"The point is not that the last category is alone in being able to cause death. It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose."
No, the point is that you're making straw-man arguments while pretending to be logical.
"It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose."
The problem with your argument is that these objects -- in the vast, vast majority of cases -- simply do not exist in the civilian populace.
AR-15? It is a most excellent hunting weapon for small-to-medium animals, and is actually legal in many states to use as a deer rifle. And it makes a VERY GOOD deer rifle. All that "assault weapon" bullshit is... well... bullshit.
So let's see... maybe you were referring to handguns? Ah, but wait... handguns are used to PREVENT violent crime, often simply by displaying the gun, or by wounding the would-be perpetrator, FAR MORE OFTEN than they are used to kill. (And even "far" is an understatement. Approximately 90% of gunshot victims in the U.S. survive, and that doesn't include the crimes that were stopped without a shot ever being fired.)
I'm so tired of hearing this "no legitimate purpose" nonsense. Because that's all it is. Nonsense. If you are in the U.S., your government's own crime statistics prove it. Maybe you should look them up.
"Actually...Google provides 15 Gb of storage for standard, free Gmail accounts. Unless you're attaching movies or large numbers of music files, that is enough to retain years worth of e-mail."
Yes, but that's YOU keeping mail stored in your mailboxes. That's not Google keeping separate copies to give to the government, which is what GP's comment was about.
"Well, the earlier/. story mentioned that GCHQ (UK) stores *three days* worth of data flowing through Britain (where almost all the high-speed cross-Atlantic cables terminate), and the metadata from that for 30 days."
But "the data flowing through Britain" is not the same as emails in your gmail account.
I repeat: it would be much more problematic to try to store and analyze relationships "on the fly", than it is to do it via static snapshots of your email correspondence.
I wasn't saying it can't be (or even isn't) done. But I highly doubt the stuff that is captured en masse is as easy to analyze for relationships as the stuff MIT is capturing via your gmail account as in the example given.
"You don't store the email unless it is 'interesting'. You store the metadata about the email in order to establish relationships. Facebook does this kind of processing and even provides an API to access their graphs. I think you vastly over estimate how hard this is."
I didn't say it was difficult. My statement was that it was costly. Two different things.
If it is worth their while, maybe they do it.
But as for Facebook: again, I doubt they make shadow copies of everything. Instead they analyze what is in place. Metadata? I suppose. But the bodies of the emails (in the case of Gmail) probably aren't stored. Analyzed for content when they go through? Perhaps.
"Um... so your emails don't go through the internets? How does that work? Even though you tell the server to delete it, it still passes through the server..."
I knew somebody would bring this up.:)
No, of course the email goes through the 'net. But consider: trying to separately store and analyze each separate event takes vastly more resources than doing periodic static analysis of the contents of your email folder.
Conclusion: they probably don't. Almost certainly, they simple take periodic snapshots. While they may analyze traffic too, that's still not the same thing.
"This is not an assumption. It's basically a stated fact."
NO, it is not. It is an assumption, and a false one, according to the studies I previously mentioned.
NO, I am not going to spend an hour going back to look for them to prove it to you. You can find them youself if you want. It's not worth my time. But that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that you are right. You are not.
Your long stories and justifications mean nothing to me. I have read the statistics, and they disagree with you. Period. End of discussion. I shall not reply again.
"There's also the legitimate question of what constitutes "unauthorized" access."
Their first point is the one I feel is most pertinent and carries the most weight: the fact that calling a breach of Terms of Service a "crime" would effectively allow private corporations to write their own laws... something that is very clearly outside not just our Constitution, but our entire historic system of justice, from long before the Constitution was even conceived
.
While it is true none of the solutions will survive an OS re-install, in most cases that's not terribly relevant. You want to track it down before they re-install the OS anyway.
Prey is very unobtrusive; I often forget it's even there. It can give you screen shots, access location information, and even snap pictures with the webcam if your laptop is so equipped.
Repeat: "When in reality, it tends to be the people with experience who see new, better ways to do things. (Which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.) "
"At least the places I've worked older workers are more interested in keeping the status quo."
