Right. I wasn't saying they shouldn't... just that it was really the question at hand.
"... they have no idea what they're doing (or are at least in severe denial about free markets and trade's effect on freedom because they want to be central planners and pretend like they value freedom)"
I'm confused about who you mean there. The Venezuelans, or the Obama administration?
"Just to be clear that..you know...it's not necessarily legal...it's just not a violation of federal law, but a violation of state law."
That's not a "clarification". In my opinion you muddied the waters quite a bit with that statement. Try this instead:
"The exchange of long arms that are otherwise legal to own, does not require a background check under Federal law. (Indeed, the Federal government cannot Constitutionally require one). However, some States may require it."
There. Fixed that for you.
(And that's one big reason I won't live in some states.)
"To a MAFIAA lawyer an IP address might as well be a mugshot, fingerprints, DNA, and confession all wrapped into a neal little package. And they will spend as much money as it takes to make the courts agree with them."
Well, that must be an awful lot of money, because they have been losing that battle.
I don't know of a court case that has gone forward with just an IP address for justification in the last year. It might have happened... but it's happening a lot less. Enough that you don't see it in the news anymore.
Yes. My point to GP was that Bitcoin is already regulated at least as much as cash is. And cash is subject to much the same kind of pilferage, when people don't watch their security properly.
This is an ongoing conversation. For some reason GP things it should be regulated more than other currencies. But I don't understand why he thinks so, or what good he thinks that would do.
And it's a bit off the subject, but I really do have my suspicions that it was inside work. I never really figured out why anybody would want to put their Bitcoins in an exchange anyway.
SOLUTION: Use your own cable adapter ("modem") and router.
I've been doing that for years. It's MY network, and I define it as I please. I run a public access point, and it IS just one big IP address.
It's not all one network, though. I have my private network, which is protected by WPA2, and my router supports a completely separate guest network, which I have open. They can access the internet via the guest network, but nothing else.
It's all one kind of traffic to my ISP, all over the same IP address (and MAC address, for that matter).
Not only that, but it's a GOOD router. For years I have had the strongest signal in my immediate neighborhood. It is accessible from a block away, and it's not even running full power.
Yes, neighbors use it. No, I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the police knocking on my door. If they don't have a warrant based on a hell of a lot more than my IP address, I'd hand them their asses in court.
The downside: it does use the bandwidth I am paying for. But only once have I ever caught anyone using much or abusing it. A teenager down the street who was downloading MP3s.
"What if the FBI come knocking on your door one day saying, We noticed that someone at this address is doing some bad things. Come with us please."
It's happened, and the courts shut it down.
By now, just about every police dept. in the U.S. knows that an IP address does not identify even a house, much less an individual. An IP address by itself is no longer (and never should have been) considered "probable cause".
"However, if being in public means anyone is free to follow and video me and my activities, then sell this information for a profit (traffic cams, private investigators, etc.) - I see how repeating broadcast television on the internet, without or even with time-shift delays, should also be free for anyone to undertake as a business."
Strictly speaking, no. While what one does in public is theoretically recordable by anybody, that doesn't mean they can use it for profit without your permission. That remains under your control. Legally, that is.
But you do bring up a good point. That would seem to conflict with things like traffic cameras, which are generally run by private firms, for a profit.
Not that I would mind seeing them get shot down. According to studies they seldom do any good, and often actually increase accident rates.
"And bureaux de changes are also subject to banking system regulation So it comes to the same: regulated vs unregulated."
In what country? I can speculate on the Forex market any time I want. It's regulated, but in the same way Bitcoin is already regulated in the U.S.: by laws (regulations) against fraud and abuse. But they're not "banking" laws.
Further, I can purchase products from many companies in England or Moscow or Sao Paolo for U.S. dollars... they're not banks either.
"So, Eve can read some of the message, if she's sufficiently clever, but how much is limited by how much noise the people communicating will accept in the signal without realizing that they are tapped."
