The first mistake was probably to have the servers on US territory. If your servers are on US territory there's no way in hell your emails are secure from the government.
The second mistake was not fighting the court order. What, just roll over? That easy? Goddamn.
I'm no expert but I'm sure there are ways to distribute the data around the world in such a way that, if served with a court order in any one place, the data you're forced to provide is useless.
Also, witness the fact that Google challenged those court orders to provide log data. Ultimately, the log data was not useful to law enforcement because they didn't connect search terms to IPs. Google had gone out of its way to make sure this information was not available, the only way they had available was to simply not record this information. Hushmail could have done something similar, simply refuse to offer an app which would have private keys stored on their servers.
My first thought was somewhere in the massive American military-industrial complex, most likely the deep bowels of the CIA, someone is going to try to use this technology to read the thoughts of unwilling participants.
Actually, the analogy still holds because P2P is legal and the bill is anti-P2P insofar as it seeks to enforce "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."
Think about it - how else do you prevent copyright infringing downloads than to ban P2P or any technology which allows exchange of such files? The only alternative is to get into the thoughts of would-be downloaders, create massive databases of what files are allowed or not allowed, restrict P2P to only approved networks, etc.
This tiny little amendment opens the door to controlling what you can or cannot see or hear.
Let's choose a lobby, any lobby...let me think....no, scratch that, let's go for the gold, let's choose AIPAC (pro-Israel lobby).
Ok, now, let's have this lobby sponsor an amendment to one of these education bills, calling for the schools to take action and develop plans to ensure there is no anti-Israel "hate speech" anywhere on campus. Further, the schools who don't take sufficient action risk losing funding. Schools develop fucking SWAT teams to check every book in the library, every dorm room, scan every poster or flyer, oversee the school newspapers, etc.
Or let's also throw in the soup lobby, the carrot lobby, the evangelists, big tobacco, big pharma, television, hell, every lobby you can think of, adding their respective amendments about bloody everything.
Where this is even possible, schools of higher learning, the bastions of freedom of thought and expression, the foundations of critical thought, where the right to hold alternative beliefs and opinions is sacred, are no more. When it comes to education there should be nothing remotely resembling lobby group amendments.
One common argument for ads is that they inform you of products, but that is a very weak argument. Ads are very rarely informative. Information in general is better left to 3d party reviews. Of course, with the reach of todays marketing departments it is difficult to know how influenced the 3d party reviewers are, but it is atleast trying.
But see, how can they deliver informative ads if they can't track what you're doing? If you're looking for a doohickey and search for it online, it's convenient to you (and the advertiser) if the ads which appeared for you happened to be for doohickies. Why waste people's times with irrelevant ads, better to target them to the audience that wants them.
In light of the potential privacy issues raised by swarming cellphone CCTV's. How we now now that mobile phones can be remotely eavesdropped upon, even without needing their owners to switch them on. How the FBI now has web apps where they can zero in on your location and whereabouts, activating every phone in your area, and overlaying your position on moving maps with the ability to also click on nearby CCTV cameras (unable to find the damn story, it was on/. just a few months ago). Etc., I would not be surprised if privacy-minded slashdotters were not searching en masse for where they can buy these jammers.
As a Slashdotter you're a member of a dangerous segment of the population, you are the bane of corporations and governments, you put blocked information into the wild and instantly expose it to millions of techies, you likely know how to do technical stuff and know more about your legal rights than the average person, you are exposed to many posts discussing in-depth weapons or the chemistry of explosives, biological weapons, etc. You're also likely critical of the government and tend to be pro-privacy or have libertarian leanings. Even if you don't actually post anything, you're still associating - there are fewer than six degrees of separation between you and any number of individuals with specialized knowledge about 'dangerous' things.
Gawd, I love slashdot...if it dies then that's one more nail in the coffin of freedom, liberty and justice. Another reason to fight the commercialization of this site.
In this case Commission Junction is innocent because they don't do any actual advertising, they simply put companies with products/services to sell together with people willing to advertise or promote them, they're the go-between in other words. Google merely provides the ad space and tries to ensure the ads are relevant to people's searches. SpyBot has targeted the go-between's and advertisers, not the bad guys. Both the go-between and advertisers are completely helpless.
