm your father, all over it.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
To scare the crap out of you. Back to your cubicle, asap.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Laws of nature exist so that time and space don't collapse.
Constitutions exist... depends on who wrote them.
Laws on people... ditto.
Wake up.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Nudity is in the same category as the desensitizing effect of bullets flying everywhere but no one getting killed (convincingly)?
Since when?
Go Home Mr. Hale.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I'm going to get arthritis writing the same letter over and over again.
I'm 23 for God's sake.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Guess what? Those Nazi media whores are using the problem as an excuse to create chaos.
.sig)
The wrong side is at it again. (sounds like a cool
They destroyed the Revolution in 1917 and turned it into a power grab, the opposite of what was intended.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
1600's Calvinist totalitarians (Pilgrims on a journey my ass) escape the wrath of Catholic totalitarians
Salem. Nuff said.
1770's Unpopular Declaration of Independence discussed behind closed doors. All who wanted to be in had to sign. This meant if they were found or the war lost they would be shot.
Big debate on women voting too.
'Course it wasn't too long before we pulled a Columbus on Indians, Mexico.
So don't be surprised. We need a more direct response to this.
When Germany ordered Jews to wear yellow markers, all of Denmark wore them without even thinking twice. It was obvious what they had to do.
So start encrypting long repetitititions of "Mom, I'm at the store. I'll bring my commie friends home tonight."
Check out
Freenet
Ompages
Link Farm
They're trying to reinvent the Earth and conquer it before people get their rightful share. If you really don't want to see pedophiles on the net, your best bet is to claim some part of the net and get over your fears. Otherwise we're guaranteed to see the net auctioned off to superpowers and rampant with crime. There's too much power in it for the assholes to pass up.
Go see Senate on the net and House on th net
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
If you do, you'd better pray that the Canadian govt doesn't fall prey to the same anti-privacy, anti-liberty sentiment that has infected the US govt. Prayer is all you'll have because you can't protect your rights yourself - Canada has someo f the most restrictive gun-laws on the books.
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)
Well you do have a larger population, but not a more diverse one. Toronto was named by the UN the most multicultural city in the world for the nth year running.
Hey! Come to Canada! We have the least amount of persecution in North America! Which means we only burn one or two people at the stake a week. Tell me that's not inviting. You could live a few years before someone gets around to screwing up the rights that pertain to you. ;)
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Personally, I think that people who advocate the enforcement of our constitutional rights are not nuts. The ACLU, NAACP, and the NRA (yes them)are all groups that protect certain rights. There are others too numerous to mention, but even these three have been attracted controversy in their activities. This article was good at demonstrating probable violations by law enforcment(Ruby Ridge, Drug Wars, etc.) that would happen. The law enforcement agencies of this country have a few bad members who are the reason we have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and siezure.
A right to privacy is a price that the government will have to put up with in this country. The whole reason this country was founded can be found in the first 10 amendments.
The example of the police targeting anti abortion protesters or of this so called anit-religeous sentiment in this country smacks of conservatism and bad rhetoric. I have lived hear for 18 years and the only problem I have ever encountered is the gradual erosion of my rights and freedoms at the expansion of big government in the area of law enforcement. Why are drug users and child pornagraphers always mentions as the "main targets"? It is to scare us into giving up our rights to their control. Megalomania seems to be rampant in our government.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Why do you feel it necessary to be an AC? I will say right here, with identity and email address easily traceable back to me IRL, that the American "democracy" has gone so far from any ideals of such a system that the more I learn about it the more it scares me.
Like what, a quarter of you bother to vote at all? You have two political parties, always using the same rhetoric against one another, never arguing any real issues (the US is a one party state - one politic, two policies), and in the end people vote for the guy with the most air time and the biggest bullshit smile. The real power to do anything falls in the hands of professional lobbyists, lawyers, and a fantastically ingenious system of institutionalized corruption (campaign contributions etc).
You have leaders who will sit above you and say straight out that because cryptography is the ONLY way you have a chance gain true privacy, they will fight it at any cost. You have a press and a people willing to advocate in infringement on the most basic freedoms as long as it is under the guise of "save our children".
You don't need a revolution. You need a fucking nihilism. You need to tear the whole thing down and start right from the beginning. Democracy may have served the braindead masses of the Industrial age - but only one kind of state can hold the networks of the information age. The individual is all.
wow... I feel better now
Where do you get this odd notion that the theory of evolution is "based on the assumption that there is no God"? The two assertions (evolution and theism) have no bearing on one another.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp, Lest Darkness Fall
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
And when Clinton and his minions are in prison (don't-bend-over-for-the-soap prison, not Club Fed), then you can make the case that I should trust the government. Not before.
And finally, no I am not kidding. The Police are only doing a thankless job.
Police who uphold the law are doing a thankless job. Police who break the law are criminals. Anyone attempting to weaken our institutional protections against the latter is taking the side of criminality.
While you might rail against them in your comments; think about what it might be like if they weren't at the end of 911.