Anecdotes do not statistics make. I've worked in places where most of the management turned out to be assholes. I do not then conclude that all (or even most) managers are assholes.
"When you consider that the hot new thing all the startups want to write in changes every 5-6 years it's no surprise that older workers don't hold as much value. "
This is directly contrary to study results, which was the whole point of my comment. Your assumptions are not in line with what the statistics actually say. Hell, some of those studies were discussed right here recently on Slashdot.
"The reason for doing it - well, if you want to preserve something for a few decades then it's printing on lint paper and using ink that can survive a long time. The latter is probably the hardest since nobody really knows which kind of ink used in computer printers that's able to survive for centuries."
I don't know about "lint" paper, but you definitely want acid-free paper.
Regardless, a definitive answer for long-term paper storage won't come from Slashdot. Ask the Universities, who insist that they get a copy of every thesis paper for their archives, printed in such a way that it WILL last for centuries. They'd know the best practices.
"At 40 I still run circles around most people, younger and older. I never understand the 'young tech' thing."
It's nothing but club mentality. They think that young people are the ones who have fresh ideas. When in reality, it tends to be the people with experience who see new, better ways to do things. (Which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.)
Study after study have shown that older programmers are on average more productive.
"Despite this latest poll, I still think Snowden was right. Future generations will hail him as the hero he is. And that's coming from a non-American..."
I have a sneaking suspicion that this poll does not represent the viewpoint of the average U.S. citizen. The opinions shown in the poll are not typical of the people I routinely talk to.
When AOL first released that infamous "sample" data, it took reporters about an hour to start identifying people.
Not big companies. Not wealthy organizations. Some newspaper reporters. Sure, they probably had a couple of programmer friends help. But they didn't hire Hughes Corporation or anything.
"They're just realists. Any population that would accept the Patriot Act, getting groped at airports, free speech zones, and other such freedom-violating nonsense without truly doing anything about it (even voting for third parties or writing en masse to representatives) should be treated as nothing more than mentally retarded preschoolers, for that is what they may as well be."
I don't think they're being "realists", at all. The simple fact of the matter is that most people did not understand what the result of all these measures would be... probably because they didn't read enough history.
But they're becoming aware NOW. And I think these "realists" will find that is no small thing.
"The data in question is anonymized, according to AT&T, but it includes very sensitive information such as customers' locations, Web browsing history, mobile app usage and more."
We have known for years now that there is no such thing as "anonymized" data. I found out the other day that somebody actually built a browser for viewing so-called "anonymous" data from the AOL data release some years ago.
Generally, all it takes is a little sleuthing, and all that "anonymous" data becomes anything but.
We need a law. Seriously... if you know me I am not someone who would normally say that. But we need better privacy laws in this country. The Constitutional guarantee of privacy (and yes, before you argue, SCOTUS said it does exist) simply seems to have been falling on deaf ears.
Most of the comments I have seen here have been depressingly (and unjustifiably, IMO) negative.
I think it is obvious that people are becoming more concerned about privacy, now that they see how much of it they have inadvertently allowed to be taken from them.
I only hope that when they start using "privacy protection measures", they don't forget to fight against the reason they need to: abusive assholes (at least half of whom seem to be in government).
Slashdot Mirror
"Excessive attempts to excercise self-defense can easily escalate."
This is self-contradictory. If it's "excessive", then it's not self-defense. Pretty much by definition.
"The point is not that the last category is alone in being able to cause death. It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose."
No, the point is that you're making straw-man arguments while pretending to be logical.
"It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose."
The problem with your argument is that these objects -- in the vast, vast majority of cases -- simply do not exist in the civilian populace.
AR-15? It is a most excellent hunting weapon for small-to-medium animals, and is actually legal in many states to use as a deer rifle. And it makes a VERY GOOD deer rifle. All that "assault weapon" bullshit is... well... bullshit.
So let's see... maybe you were referring to handguns? Ah, but wait... handguns are used to PREVENT violent crime, often simply by displaying the gun, or by wounding the would-be perpetrator, FAR MORE OFTEN than they are used to kill. (And even "far" is an understatement. Approximately 90% of gunshot victims in the U.S. survive, and that doesn't include the crimes that were stopped without a shot ever being fired.)