And of course there are advertising firms that don't engage in sneaky or underhanded behaviour. Geez. All sorts of organizations need advertising, most charities and non-profits have marketing departments, the government needs advertising, even your local mom and pop store needs some way to let people know they're there.
But I suppose Spybot shares your view that all advertising is evil, just as Comcast seems to view all file-sharers as evil.
I just found out that Spybot S&D, Norton Spyware, etc., block my Google ads just because some of them point to servers run by Commission Junction, a very large and reputable affiliate advertising company. If you click my ads (and I pay for those clicks) and you've got S&D installed then you get a "server not found" or "unable to connect" error.
I wonder if this is similar to the backstory over at ATT and Comcat. In their zeal to destroy copyright infringers (or whatever the hell they're doing over there) they're killing innocent bystanders. They've adopted the Blackwater approach to IT.
The bill/law as you've described it is sufficiently vague (i.e. "online publications", "professional journalists") that I can easily see it being used against bloggers.
And I don't for a minute believe any politician who says "Don't worry, I promise we won't."
As for holding people responsible and accountable, using the example you provided of unfounded corruption allegations what's wrong with current defamation laws? Or doesn't Italy have any?
It doesn't follow that religion = ethics. I would have thought quite the opposite - a non-religious person has no real reason to attack his neighbour.
Also, an atheist is someone who simply rejects most conventional notions of god. You're an atheist if you think God is female, black, or resembles a spaghetti monster. Most religionists would argue that because you don't hold to their strict notions of the characteristics of god, you're an atheist.
I could say, for instance, the higher power is an unconscious being, say a crystal entity or whatever, and that this power created the universe and everything in it and, contrary to most religions, it doesn't give a damn what we do. And I could genuinely believe it too.
Notice I just created a higher power without any ethics? I was able to do this, logically even, because religion or the belief in god is not a necessary condition for ethics.
In fact, I'll go one step further and create an ethical rule that doesn't depend on religion: It is wrong to place the knife on the right side of the plate, the only proper place is on the left. Behold, a rule about the rightness or wrongness of an action which in time becomes reinforced by a group of people who have long forgotten the original reason for it, which was probably a simple desire for neatness, and became a moral dictate.
In fact, had things evolved differently we could be worshiping sandwich-makers instead of gods, or Miss Manners.
I'll answer. Because it's so goddamned easy to make a site accessible you have to be positively retarded not to, plus accessible code is better code - it's STANDARDS BASED.
If you want to write shitty code go ahead, if you don't like standards then go out and write your own variation of HTML or whatever, go start your own internet even, you'll just be an island unto yourself. You can sit there and wonder why nobody talks to you, while the whole world passes you by, tittering and pointing, making jokes about you riding the short bus.
And if I were to review your code I wouldn't hire you do develop shit. How's that for accessibility, Mr. Retarded Coder.
Why does this Ballmer dude always remind me of Dick Cheney? Is it that he doesn't seem to do anything except spout hatred and antagonize, that he seems to divide the world into enemies or friends ("you are with us or against us")? That he spends an inordinate amount of time attacking and insulting different groups? That he's always spinning some threat or other? That he takes a lot of passive-aggressive potshots, hates the media? Ballmer throws chairs, Cheney tells people to fuck off? I imagine them with sneers on their faces, their eyes dripping with dark thoughts and hatred, always thinking of ways to crush their imagined enemies, thinking of nothing else.
In any case I've never really seen any photos of Ballmer but my mind seems to want to substitute Cheney.
So when are they going to ban all chemistry books, seeing how any simple chemistry book can lead to an act of terrorism? Come to think of it, biochemistry too, and physics, and just about anything else they teach in the sciences. Books concerning any kind of weapon, like how to clean your gun? Books about how to stage civil disobedience, peaceful or not?
Slippery slope may be a fallacious form of reasoning but this sure seems like a law just begging to be used for massive censorship, especially when the government gets to define "terrorism" and the public is, well, not exactly complaining about anything.
The religious experience is essentially one of awe, which induces worship.
There are many non-religious phenomena which produce the same feeling. One which immediately comes to mind is art.
But for the most part I'd say this one experience accounts for a large part of what's fucked up in the world. For instance, worshiping Hollywood stars and idolizing musical groups - as if acting and musical talent warranted kissing the ground these people walk on and giving them free blowjobs. Another example, I'd say Americans who re-elected Bush weren't voting rationally but because of some misguided hero-worship complex. In still another example, the command structure of any military is awe inspired - people worship fame and rank - Patton, Rommel, anyone?