It would be pretty bad if we didn't have doctors and firefighters, too. I'm not letting them crack into my computer, either.
I was serious, either work within the system to change it
Yes -- for instance, I support the original article's suggestion that the people responsible for this proposal should be drummed out of law enforcement for the same reason a convicted pedophile would be drummed out of day care. That's a fine example of working within the system.
Of course, if the system fails to sanction people who so blatantly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, then that indicates that the system is broken.
Libertarians seem to support all sorts of attitudes towards personal freedoms, until it come to discussion of opinions that are contrary to theirs. Then, they attack you...that seems to go against the idea of personal expression. Odd isn't it, where they want double standards like that?
Pointing out the gaping holes in your argument is free expression. Attempts to equate rebuttal with suppression are the last refuge of the intellectually incompetent.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
It is also not a given that you will die if you jump out a tenth-story window, but it would not be prudent to take the chance.
However, seems like everytime I post a comment this, people quote T Jefferson (A little revolution every now and then is a good thing) etc.
Hmmm... whose opinions should carry more weight when it comes to the foundations of the Republic? Anonymous Chemist... Thomas Jefferson... Anonymous Chemist... Thomas Jefferson... Tough choice -- NOT!
Fact is, if the founding fathers never had any idea of our modern world
This is the same inane argument offered by gun controllers and Internet censors. AC would have us accept that freedom of the press only applies to hand-cranked manual-typeset presses and the right to keep and bear arms only applies to muzzle-loaded muskets.
God forbid we ever have to worry about biological warfare.
They had biological warfare in the eighteenth century. Or did you think they passed out blankets from smallpox patients to the Indians out of generosity?
But no, in the defense of a minority of criminals rights, we should tie up the hands of law enforcement?
In the defense of the Constitutional rights of all citizens, we should require the police to obey the laws they have sworn to uphold.
(It's at times like this that I think of what "oathbreaker" means in the pagan tradition, and the sort of punishments considered appropriate to this sin. Being a sentimental softie, I'd be satisfied to send lawbreaking cops to prison.)
Nor did [the Founders] have any idea that the country they founded would be the leading SuperPower.
Indeed they didn't -- they had advised in the strongest possible terms against any such course. Being classically educated, they understood very well the process by which Republic degenerates into Empire.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
1) Provide 20 examples where a child molester's arrest and prosection was in significant doubt due to their use of personal encryption. Provide further example of how their use of encryption prevented *any* evidence collection, be it biological, photographic or text based.
2) Provide the current results of those 20 investigations.
3) Provide the current number of drug trafficking investigations hinging solely on access to encrypted evidence. Again, I'm looking to see if and how this prevented physical evidence collection or phone wire tapping.
4) Provide the current number and status of investigations involving suspected terrorists, foreign and domestic, whose investigation hinges solely on access to encrypted evidence.
5) Provide the number of criminal investigations in the United States. Further provide the number of those cases who's outcomes were determined two or more types of evidence. Provide specific examples of the evidence involved. Finally, provide the number of cases in which the accused was found to use encryption for phones or computers.
6) Provide an explanation for why private, law-abiding citizens should be asked to sacrifice the liberty of privacy using the citations given above. Further explain how such this proposal would pass constitutional muster before federal courts.
In reference to the above criteria, i don't want to leave the impression that privacy is something to be sold in exchange for a few specific events. But I'd like to see quite a few specifics rather than
--
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
2. Citizens become paranoid, resentful about Government.
3. Government becomes worried about resentful paranoid Citizens.
4. Government increases monitoring of citizens.
This should probably be remedied, before it explodes.
-- $SIGNATURE
Even without deliberate tampering, there's no way to create a culturally unbiased test - there's already enough of a problem with the SATs.
It may be true that there are people too stupid to be allowed to particpate in government. The problem is, who gets to make that determination? As soon as you let the government decide who can vote and who can't, you've given them too much power to perpetuate their own rule.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It's interesting that our educational systems have fallen far enough that people actually think we created a government in 1776, when what we really did was announce our intention to break free of England.
The Articles of Confederation that were the original blue-print for government in the colonies, were an unworkable farce, and were replaced by the Constitution ( which has its problems) in the 1780's, but at least allowed us to be an actual nation, not just a bunch of squabbling children.
I'm all for protecting my rights and privacy, but if you want to stop what the government is trying to do, exercise your franchise and vote! Maybe you could run for office and try to make an actual change...
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. -- Jerry Pournelle
The reason the gov't can buttrape us like this is because we just sit here and type out our problems. In order to get anything done we need to be IN-THEIR-FACES about the whole matter. Anyone for grassroots slashdot pollitical campaigns? I'd be welcome to startup the Los Angeles division!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
i already use a boot disk instead of LILO to access my linux partition, how would i make it so my system uses some sort of secure bootdisk that if not in the drive would automatically corrupt all my data beyond recovery?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Im suprised the govt doent welcome microsoft with open arms as compared to OSS. If the gov't wanted to they could force ole billy to put gov't eavesdropping bugs in software to filter and forward dangerous content written in ms word and such under the pretenses of 'microsoft update'. OSS it the gov't's worst enemy in terms of things because they cant control it and the program's bowel's are split wide open for all the world to see and screen.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
No, better than mailing your deaf congresspeople, form localized grassroots slashdot groups. Anywhere theres a tech sector or group of geeks who dont want to see their rights raped from them by the feds. I'm suprised that the only group thats even tried this is 2600.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Right - because a few more handguns and they would have certainly defeated the German army.