I'm so tired of hearing this "no legitimate purpose" nonsense. Because that's all it is. Nonsense. If you are in the U.S., your government's own crime statistics prove it. Maybe you should look them up.
Holy crap, guys. A "troll" mod for the above comment?
Yahoo and Google have both publicly stated that they do NOT do this.
"Actually, that is entirely false depending on the BIOS you have in your laptop."
And boot sector viruses have been doing this in Windows since long before "extended" BIOS existed.
But Windows "secure boot", as much as it is a good thing to hate, would basically preclude this from happening.
But of course that presumably does not affect OP's Linux distro.
"Strange guys, bitching about Kinect spying on you and then installing spyware yourself."
It's a matter of trust.
Microsoft has very clearly and very repeatedly, over a period of many years, shown without any doubt that they can't be trusted.
I don't know of a single instance of similar complaints about The Prey Project.
"Actually...Google provides 15 Gb of storage for standard, free Gmail accounts. Unless you're attaching movies or large numbers of music files, that is enough to retain years worth of e-mail."
Yes, but that's YOU keeping mail stored in your mailboxes. That's not Google keeping separate copies to give to the government, which is what GP's comment was about.
"Well, the earlier /. story mentioned that GCHQ (UK) stores *three days* worth of data flowing through Britain (where almost all the high-speed cross-Atlantic cables terminate), and the metadata from that for 30 days."
But "the data flowing through Britain" is not the same as emails in your gmail account.
I repeat: it would be much more problematic to try to store and analyze relationships "on the fly", than it is to do it via static snapshots of your email correspondence.
I wasn't saying it can't be (or even isn't) done. But I highly doubt the stuff that is captured en masse is as easy to analyze for relationships as the stuff MIT is capturing via your gmail account as in the example given.
"Both of your statements are obviously wrong."
Hahahahahahahaha.
"You don't store the email unless it is 'interesting'. You store the metadata about the email in order to establish relationships. Facebook does this kind of processing and even provides an API to access their graphs. I think you vastly over estimate how hard this is."
I didn't say it was difficult. My statement was that it was costly. Two different things.
If it is worth their while, maybe they do it.
But as for Facebook: again, I doubt they make shadow copies of everything. Instead they analyze what is in place. Metadata? I suppose. But the bodies of the emails (in the case of Gmail) probably aren't stored. Analyzed for content when they go through? Perhaps.
"I thought places like Google and Yahoo retain e-mail for several years in order to facilitate all future subpoenas."
No. They do not.
First, it would cost a huge amount of money, and second, there is no law saying they have to, so they won't spend that money.
"Um... so your emails don't go through the internets? How does that work? Even though you tell the server to delete it, it still passes through the server..."
I knew somebody would bring this up. :)
No, of course the email goes through the 'net. But consider: trying to separately store and analyze each separate event takes vastly more resources than doing periodic static analysis of the contents of your email folder.
Conclusion: they probably don't. Almost certainly, they simple take periodic snapshots. While they may analyze traffic too, that's still not the same thing.
"This is not an assumption. It's basically a stated fact."
NO, it is not. It is an assumption, and a false one, according to the studies I previously mentioned.
NO, I am not going to spend an hour going back to look for them to prove it to you. You can find them youself if you want. It's not worth my time. But that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that you are right. You are not.
Your long stories and justifications mean nothing to me. I have read the statistics, and they disagree with you. Period. End of discussion. I shall not reply again.
Their analysis comes up completely blank.
Why?
Because I use POP3 rather than the bullshit IMAP for my mail access. There is nothing on the server, so there is nothing to analyze.
"There's also the legitimate question of what constitutes "unauthorized" access."
Their first point is the one I feel is most pertinent and carries the most weight: the fact that calling a breach of Terms of Service a "crime" would effectively allow private corporations to write their own laws... something that is very clearly outside not just our Constitution, but our entire historic system of justice, from long before the Constitution was even conceived .
I tertiary the others on this.