Right. So if you're using any kind of compression or other scheme that requires accurate reception of a whole packet to re-assemble it (via CRC as a check for example), you can render that partial interception non-useful to your MITM.
It's pretty much theoretical at this point, since we really don't have practical end-to-end quantum crypto yet. But it may not be too far off.
"Discrimination can discourage women from a technical career, and hence cause a shortage. Moreover, voluntary choices can be heavily influenced by what other people do. What we know is that there is no specific sex-based pay discrimination."
You missed the whole point. Discrimination CAN do lots of things. But studies have consistently shown that it HASN'T.
A number of studies done (the last one I read about was a few years ago) showed that most women decided on careers outside of tech before they even entered high school. Based on personal preferences, not some perception (real or otherwise) of discrimination.
If there is any cause-effect there, it is so indirect as to be indistinguishable from the noise in the data.
Exchanges are not "banks". In fact, there really isn't any rational reason for exchanges to exist, outside of the rare convenience here or there for a few people.
But then, the Bitcoin market hasn't been rational anyway.
This depends on your definition of "quantum crypto".
End-to-end quantum cryptography allows you to know whether your communication has been intercepted. It IS theoretically immune to MITM. Simple quantum key generation or exchange however, may not be.
One problem is that they didn't REALLY "go back to their roots" as a Hobbyist store. They still pushed cell phones and stereo equipment almost as much as before. At least in the stores in my area. The actual component electronics and chips were still relegated mostly to a back corner: one set of drawers and a section of wall hangers.
I should add that the above scenario is not a fault of Bitcoin. It is theoretically possible with any kind of currency. All you need is a vulnerability in your exchange. It's really a trust issue... people have been too trusting of "exchanges". In the same way they have been too trusting of Certificate Authorities.
You aren't going to fix that kind of social problem with technology.
"The one the governmental actors target? We know they want to discredit bitcoin. Why not make the effort profitable too?"
Government? Are you sure? Not that it's out of the question, but I think this scenario is even more likely:
(1) Open a bitcoin Exchange
(2) Make sure there are security holes.
(3) "Hack" into the system via the known vulnerabilities, through a proxy from a library somewhere.
(4) Claim theft.
(5) Profit.
Interesting that these Bitcoin "thefts" have taken place at precisely the time governments are making regulation noises, and exchanges are having some hard times.
"I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap."
I mentioned this here the other day. Studies for decades have consistently shown (A) the "shortage" of women in tech is NOT due to discrimination, but rather to choices voluntarily made by women, and (B) the "wage-gender gap" does not actually exist as a factor of mere gender. But even so, there are still women complaining that this is all due to discrimination. We saw an example of an OP just the other day who was trying to perpetuate the (A) myth.
Note that this is NOT the same as saying there is no discrimination. That is a different matter. But it isn't the cause of a shortage of women in tech, or a gap in wages. The statistics could hardly be more solid.
Sounds like it's crying time all around, actually.
First, the government tells the telcos that they can't charge the government for the actual equipment costs of government spying. Then when they try to recoup the costs via fees, the government says they can't do that, either.
"Additionally, using one of those boxes would require court approval. Perhaps not for a traditional search warrant, but certainly to allow the police, who are not licensees of the radio frequencies involved, to operate these intentional transmitters. And that probably means federal court approval."
That's an interesting point. I wonder if the apellants in this case thought of it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Would the US Government think so?"
Right. I wasn't saying they shouldn't... just that it was really the question at hand.
"... they have no idea what they're doing (or are at least in severe denial about free markets and trade's effect on freedom because they want to be central planners and pretend like they value freedom)"
I'm confused about who you mean there. The Venezuelans, or the Obama administration?
"Exactly what do you define a "business"? It's a business if no money changes hands?"
"Open Source" doesn't mean "Work For Free". Lots of money changes hands.