The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto nearly defeated the SS with pitchforks. Give 'em a pistol and see what they could have done. And Israel defended itself in 1948 with small arms.
Didn't work at Waco. Wouldn't have worked in any of the instances you mentioned.
You cannot prove that negative statement.
Ask Randy Weaver how well guns protected his family against the government.
He was able to force a standoff long enough to preserve his life, if not the life of his family.
Perhaps a more intelligent example would be the Viet Cong against the US military...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
BZZZT - the vietcong would have defeated the US even with plastic spoons - they were willing to accept losses
/. will not be among them, but it's okay. We'll fight for your freedom, too.
far greater than America was willing to accept. They won through attrition.
If there are 500,000 soldiers in the Army, and 100 million armed citizens in America, how is the Vietnamese analogy incorrect?
After all, we were willing to accept horrible losses in the Revolutionary War. In the *next* revolution, Americans will again be willing to die to preserve liberty. The cowards who regularly post hoplophobic hysteria on
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
If we've done a better job at ensuring our rights in the digital age than our neighbours, then maybe the best thing is to inform our neighbours that there is a better way. It is then up to them to get in touch with their elected representatives and let them know that _The_People_ do not approve of these crappy laws. If this fails, it is a failure of democracy.
If our sometimes more liberal approach sometimes helps our neighbours stay free, then we've done more than to smugly shout "Hey, move up here."
-M
That's interesting that even people outside of this forsaken country can see this, yet 95% of the citizens can't.
Anyone wanna guess what the final straw will be and when it will come to wake up a majority of the country to the fact that nothing is going to change until there's some sort of _drastic_ action taken?
Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need!
I'm doing my best not to sound like a bleeding heart liberal here, but like the Katz issues with the cinema and such it seems many people are missing the point. Most criminals are criminals for reasons other than wanting to be badass criminals. Look at other nations in the world. There is something desperately sick and wrong with our society.
I personally believe that the moralistic, misguided, utterly confused perversion of Xianity that the majority adhere to in America shares a large portion of the fault, but being just a dumb webhead fresh out of the worst CS program in the nation, my opinion may not qualify for much.
Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need!
if we throw our government out the window, I might not be able to get on the net for at least a month
---
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who understand unary, and those who don't.
See, the problem is I've been pitched on the subject of Christianity hundreds of times during my life. I started out life as a Catholic and voluntarily left the church just before confirmation. I've since met many rational religious people who have my greatest respect, and discussed religion with them as well. I know what its about.
When someone insists on trying to convince me, they are being somewhat arrogant in assuming I haven't already thought the issue out for myself. Do you REALLY think there is anyone who, if drawn to Christianity, can't find the resources to help them? Sure there's not a component of recruiting for YOUR particular brand of Christianity, rather than helping people find the religious support suited best for them?
Basically - why play missionary when its infinitely more effective to show people by making a difference in the way you live your life?Thats how your religion started, remember? If Christianity could produce people that emulated Christ it would be great. It has failed miserably at that in my opinion.
You sound like a reasonable Christian, and I didn't mean to jump on you. But I'm fed up with those that think they've got a lock on truth and are duty bound to spread it. We've all heard about Christianity, some of us have decided its not for us. Deal.
Jim
Most really religious people would call me an atheist too. I don't, because I can imagine things in the universe that math and science can't explain, like the origin of physical laws. I think there will be other disciplines, just as unimaginable now as science was 2000 years ago. This is belief, personal, and unprovable.
To say religion is dumb is just not helpful. You're impugning an awful lot of people, more than half the world's population, some of whom are very obviously not dumb. Even if it were true, so what, what can you do about dumb? Ignorant can be cured, but not stupid or dumb. I don't think religion "needs" curing, but it sounds like you do, so better call it ignorance.
Atheism has a large problem, it essentially is just the refusal to believe in something, it offers no knowledge and suggests no way of life. I think it better to be called a skeptic - one who only believes in what can be shown by direct evidence. Hey, the religious folks may be wrong, but at least they're trying to understand the universe and our place in it!
Jim
Sorry, but the government is already too good at sabatoging the educational system. Don't give them more motivation.
"I personally believe that the moralistic, misguided, utterly confused perversion of Xianity that the majority adhere to in America shares a large portion of the fault, but being just a dumb webhead fresh out of the worst CS program in the nation, my opinion may not qualify for much."
Well, as a 47 year old dweeb, I have to say I agree. I'd trace it back to Puritanism. The notion that the purpose of life is to work and make your local CEO richer, not for exploration and enjoyment. Anything like music or sex that suggests otherwise is to branded sinful and corrupting and carefully controlled. Brainwash the young especially carefully -- they're the most likely to think for themselves! Violence in the pursuit of purity is no sin.