Worship is almost never earned. People are human, there are no super-humans, though some humans are better than others at doing things. And what did "God" ever do to earn anyone's respect? From all accounts I'd have to say what a petulant child this "God" is, completely unworthy of my respect.
After about 4 "boycott the RIAA, boycott artists who sign with the RIAA" text comments on YouTube I am now longer able to post comments on anything. They seem to have caught this quickly, probably automagically. If you're going to do the same I suggest you pace yourself. Not sure what the magic number is.
Cripes! When I was a kid I was told my by guitar instructor that I couldn't play guitar because I couldn't tune one. Fucking moron. I still would have liked to learn to play - not being able to tune a guitar doesn't mean one isn't musically inclined or capable of playing.
I betcha this system leads directly to monitoring your blood pressure, heart rate, pupil dilation and perspiration. And also that general nervousness about something will be considered suspicious behaviour.
Combine this with face recognition and movement tracking... Seriously, I think this is heading towards "precrime" and thought police.
As for the credit card numbers not belonging to the people affected my first thought was the hacker posted the correct contact info but, perhaps to be benevolent, scrambled the credit card numbers. In other words, the card numbers displayed are correct but they're just shown as belonging to someone else. eBay may be realizing this now when they search their databases for the people those numbers really belong to.
So I guess Aurora has now publicly and explicitly endorsed and supported homophobia?
Discrimination against men who want to be women, for whatever reason?
This reminds me of some dumbass channel ops on IRC who were against talking to the channel from behind botnets on the grounds that people should know who they're talking to and anonymity is "subverting" the whole idea behind IRC nicks, which is to let people identify you by name.
Actually, my impression of American law enforcement is they do want to shoot people. They're itching for an excuse, any excuse, to use those guns. Many people happily oblige them too, by doing things like bump into them, stand in doorways, be the wrong colour in the wrong place and the wrong time, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The first mistake was probably to have the servers on US territory. If your servers are on US territory there's no way in hell your emails are secure from the government.
The second mistake was not fighting the court order. What, just roll over? That easy? Goddamn.
I'm no expert but I'm sure there are ways to distribute the data around the world in such a way that, if served with a court order in any one place, the data you're forced to provide is useless.
Also, witness the fact that Google challenged those court orders to provide log data. Ultimately, the log data was not useful to law enforcement because they didn't connect search terms to IPs. Google had gone out of its way to make sure this information was not available, the only way they had available was to simply not record this information. Hushmail could have done something similar, simply refuse to offer an app which would have private keys stored on their servers.
Come to think of it, it's very odd.
My first thought was somewhere in the massive American military-industrial complex, most likely the deep bowels of the CIA, someone is going to try to use this technology to read the thoughts of unwilling participants.
Cripes, what an interesting read. Thanks for that!
Actually, the analogy still holds because P2P is legal and the bill is anti-P2P insofar as it seeks to enforce "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."
Think about it - how else do you prevent copyright infringing downloads than to ban P2P or any technology which allows exchange of such files? The only alternative is to get into the thoughts of would-be downloaders, create massive databases of what files are allowed or not allowed, restrict P2P to only approved networks, etc.
This tiny little amendment opens the door to controlling what you can or cannot see or hear.
Let's choose a lobby, any lobby...let me think....no, scratch that, let's go for the gold, let's choose AIPAC (pro-Israel lobby).
Ok, now, let's have this lobby sponsor an amendment to one of these education bills, calling for the schools to take action and develop plans to ensure there is no anti-Israel "hate speech" anywhere on campus. Further, the schools who don't take sufficient action risk losing funding. Schools develop fucking SWAT teams to check every book in the library, every dorm room, scan every poster or flyer, oversee the school newspapers, etc.
Or let's also throw in the soup lobby, the carrot lobby, the evangelists, big tobacco, big pharma, television, hell, every lobby you can think of, adding their respective amendments about bloody everything.
Where this is even possible, schools of higher learning, the bastions of freedom of thought and expression, the foundations of critical thought, where the right to hold alternative beliefs and opinions is sacred, are no more. When it comes to education there should be nothing remotely resembling lobby group amendments.