"If someone in Syria submits a contribution to US based software, how does that infringe an export ban?"
I think the point here is more like: should a North Carolina-based company be doing business with countries that the U.S. government is sanctioning?
"They HAVE to be regulated, most obviously because they are the most obvious channel for money laundering."
I did not say they weren't regulated. I said Bitcoin was regulated too. (In the U.S.)
Outside the U.S., you may have a point.
"Just to be clear that..you know...it's not necessarily legal...it's just not a violation of federal law, but a violation of state law."
That's not a "clarification". In my opinion you muddied the waters quite a bit with that statement. Try this instead:
"The exchange of long arms that are otherwise legal to own, does not require a background check under Federal law. (Indeed, the Federal government cannot Constitutionally require one). However, some States may require it."
There. Fixed that for you.
(And that's one big reason I won't live in some states.)
"To a MAFIAA lawyer an IP address might as well be a mugshot, fingerprints, DNA, and confession all wrapped into a neal little package. And they will spend as much money as it takes to make the courts agree with them."
Well, that must be an awful lot of money, because they have been losing that battle.
I don't know of a court case that has gone forward with just an IP address for justification in the last year. It might have happened... but it's happening a lot less. Enough that you don't see it in the news anymore.
Yes. My point to GP was that Bitcoin is already regulated at least as much as cash is. And cash is subject to much the same kind of pilferage, when people don't watch their security properly.
This is an ongoing conversation. For some reason GP things it should be regulated more than other currencies. But I don't understand why he thinks so, or what good he thinks that would do.
And it's a bit off the subject, but I really do have my suspicions that it was inside work. I never really figured out why anybody would want to put their Bitcoins in an exchange anyway.
"Except that it isn't..."
SOLUTION: Use your own cable adapter ("modem") and router.
I've been doing that for years. It's MY network, and I define it as I please. I run a public access point, and it IS just one big IP address.
It's not all one network, though. I have my private network, which is protected by WPA2, and my router supports a completely separate guest network, which I have open. They can access the internet via the guest network, but nothing else.
It's all one kind of traffic to my ISP, all over the same IP address (and MAC address, for that matter).
Not only that, but it's a GOOD router. For years I have had the strongest signal in my immediate neighborhood. It is accessible from a block away, and it's not even running full power.
Yes, neighbors use it. No, I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the police knocking on my door. If they don't have a warrant based on a hell of a lot more than my IP address, I'd hand them their asses in court.
The downside: it does use the bandwidth I am paying for. But only once have I ever caught anyone using much or abusing it. A teenager down the street who was downloading MP3s.
"What if the FBI come knocking on your door one day saying, We noticed that someone at this address is doing some bad things. Come with us please."
It's happened, and the courts shut it down.
By now, just about every police dept. in the U.S. knows that an IP address does not identify even a house, much less an individual. An IP address by itself is no longer (and never should have been) considered "probable cause".
"However, if being in public means anyone is free to follow and video me and my activities, then sell this information for a profit (traffic cams, private investigators, etc.) - I see how repeating broadcast television on the internet, without or even with time-shift delays, should also be free for anyone to undertake as a business."
Strictly speaking, no. While what one does in public is theoretically recordable by anybody, that doesn't mean they can use it for profit without your permission. That remains under your control. Legally, that is.
But you do bring up a good point. That would seem to conflict with things like traffic cameras, which are generally run by private firms, for a profit.
Not that I would mind seeing them get shot down. According to studies they seldom do any good, and often actually increase accident rates.
"And bureaux de changes are also subject to banking system regulation So it comes to the same: regulated vs unregulated."
In what country? I can speculate on the Forex market any time I want. It's regulated, but in the same way Bitcoin is already regulated in the U.S.: by laws (regulations) against fraud and abuse. But they're not "banking" laws.
Further, I can purchase products from many companies in England or Moscow or Sao Paolo for U.S. dollars... they're not banks either.