Plus corporations have become ends in themselves instead of a means for individuals to work together.
Jim
"Have you ever tried to convince someone of the benefits of Linux and/or Open Source Software?"
Sure, but I don't tell them that if they don't agree that Linus is merciful and all-loving and start using Linux he will torture them even past the end of the physical universe. I don't even tell them Bill Gates will, though that's closer to the truth. That's emotional blackmail, not conversation. If one of them asked me to shut up about Linux, I would.
In other words I have conversations with friends, sometimes about religion sometimes about Linux, but I try to argue objectively, if passionately, and with respect for their core beliefs, which may differ from mine without harm to either of us.
Trust me, being subjected to an attempted religious conversion is not the same at all. Two people can't really converse if one of them thinks they already know all the important answers.
Jim
I'm sure every baptist church, catholic cathederal, and mormon temple has a gas chamber in the basement. (note: sarcasm being used here). I think you are way off. Because somebody is quiet and they want to save me, doesn't mean they want to shove me in a gas chamber.
My Weblog
I've carried an m16 in defense of the US. I would do so again at need. The only thing I can say to you is what is the point defending freedom if you have none. Paraphrasing from great men of the past. "Idiots who would surrender liberty for safety, will end up with neither."
I have no desire to exist at the whim of the US government.
My Weblog
Everytime you take libertarians to task over privacy issues, they call you a Nazi. Fact is they probably never carried a M-16 in defense of the country; so go figure....
You take them to task over encryption standards, they claim foul, and you gotta be a f---ing Nazi. (I guess they use all the dirty words since their pinheads are so small & only so many words will fit, and you know 4 letter words are smaller, so more of them fit in their pinhead.)
Seriously, a friend of mine does have the key to my house, and he's a cop (for taking care of any false alarms when I'm on the road..) So what's the big deal, encryption standards, the gov'ts right to monitor illegal behavior. Personally I LIKE feeling safe. Libertarians act like all that will happen is an abuse of any new rights given to the police. That is NOT a given.
While it is true Police do accasionally abuse thier power, they also have the discretion not to give you a ticket when they pull you over. Not every cop is bad, in fact most of law enforcement is on the up and up.
However, seems like everytime I post a comment this, people quote T Jefferson (A little revolution every now and then is a good thing) etc.)
Fact is, if the founding fathers never had any idea of our modern world; where Sarin and Nukes are the weapons of chioice for mass destruction. God forbid we ever have to worry about biological warfare. But no, in the defense of a minority of criminals rights, we should tie up the hands of law enforcement?
Not!! Everytime I look at what the world has become, I feel that the founding fathers, who were basically VERY consevative (and religous!!)would be turning over in their graves at how their names are abused to try and protect the a small criminal element over the greater good for society. They had no idea of nukes, bio bugs, gas, drug dealers or terrorist's; but if they had I feel that they would have thought there were circumstances where the rights of the individuals stopped, and the rights of the society (or humanity) started. Nor did they have any idea that the country they founded would be the leading SuperPower. Perhaps if they had had some insights to all this; their take might have been quite enlightening.
Personally, I have no great secrets to hide by encryption, or otherwise. I support the right of the police in areas of criminal investigation etc; mainly because I know so many. They are to a man honest.
It will be interesting to find out how many opinheads can't respond intellegently to this comment...
Oh, and the next time you have a break_in, or need help; don't call the Police (who you don't trust) call a libertarian. Yeh right!! Not.
You'll be taxed to death, but hey, at least
your crypto is safe!
I guess you just forgot to mention that
Galileo was prosecuted by the church...
Why don't you go form your own country then? The Federation of Aristocratic Assholes.
No! That's the name of my Country. And I'm taking your ass to court, unless you care to be my first citizen. You can expect a fruitful life of plenty and happiness and the ocassional beating (as i see fit).
Southern Baptists never said our way is the only way, they simply do whatever they can to ban/outlaw/destroy any other religous or social group.
Catholics (the church I was raised in) quietly preached that we, being the only true faith, would be saved. Not that everyone else was necesarily damned, but we certainly had a leg up on the others.
Mormons. Not loudly, but quietly.
It's not the screamers I'm worried about, or the people that hate everyone else. Nazis don't worry me, nor the KKK, nor even (directly) the government. It's the quiet ones, that want to "save" me, that bother me. They'll talk about how wonderful they are while they're readying the gas chambers.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
...nitpick, but do you think that a drug dealer would use an encryption application that had a backdoor? Encryption technology is not very hard to implement, you know (we've done a simple RSA implementation in ``College'' (the Swedish equivalent), and it was just a couple of lines in a math program).
ZZ
And that's the way it oughta be!! There should be a 200 question written test before anyone is allowed to run for office or vote! It should cover basic history of the state/country and office you are running/voting for, general knowledge and literacy, basic problem solving.