But see, how can they deliver informative ads if they can't track what you're doing? If you're looking for a doohickey and search for it online, it's convenient to you (and the advertiser) if the ads which appeared for you happened to be for doohickies. Why waste people's times with irrelevant ads, better to target them to the audience that wants them.
In light of the potential privacy issues raised by swarming cellphone CCTV's. How we now now that mobile phones can be remotely eavesdropped upon, even without needing their owners to switch them on. How the FBI now has web apps where they can zero in on your location and whereabouts, activating every phone in your area, and overlaying your position on moving maps with the ability to also click on nearby CCTV cameras (unable to find the damn story, it was on /. just a few months ago). Etc., I would not be surprised if privacy-minded slashdotters were not searching en masse for where they can buy these jammers.
As a Slashdotter you're a member of a dangerous segment of the population, you are the bane of corporations and governments, you put blocked information into the wild and instantly expose it to millions of techies, you likely know how to do technical stuff and know more about your legal rights than the average person, you are exposed to many posts discussing in-depth weapons or the chemistry of explosives, biological weapons, etc. You're also likely critical of the government and tend to be pro-privacy or have libertarian leanings. Even if you don't actually post anything, you're still associating - there are fewer than six degrees of separation between you and any number of individuals with specialized knowledge about 'dangerous' things.
Gawd, I love slashdot...if it dies then that's one more nail in the coffin of freedom, liberty and justice. Another reason to fight the commercialization of this site.
In this case Commission Junction is innocent because they don't do any actual advertising, they simply put companies with products/services to sell together with people willing to advertise or promote them, they're the go-between in other words. Google merely provides the ad space and tries to ensure the ads are relevant to people's searches. SpyBot has targeted the go-between's and advertisers, not the bad guys. Both the go-between and advertisers are completely helpless.
And of course there are advertising firms that don't engage in sneaky or underhanded behaviour. Geez. All sorts of organizations need advertising, most charities and non-profits have marketing departments, the government needs advertising, even your local mom and pop store needs some way to let people know they're there.
But I suppose Spybot shares your view that all advertising is evil, just as Comcast seems to view all file-sharers as evil.
I just found out that Spybot S&D, Norton Spyware, etc., block my Google ads just because some of them point to servers run by Commission Junction, a very large and reputable affiliate advertising company. If you click my ads (and I pay for those clicks) and you've got S&D installed then you get a "server not found" or "unable to connect" error.
I wonder if this is similar to the backstory over at ATT and Comcat. In their zeal to destroy copyright infringers (or whatever the hell they're doing over there) they're killing innocent bystanders. They've adopted the Blackwater approach to IT.
The bill/law as you've described it is sufficiently vague (i.e. "online publications", "professional journalists") that I can easily see it being used against bloggers.
And I don't for a minute believe any politician who says "Don't worry, I promise we won't."
As for holding people responsible and accountable, using the example you provided of unfounded corruption allegations what's wrong with current defamation laws? Or doesn't Italy have any?
It doesn't follow that religion = ethics. I would have thought quite the opposite - a non-religious person has no real reason to attack his neighbour.
Also, an atheist is someone who simply rejects most conventional notions of god. You're an atheist if you think God is female, black, or resembles a spaghetti monster. Most religionists would argue that because you don't hold to their strict notions of the characteristics of god, you're an atheist.
I could say, for instance, the higher power is an unconscious being, say a crystal entity or whatever, and that this power created the universe and everything in it and, contrary to most religions, it doesn't give a damn what we do. And I could genuinely believe it too.
Notice I just created a higher power without any ethics? I was able to do this, logically even, because religion or the belief in god is not a necessary condition for ethics.
In fact, I'll go one step further and create an ethical rule that doesn't depend on religion: It is wrong to place the knife on the right side of the plate, the only proper place is on the left. Behold, a rule about the rightness or wrongness of an action which in time becomes reinforced by a group of people who have long forgotten the original reason for it, which was probably a simple desire for neatness, and became a moral dictate.
In fact, had things evolved differently we could be worshiping sandwich-makers instead of gods, or Miss Manners.
I'll answer. Because it's so goddamned easy to make a site accessible you have to be positively retarded not to, plus accessible code is better code - it's STANDARDS BASED.
If you want to write shitty code go ahead, if you don't like standards then go out and write your own variation of HTML or whatever, go start your own internet even, you'll just be an island unto yourself. You can sit there and wonder why nobody talks to you, while the whole world passes you by, tittering and pointing, making jokes about you riding the short bus.