While it is true none of the solutions will survive an OS re-install, in most cases that's not terribly relevant. You want to track it down before they re-install the OS anyway.
Prey is very unobtrusive; I often forget it's even there. It can give you screen shots, access location information, and even snap pictures with the webcam if your laptop is so equipped.
Great product and service.
"Productive != creative"
Repeat: "When in reality, it tends to be the people with experience who see new, better ways to do things. (Which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.) "
"At least the places I've worked older workers are more interested in keeping the status quo."
Anecdotes do not statistics make. I've worked in places where most of the management turned out to be assholes. I do not then conclude that all (or even most) managers are assholes.
"When you consider that the hot new thing all the startups want to write in changes every 5-6 years it's no surprise that older workers don't hold as much value. "
This is directly contrary to study results, which was the whole point of my comment. Your assumptions are not in line with what the statistics actually say. Hell, some of those studies were discussed right here recently on Slashdot.
"The reason for doing it - well, if you want to preserve something for a few decades then it's printing on lint paper and using ink that can survive a long time. The latter is probably the hardest since nobody really knows which kind of ink used in computer printers that's able to survive for centuries."
I don't know about "lint" paper, but you definitely want acid-free paper.
Regardless, a definitive answer for long-term paper storage won't come from Slashdot. Ask the Universities, who insist that they get a copy of every thesis paper for their archives, printed in such a way that it WILL last for centuries. They'd know the best practices.
"At 40 I still run circles around most people, younger and older. I never understand the 'young tech' thing."
It's nothing but club mentality. They think that young people are the ones who have fresh ideas. When in reality, it tends to be the people with experience who see new, better ways to do things. (Which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.)
Study after study have shown that older programmers are on average more productive.
"Despite this latest poll, I still think Snowden was right. Future generations will hail him as the hero he is. And that's coming from a non-American..."
I have a sneaking suspicion that this poll does not represent the viewpoint of the average U.S. citizen. The opinions shown in the poll are not typical of the people I routinely talk to.
When AOL first released that infamous "sample" data, it took reporters about an hour to start identifying people.
Not big companies. Not wealthy organizations. Some newspaper reporters. Sure, they probably had a couple of programmer friends help. But they didn't hire Hughes Corporation or anything.
"They're just realists. Any population that would accept the Patriot Act, getting groped at airports, free speech zones, and other such freedom-violating nonsense without truly doing anything about it (even voting for third parties or writing en masse to representatives) should be treated as nothing more than mentally retarded preschoolers, for that is what they may as well be."
I don't think they're being "realists", at all. The simple fact of the matter is that most people did not understand what the result of all these measures would be... probably because they didn't read enough history.
But they're becoming aware NOW. And I think these "realists" will find that is no small thing.
"The data in question is anonymized, according to AT&T, but it includes very sensitive information such as customers' locations, Web browsing history, mobile app usage and more."
We have known for years now that there is no such thing as "anonymized" data. I found out the other day that somebody actually built a browser for viewing so-called "anonymous" data from the AOL data release some years ago.
Generally, all it takes is a little sleuthing, and all that "anonymous" data becomes anything but.
We need a law. Seriously... if you know me I am not someone who would normally say that. But we need better privacy laws in this country. The Constitutional guarantee of privacy (and yes, before you argue, SCOTUS said it does exist) simply seems to have been falling on deaf ears.
Most of the comments I have seen here have been depressingly (and unjustifiably, IMO) negative.
I think it is obvious that people are becoming more concerned about privacy, now that they see how much of it they have inadvertently allowed to be taken from them.
I only hope that when they start using "privacy protection measures", they don't forget to fight against the reason they need to: abusive assholes (at least half of whom seem to be in government).
"Correct, but the fact that a system exists doesn't make it a *good* one."
Correct. It's historical evidence that shows it's a good one.
When the system wasn't abused (like the aforementioned "forever copyrights"), it worked very well for all concerned.
Your young friend is incorrect, and in fact is part of the problem.
On average, today's young people spend more (in inflation-adjusted dollars) on music and movies than ever before.
But there ARE some who don't.