That way people who want to vote/run for an office have to know WTF they are voting/running for. Regular people ARE too stupid to vote!!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Atheists shouldn't take it so personally when religous people think that THEY are being dumb.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
BZZZT - the vietcong would have defeated the US even with plastic spoons - they were willing to accept losses far greater than America was willing to accept. They won through attrition
Umm, Hate to break it to you8, but 40000 people with plastic spoons aren't gonna take down 400 people with M16s.
The Veitcong took their knowledge of jungle tacticts and used that knowledge to beat the shit out of the US. The USs solution was to remove the jungle, so they napalmed/agent oranged huge chunks of jungle out of the way to get at the veitcong, who quietly disappeared.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I went to New York a few weeks ago, I walked into a small store and looked around, and voila! ID Cards, look almost EXACTLY like drivers licenses, the guy doesn't ask your age or anything, you can put anything you want on the card and it looks VERY official, costs 5$ and takes 15 minutes.
How odd. Also is perfectly legal.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Ahem, Take a look at the social demographics of Canada. Now take a look at the social Demographics of the USA.
We have a much larger and more diverse population.
We have many more opportunities for disagreement between parties for one reason or another.
Of course there is going to be violence.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
"Don't tell Grandma "I had to spank Johnie today because he won't quit biting his little sister" because someone may arrest you for child abuse."
On the other hand, definitely don't tell Grandma that you let Johnnie bite his little sister. I'm sure they'd work out a way to get you for that as well...
It makes an interesting point, though, that a Constitution is ultimately not sufficient to guarantee a country continuing to be run the way its founders wanted it run. As an Englishman I've always lived among people who can't see why the US gets so hung up about its Constitution; so I'm interested to know how much of the US agrees with the last paragraph...
But this all just seems so screwy. I mean, sure they have plenty of cash so they can buy the best crack, but that would still not explain why the US gov would pull some smeg like this. What they are talking about is tantamount to reading your posted (USPS) mail (which they would /never/ do *snicker*) . Most Americans would not stand for that, so what makes them think that they could get away with it?
:-?
Honestly, I think President Trouser Drop and VP Gore (a man so boring he's been voted more tedious airline in flight magazines) are up to something.
Think about it. Gore wants to be president, but he is so mind numbingly uninteresting and is almost, but not quite, entirely without anything which could be construe as charisma and all the charm of lint. His last bid for president was comical at best. So how does he get to be top banana? I mean, Bill went after the GenX vote with success, but Gore would have no chance there with all Tippers efforts at censoring the music industry. So what does he do? He goes after the Geek vote. I mean, he did create the internet, didn't he?
Now, he also wants to distance himself politically from Bill while keeping presidential backing. Not that many people could imagine Gore finding new and better ways to store tobacco products, but he has to make voters see that he is his Own Man. So he can't go dissing the president, but he has to do something that will distinguish himself from Bill. So what do they do? They hatch this gig where the federal government starts talking about email taxes, snooping email, tracking you while you are on the internet. You know, things they would never do without telling us first (*guffaw*snort*shortle*).
Then, who steps up to bat for the geeks, but our Great Savior, a man who we owe more to than Tim B. Lee, a man who will stand up for what he believes in, a man of integrity. Yes, HE will fight to make sure that the internet remains free. Free? Free how? Who cares? He'll keep those pesky feds from reading our email. And what happens? Election day, geeks en masse turn out to vote in greater numbers than the opening of a new Star Trek/Wars movie, and Captain Charisma is our next president.
Well, I've ranted enough. I have to adjust the tinfoil on my head to transmit my brain waves to Pluto, and finish reading this book on how aliens, Masons, and circus midgets were all behind the Kennedy assassinations.
BTW, I do apologize to anyone who reads this who likes Bill and Al. I just find this whole thing rather stupid. That, and I don't trust any politician as far as I can spit a rat
Killing spammers is too good for them.
While I tend to dismiss these types of issues as trivial, this one certainly is a little more prickly. I think I agree; Police should only be able to "break into your computer" if they have actually claimed the psysical box as evidence .. ie, they'd need a search warrent to come into my house to get it. I can certainly envision a future where every packet you send must first be routed through the Fed's computer system before it's sent off to it's destination. This is just the beginning of a long, passionate fight between "the people and the authorities". Perhaps they should amend the law such that they can only break into the computer(s) belonging to a subject under criminal investigation? I don't think I mind them breaking into a hacker's box (for he who uses anonymitity for the purpose of criminal activity is abusing his right to privacy), but I certainly think it should be set up so the police can't break into boxes of other innocent people. Ironically, if the police break into my box, believing I'm communicating with their prime target, and find other evidence of other hackers they hadn't known about .. well, I can just imagine soon they'd try to get some law going that allows them to use 'brute force methods' to try to track down illigal activities on the net.
"Old man yells at systemd"
My apologies, I do that alot. I publicly announce my stupidity and formally request foregiveness. :) Yes, I meant cracker. But it's symantics ... it's obvious I meant cracker by context.