"So, Eve can read some of the message, if she's sufficiently clever, but how much is limited by how much noise the people communicating will accept in the signal without realizing that they are tapped."
Right. So if you're using any kind of compression or other scheme that requires accurate reception of a whole packet to re-assemble it (via CRC as a check for example), you can render that partial interception non-useful to your MITM.
It's pretty much theoretical at this point, since we really don't have practical end-to-end quantum crypto yet. But it may not be too far off.
"Discrimination can discourage women from a technical career, and hence cause a shortage. Moreover, voluntary choices can be heavily influenced by what other people do. What we know is that there is no specific sex-based pay discrimination."
You missed the whole point. Discrimination CAN do lots of things. But studies have consistently shown that it HASN'T.
A number of studies done (the last one I read about was a few years ago) showed that most women decided on careers outside of tech before they even entered high school. Based on personal preferences, not some perception (real or otherwise) of discrimination.
If there is any cause-effect there, it is so indirect as to be indistinguishable from the noise in the data.
We've had this discussion (or part of it) before.
Exchanges are not "banks". In fact, there really isn't any rational reason for exchanges to exist, outside of the rare convenience here or there for a few people.
But then, the Bitcoin market hasn't been rational anyway.
I don't owe Kool-Aid drinking Climate Nazis any breaks.
This depends on your definition of "quantum crypto".
End-to-end quantum cryptography allows you to know whether your communication has been intercepted. It IS theoretically immune to MITM. Simple quantum key generation or exchange however, may not be.
This.
One problem is that they didn't REALLY "go back to their roots" as a Hobbyist store. They still pushed cell phones and stereo equipment almost as much as before. At least in the stores in my area. The actual component electronics and chips were still relegated mostly to a back corner: one set of drawers and a section of wall hangers.
I should add that the above scenario is not a fault of Bitcoin. It is theoretically possible with any kind of currency. All you need is a vulnerability in your exchange. It's really a trust issue... people have been too trusting of "exchanges". In the same way they have been too trusting of Certificate Authorities.
You aren't going to fix that kind of social problem with technology.
"The one the governmental actors target? We know they want to discredit bitcoin. Why not make the effort profitable too?"
Government? Are you sure? Not that it's out of the question, but I think this scenario is even more likely:
(1) Open a bitcoin Exchange
(2) Make sure there are security holes.
(3) "Hack" into the system via the known vulnerabilities, through a proxy from a library somewhere.
(4) Claim theft.
(5) Profit.
Interesting that these Bitcoin "thefts" have taken place at precisely the time governments are making regulation noises, and exchanges are having some hard times.
OP said this is not an option. The equipment is large and requires continuous power. It stays in the room, it isn't "checked out".
"I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap."
I mentioned this here the other day. Studies for decades have consistently shown (A) the "shortage" of women in tech is NOT due to discrimination, but rather to choices voluntarily made by women, and (B) the "wage-gender gap" does not actually exist as a factor of mere gender. But even so, there are still women complaining that this is all due to discrimination. We saw an example of an OP just the other day who was trying to perpetuate the (A) myth.
Note that this is NOT the same as saying there is no discrimination. That is a different matter. But it isn't the cause of a shortage of women in tech, or a gap in wages. The statistics could hardly be more solid.
Sounds like it's crying time all around, actually.
First, the government tells the telcos that they can't charge the government for the actual equipment costs of government spying. Then when they try to recoup the costs via fees, the government says they can't do that, either.
It's good to be the King, eh?
Come on, folks. An "overrated" mod for saying something was funny? Get a life.
Hahahahahahahaha!
That's one of the funniest things I've read in a while.
"Additionally, using one of those boxes would require court approval. Perhaps not for a traditional search warrant, but certainly to allow the police, who are not licensees of the radio frequencies involved, to operate these intentional transmitters. And that probably means federal court approval."
That's an interesting point. I wonder if the apellants in this case thought of it.