And if I were to review your code I wouldn't hire you do develop shit. How's that for accessibility, Mr. Retarded Coder.
Why does this Ballmer dude always remind me of Dick Cheney? Is it that he doesn't seem to do anything except spout hatred and antagonize, that he seems to divide the world into enemies or friends ("you are with us or against us")? That he spends an inordinate amount of time attacking and insulting different groups? That he's always spinning some threat or other? That he takes a lot of passive-aggressive potshots, hates the media? Ballmer throws chairs, Cheney tells people to fuck off? I imagine them with sneers on their faces, their eyes dripping with dark thoughts and hatred, always thinking of ways to crush their imagined enemies, thinking of nothing else.
In any case I've never really seen any photos of Ballmer but my mind seems to want to substitute Cheney.
So when are they going to ban all chemistry books, seeing how any simple chemistry book can lead to an act of terrorism? Come to think of it, biochemistry too, and physics, and just about anything else they teach in the sciences. Books concerning any kind of weapon, like how to clean your gun? Books about how to stage civil disobedience, peaceful or not?
Slippery slope may be a fallacious form of reasoning but this sure seems like a law just begging to be used for massive censorship, especially when the government gets to define "terrorism" and the public is, well, not exactly complaining about anything.
If I were wearing this helmet I can tell you "close to god" is probably the least likely thing you'd hear me say.
In my reality there is no such thing as god, so what then?
The religious experience is essentially one of awe, which induces worship.
There are many non-religious phenomena which produce the same feeling. One which immediately comes to mind is art.
But for the most part I'd say this one experience accounts for a large part of what's fucked up in the world. For instance, worshiping Hollywood stars and idolizing musical groups - as if acting and musical talent warranted kissing the ground these people walk on and giving them free blowjobs. Another example, I'd say Americans who re-elected Bush weren't voting rationally but because of some misguided hero-worship complex. In still another example, the command structure of any military is awe inspired - people worship fame and rank - Patton, Rommel, anyone?
Worship is almost never earned. People are human, there are no super-humans, though some humans are better than others at doing things. And what did "God" ever do to earn anyone's respect? From all accounts I'd have to say what a petulant child this "God" is, completely unworthy of my respect.
After about 4 "boycott the RIAA, boycott artists who sign with the RIAA" text comments on YouTube I am now longer able to post comments on anything. They seem to have caught this quickly, probably automagically. If you're going to do the same I suggest you pace yourself. Not sure what the magic number is.
I can still rate videos though.
Cripes! When I was a kid I was told my by guitar instructor that I couldn't play guitar because I couldn't tune one. Fucking moron. I still would have liked to learn to play - not being able to tune a guitar doesn't mean one isn't musically inclined or capable of playing.
Americans will no longer have the right to act strangely. Kick a wall somewhere and you're gone.
I betcha this system leads directly to monitoring your blood pressure, heart rate, pupil dilation and perspiration. And also that general nervousness about something will be considered suspicious behaviour.
Combine this with face recognition and movement tracking... Seriously, I think this is heading towards "precrime" and thought police.
Ah yes, yer absolutely right.
The Register contacted at least two of the people whose info was posted and they confirmed their accounts had been hacked.
See the story here.
As for the credit card numbers not belonging to the people affected my first thought was the hacker posted the correct contact info but, perhaps to be benevolent, scrambled the credit card numbers. In other words, the card numbers displayed are correct but they're just shown as belonging to someone else. eBay may be realizing this now when they search their databases for the people those numbers really belong to.
So I guess Aurora has now publicly and explicitly endorsed and supported homophobia?
Discrimination against men who want to be women, for whatever reason?
This reminds me of some dumbass channel ops on IRC who were against talking to the channel from behind botnets on the grounds that people should know who they're talking to and anonymity is "subverting" the whole idea behind IRC nicks, which is to let people identify you by name.
This is just as fucking dumb.
Actually, my impression of American law enforcement is they do want to shoot people. They're itching for an excuse, any excuse, to use those guns. Many people happily oblige them too, by doing things like bump into them, stand in doorways, be the wrong colour in the wrong place and the wrong time, etc.
Actually, I got so fed up with it I cut the cable altogether. I don't watch TV anymore. Probably a better solution.