"Old man yells at systemd"
A few comments:
m t ester_def.htm
t ml#drive t ml
k .html
If you do not have a Social Security Number, you are NOT a tax protester. There is NO law that REQUIRES you to have a SSN! You are then EXTERNAL to the Internal Revenue Service.
An IRS agent, Joseph Banister quite the IRS when he found that out.
Here are some links:
http://www.freedomlaw.org/Jbanister/banister.ht
http://www.royalrife.com/banister.html
http://workfromhome.virtualave.net/
http://www.denial-of-due-process.com/tp/ref/pro
Stop believing the Fear, Intimidation, and Disinformation the IRS likes to spread.
You also, DON'T need a driver's license (permission) to use public roads. Now in order to stop getting harassed by the Law officials, you can get an International Driver's Permit. Remember it is not valid in the place of issue, so going to AAA to get one doesn't do much good.
http://www.nyx.net/~imschira/frogfarm/fffaq16.h
http://www.nyx.net/~imschira/frogfarm/fffaq16.h
http://www.ironsoft.com/lp/sovmobile.html
Search the net for: "The Right To Travel"
(Remember to buy you car with 21 silver dollars and get the Manufacture's Statement of Origin!)
You don't need to worry about the US government if you keep your state citizenship, but ex-patriate and give up your US citizenship.
Check out the Bill of Rights, Article XIV
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/ruleboo
Do your own research into jurisdiction, and learn the truth.
I find that religious people can be nice or assholes, just like anyone else.
however, IMHO i think that religion with an afterlife was invented to give people some excuse that they could look forward to after death. people have a hard time with the idea that their lives might be pointless. however, it is most likely the truth.
I personally have no expectations of what will happen when i die. I assume, since it has not happened yet, that it will simply be the end. however i do not feel that my life is worth less just because i will not exist after i die. who knows, maybe all our sprits go join a collective being or something. i am fine with the thought that there is no grand purpose or plan though.
*elevator music plays*
This is an excellent piece because it transends political affiliations with either the left or the right. The author can be commended for that. I agree with the point he alluded to that a big part of the problem is the majority who say they don't care about government access to their private issues because "they have nothing to hide". I really worry about people like that, and about a society made up of people like that who can't see where that kind of attitude leads.
Are there other concerns besides just police access to the keys for encrypted data? Wasn't there a slashdot post a few weeks ago about a governmental proposal to set up a network to monitor all electronic communication accross the board just to watch for suspicious activity? I know unencrypted data really comes with no garantee of privicy once it's turned loose on the net, but I think that's different than a deliberate plan to monitor everything just on the possibility that it might reveal illegal activity. Anyway, I think it's all part of the same issue of how much leeway we allow the government to have with it's involvement in our personal lives. And, I'm starting to rant...
Also, kudos to Dave for including the example of the persecution of smokers in this piece. I'm a non-smoker, but that whole thing has gotten ridiculous.
Ok, I'll shut up now...
Gun dealers will sell to anyone and their brother - including recent escapees - and deserve investigation.
Have you ever bought/tried buying a gun from a dealer?
If they under stood, they wouldn't feel this way. We must find a way to convince them or something. Mabye we should start a 'Day of Proof'; mabye all the cracking groups could set one day aside and plant porno and stuff on politicions computers for a day....kind of like a telethon for kids with cancer, but instead we're stripping politicions of their ingorance ;-)
If you take this seriously, you have a problem, it's a joke(just to cover my ass ya'know)...
Hehe I'm gonna wire my keyboard to a 1 million amp battery...then I'll lay a thin wire mesh over my keys...touch it and fry pigs!!! hahaha~!
mmmmm...I smell bacon already, someone should sell those things.
That is, would it become illegal to...
* use obscure software and setups that investigators would have a darn hard time figuring out?
* maintain backups?
* undo any eavesdropping devices they install?
* have, say, otherwise-legit anti-tampering countermeasures protecting the machine, room, and so forth?
For instance, suppose one used a fully cryptographic filesystem requiring a specific boot disk and some pretty darn secure authorization. Furthermore, use video systems to monitor the whole place. For the heck of it, rig the box to something spew dry ice or random debris all over the electronics if opened...
Would the owner be required to actually *be* there to disable 'em, leave handy instructions... or cheerfully watch, cackling gleefully as they try and fail?
If they botch the job (either tweaking my software configuration badly, or breaking something when they plant a bug), are they liable?
Tricky. Against the really clueful and paranoid, this might be fairly difficult; it'd be easier, perhaps, just to plant hidden cameras and such rather than learn all software configs.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If I write a Super-Duper-Mega-Wacky encryption program, and give a copy to all my friends (and drug dealers, of course
All this stuff creeps me out. Unfortunately, the average J. Q. Computer User doesn't have the expertise to even realize if the government is mucking with their machine (Which most of them only use to order stuff from Amazon.com, anyway). Remember the whole V-Chip crap? Everyone was up in arms about Uncle Sam stepping on the toes of America's Favorite Pastime: The Boob-Tube. But then when they started talking about adding IDs to PCs, no one but the real computer user community gave a rat's ass.
This particular bill may not pass, but they will just keep proposing new and equally moronic methods of policing the electronic world.
We will just pre-encrypt out messages such that when the government decrypts the stuff they get recipies or other boring junk. Then with our keys it gets translated into the REAL message :)
would be fun to make, think I'll go try!
-I go to Rice, so figure out my email address
all messages will be encoded into Star Wars quotes based on a key...muhahahahah!
-I go to Rice, so figure out my email address
Physical security of the machine is as important as the security of the passwords, OS, network, etc., probably more so.
Keystroke interception devices are just one possibility. Someone suggested using a mouse instead of a keyboard to cut and paste letters into the password field, but a mouse co-ordinate and click interceptor could be created as well. (Although having the letters move randomly about the selection pallate would add complexity to the task...)
I wonder if it is possible to affordably construct a small machine such that attempts to tamper with it would either trigger a self-destruct cycle, destroy the machine in the attempt, or at least make the attempt obvious. In other words, reduce the size of the object that provides the requisite level of physical security from being say, building-sized, to create a self-contained, tamper-proof, emission-proof enclosure roughly PC-sized.
Perhaps a wealthy, socially-conscious drug-dealer, child-pornographer, or venture-capitalist would be interested in funding research and development for such a project?
A question I have: I forget the name of it, but they (feds/spooks) can receive and analyze the electro-magnetic emissions radiating from a regular CRT-based monitor to so as to read the screen from a remote location. It is possible to surround the monitor with lead or some other material to absorb those emissions and make that type of interception difficult/impossible. What about the new LCD monitors and displays -- do those produce emissions that can be monitored?
I'm with you on that one, also vote on any initiative that removes an existing law. Vote NO on any new law. I don't know if we CAN vote the government away, but it is still worth a try.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
What a fucked up notion.... The virtue of a small government is it's lack of power and therefore it's lack of the tendency to become corrupt. If the government didn't have the ability to make laws then the lobbyist could not lobby for laws to suit their agendas.
As for comparing our government to others thats also a bad arguement. Just because other governments are worse than our doesn't mean we should be satisfied with the crap our government decides to foist on us. If in fact the U.S. is the best system when compared to the rest that still doesn't mean it is accepable.
When it ceases to be the governments job to "take care" of the people and it's only function is to literally protect us from invasion, and act as mediator when disputes arise between individuals, then I can be satisfied with the government. Anything else is slavery.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
If furbies are outlawed, only outlaws will have furbies. Because the government turned them into outlaws.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
I don't think they would be lees corrupt people. But if they didn't have the ability to make laws (corrupt or not) then it wouldn't matter. People are not perfect. The government is made of people. Therefore it should be extremely limited in its powers inoreder to prevent it's imperfections from imposing on the rights of individuals.
Agencies that do environmental protection, trade protections, scientific research, etc. are there because we need them, and these were not or could not be fulfilled any other way.
I strongly disagree with you on that point. I think that the problems that those types of agencies "deal with" would be better solved if left to the people to solve via civil discourse.
The government may do alot of "good" but that "good" is being accomplished by slavery.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
My good sir or madame, while what you say makes perfect logical sense its simply a pipe dream. I live in the United States but i was born in Canada. I have had the luxury to see two entirely different societies that live right next to one-another. What i can tell you is that the idea of "if its illegal only the criminals will have/continue the behavior" is false. In Canada, the ight to bear firearms exists in a VERY LIMITED form. The right to own a gun and keep it in your house does not exist. You cant own a hangun/shotgun in canada uless you live rather far from civilization. No one in canada minds very much that they can't own a gun. The murder rates also reflect a different way of living though, beit from the lack of firearms or beit that they are actualy less violent people. In Canada, one years murders total up to less than the murders commited in America each day. While i do agree that this newly proposed law sounds like a tool for the governmetn to smudge out people at will under the guise of the law. I cannot agree with the argument that if its illegal the criminals will have an edge. Attitudes like that only propogate the behavior because people in their paranoid state race to get an "edge" against the criminal. What insues is an arms war among the citizens of America. nuff outta me...
Listen, i cant say i agree or disagree with your ideas. i cant say that for anything i read here...everyone has their own little plot of stake...and its a bitch to find who is/isn't objective. But, what i can say is this...Constitutions...BAH...the constitution was written as a framework for the foudning of our country. As we all know...things are not static...times..ideas...and technology are bound to change (if they didnt i would get really really sacred). So, i do agree that the founding fathers wiould be rolling over in their grave...but they would also be astounded at the great leaps and advances we've made. I think that you arent giving the foudning fathers enough credit...they werent pessemists...which...by what im reading is the majority of the posters on this topic. They were people with a dream and they made their dream reality. Wether or not this dream turns into a nightmare is up to you and me. Be peaceful but resistant...you dont need guns to be strong...the human spirit is the greatest strength of all (as corny as it sounds). nuff outta me...
Between the fights over abortion, evolution, guns, speech and everything else, this country is likely to fragment into a bunch of warring factions. The only way we are going to survive is to return to an ethos of "life and let live"; going back to a government of strictly limited powers is the only way to preserve a Republic.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
[censored by bilateral communications]
-- Exile Who do you want to be tomorrow
"I don't think I mind them breaking into a hacker's box"
CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER, CRACKER!!!!!
Sorry, kids. I won't let this one die. Moderate it down, or whatever, but damnit!
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
AMEN
This space for sale
How's this for an encryption program? I can't think of a good way to crack it.
/.
/* crypt.c - simple [en|de]cryption program
Created: 8/23/1999
Last edited: 8/23/1999
By: ForceOfWill on
*/
#include
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
if (argc!=3)
{
printf("Usage: crypt [-e | -d ]\r\n"
"crypt -e accepts a file to be encrypted on stdin and puts the\r\n"
" encrypted file on stdout.\r\n"
"crypt -d accepts a file to be decrypted on stdin and puts the\r\n"
" decrypted file on stdout.\r\n"
"EXAMPLES:\r\n"
"crypt -e really_stupid_password enfile\r\n"
"crypt -d really_stupid_password file\r\n");
return (0);
} else if (argv[1][0]=='-' && argv[1][1]=='e' && argv[1][2]=='\0')
{
int len;
for (len=0; argv[2][len]!='\0'; len++);
do
{
int i;
int in;
int out;
for (i=0; i255)?out-256:out;
putc(out,stdout);
};
} while (1);
} else if (argv[1][0]=='-' && argv[1][1]=='d' && argv[1][2]=='\0')
{
int len;
for (len=0; argv[2][len]!='\0'; len++);
do
{
int i;
int in;
int out;
for (i=0; ilen; i++)
{
if ((in=getc(stdin))==EOF)
return (0);
out = in - (unsigned int)(argv[2][i]);
out = (out0)?out+256:out;
putc(out,stdout);
};
} while (1);
};
return (0);
};
Sorry there's no indentation, HTML doesn't like it.
--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
If the government wants the ability to break into my box, why aren't they giving me the ability to break into their boxes? Are they all criminals?
--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
It seems to me that this is one of many in a concerted attempt by the ahem *security* minded folks in the US gov't to gain control of something that most everyone agrees is beyond their control.
;)
The sad part is that I feel powerless to stop them. Starting with the Clipper chip (or even Echelon I guess) they have relentlessly looked for a chink in the electronic privacy armor, and they will find one eventually unless the American public starts waking up.
But most American's don't vote, most are more concerned with box scores, or Jerry Springer than their rep's voting records (if they even know who represents them), and its the lobbyists who get congress's attention.
The only time American's pay attention to our politics is when there is some kind of social scandal. If the law was going to help Clinton get laid, I am sure it would be the topic of neighborhood bar conversations then. We have been neatly corralled, and I don't know if anything is going make a difference. But hey I'll write to congress anyway (Then I'll get put on a subversive list, if I'm not already)
We are agents of the free
Eastern religions in their practiced (not idealized) form are extrememly religious. I know you don't want to argue this point, but just as education, most Buddhists beleive in an afterlife and deities. Although you could argue that these things are merely symbolic, most practicing buddhusts think they physical realities.
Anyway..
man, what an inspiring sight
one nerd telling another nerd that he was incorrect in the terminology used to describe the taxonomy of his nerd-dom.
you go, dude. rock the nerd world. keep us in line and mandate that the popular, distributed evolution of our language must be in the hands of self-designated experts like yourself.
are you a big fan of the fat, sarcastic Star Trek fan/comic book owner on the Simpsons? I'll bet he would have used the 'proper' term, cracker.
why the fuck don't you look outside your nerd box and realize that things are what people call them, and that this applies even when people are dumb? if i'm listening to a tape in my portable cassette player, it's a fucking walkman even if it's not a sony. the copy machine is a xerox machine regardless of who makes it, or what xerox wants. hackers is the term used by the popular press to describe crackers so fucking deal with it. it's a nice broad term covering several species of nerds, from phone phreakers to web site graffitists so deal. I will not let this go - you do not get to define language. Society decides, wrongly or not.
we're all just sitting here writing about the problem and complaining to each other....this isn't doing much of anything other than getting a bunch of techie's piss'd off....
if we were to all mail our respective congresspeople (particuarly the senators), then we may be able to do something about....
while our letters or e-mails may not make a huge difference in the final vote, it will at least let wahington know how some of us feel about the idea of having out computers, which seem to be the "last frontier" if you will, of privacy and anonymity for paranoid ppl like myself.....
we all just need to do a little something and try to get others to do the same....
-- this has been you political rallying for the day --
403: Forbidden - you do not have permission to access
Just imagine, for a moment, that some government has the ability to crack any encrypted messages. Ask yourself if someone in a position of high authority, charged with protecting the country at all costs -- would they consider playing dumb (yet again), as the best way to keep the secret?
Of course they would.
Whether or not they can, is only known to them.