The ironic thing -- or funny, I suppose, depending on your point of view -- is that Hashrocket did not hire him. He's one of the best programmers I know (I know a lot), and he was also quite familiar with their development process. He taught it in college.
I think it's a pretty good bet that Hashrocket made a mistake in his case. He went on to work for other prestigious companies.
"Even police scanners work off of the same principals you see at work here. Various police departments tried to ban people from using them, but since they were broadcasting a regular analog signal over radio waves they were struck down by the courts."
The laws may have been overturned in regard to home reception, but a number of states still outlaw the reception of police-band radio in a vehicle.
It is also against Federal law to intercept cell phone transmissions. That's radio, too, over the "public" airwaves.
"If you transmit something in plain text over the air waves then don't expect the law to protect the privacy of that message, you are the one being the fool."
Just no. If you transmit that text with a cell phone, it is protected by Federal law. A cell phone is a radio and the signal is public. And in many circumstances the the content of your cell phone communication is not encrypted.
"If you don't know the difference between plain text, barely obfuscated plain text..."
I know the difference very well, thank you very much. You haven't been paying very close attention to what I have been saying. But really, that's not the main point anyway and it doesn't matter very much. The main point here is that there is solid legal precedent for -- there is existing federal law -- outlawing the reception of unencrypted, "public" airwaves, where that communication is intended to be private.
"Because the only time I saw you say it was, 'In my state...'"
Jeez. Pardon the hell out of me. It was "in my state" rather than "in this state". I am all fucking corrected now.
"what you originally wrote was 'in most US states would be illegal'"
Yes, and I do believe that pointing a camera covertly through somebody's window would be illegal in most states. I could be wrong... I was using my own state as a model.
"You meant that "it is water under the bridge" but you thought you would be clever and mimic my earlier statement. The thing is, you don't seem to understand that what I wrote was a standard form of insult that only works when you quote something already written once before. Since you did not actually use the words "water under the bridge""
No shit, Sherlock. Wow, what a genius. If you think I did it out of "ignorance", you are very much mistaken. Sure... maybe you didn't appreciate the joke, but then I get the impression you would not have liked anything I wrote.
"No, you did not. Is there some other place you wrote that in this thread?"
Are you thick-headed? I was referring to my very first statement: "In this state."
Your opinions about my motivation for not telling you what state it is are nothing more than guesswork on your part, and rather assholey guesswork at that.
"I dunno, the part where you never actually wrote "water under the bridge" until just now."
You didn't even get what I meant by that, did you? Sheesh.
"You are clearly delusional -- unable to support your position with anything more than wishes."
I told you right up front that I wasn't going to tell you that part. If you think any of your insulting, asshole comments are going to get me to change my mind, it is not me who is delusional here.
You might as well just drop it. You haven't made any points for your argument and I am not about to change my policy for your sake.
"If you want to cut 40% of the internet users off from your content, that's your prerogative."
Yes, indeed it is. But it could be 30%, or 20%, or whatever, if it were some browser other than Explorer. The only reason I mentioned Explorer at all is because it is Microsoft doing this.
But I don't agree with companies using coercive tactics to push a standard THEY decided THEY like. I don't particularly care what standard that is.
"What part of, "You did not have to tell me you live in the state" do you fail to understand?"
Hahahaha! I had already told you it was my state. What part of "water under the bridge" do YOU not understand? However, it's good advice and I will keep it in mind if I decide to make similar statements in the future.
"You are particularly pathetic in trying to frame this as some sort of personal safety issue."
And you can just fuck off, asshole. You know nothing about my personal situation or my reasons, so you have no place trying to second-guess me in that regard. You don't know the slightest thing about me and pretending you do ruins YOUR credibility.
"You have utterly ruined your credibility in this debate with such transparently disingenuous claims."
Your opinion that my statement was disingenuous is just that. An opinion.
The law in this state -- which the courts have upheld -- say that "covert surveillance" is illegal, even if it is through the front window with the curtains wide open. And it further states that "surveillance" is any "watching" in order to determine my activities or invade my privacy. They further ruled that a home is a place where one might have a reasonable expectation of privacy from that surveillance. (Repeat: surveillance is NOT the same thing as glancing in the window. It is deliberate "watching" without my knowledge or permission. A camera pointed in the window most definitely qualifies, unless I knew about it and gave permission. You can ask the guy who went to prison a couple of years ago all about it.)
BUT -- as I say: you don't have to believe me. You are entitled to your opinion. But you have no sound basis for arguing with me, either. Your guesswork has no more credibility than you say my statements do.
So believe it if you want, or don't and fuck off. I don't really care.
"The political comment was based on the the opening presented to go on a political rant. The similarities with our(US for me) current climate are quite obvious and very tempting."
Again, you are reading more into it than actually exists. Sure I wrote "Microsoft", but that is just because Microsoft happens to be the one doing it. It could just as easily have been some other browser.
"Your site with the old cert will expire in less than three years from the second I post this comment. This is not something that is happening tomorrow. Your post implies that you would not "upgrade" for the benefit of one user. Why not?"
That's two different issues. So (A) who cares? That's a completely separate issue, and it IS, as you say, 3 years. (B) Because if it's an old site that I have not bothered upgrading to this point, I probably don't care that much about it to support a particular browser anyway.
"Are you saying that you refuse to adopt a standard that progresses the security of our current computing environment?"
Of course not. Where did I actually state anything even remotely like that?
"You push a political edge with your comments that I am not quite comfortable answering. I will let someone else start that conversation."
You read far more into my comment than I actually wrote.
There's nothing "political" about it. If I had an old site with an old certificate, I simply would not be motivated to upgrade it just for the benefit of the user of one browser. I could say the same about Chrome or Safari or Firefox.
Now, if several browsers imposed that restriction, I might be inclined to upgrade.
By the way: I considered making some insignificant changes to the wording of the laws and posting them here for you anyway, but when I took the changed versions and put them in Google it led straight to my state.
You may think I am being paranoid, but you try being a woman who speaks up, in this kind of forum. I already have one person I consider to be borderline harassing me, and I am beginning to suspect him of "cyberstalking".
No, I am not lying. But I'm not going to cite the state's laws, because then you could tell what state it is. The laws are not identical, you know.
As I said before: it's true, and I could prove it, but I am not going to. You can believe it or not. I don't owe you anything and I have very good reasons for not citing anything verbatim.
But one has to wonder why Microsoft is doing the selection.
I'm not Microsoft-bashing here, but if I had an old cert on a site somewhere, there is no way in hell I would update it just to be compatible with Internet Explorer. Let Explorer users do without. I don't care in the slightest.
In my state -- I'm not going to tell you which one it is, because I don't discuss my location on Slashdot -- open curtains or not, if someone actively watches you through the window in order to determine what you are doing inside (as opposed to, for example, merely glancing in while walking past), it constitutes "illegal surveillance" and it is a prosecutable crime.
You can believe it or not, as you choose, but I promise you that is the case.
Of course, you should not expect someone to not "look in", and you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. I am well aware of that. But looking in the window is one thing. But actively watching through the window in order to observe my activities inside, or watching through binoculars, or recording with a camera is indeed illegal here.
"P.S: Before arguing that, you should produce a poll about people's knowledge about WiFi protection and people's knowledge about Word's redactions (You probably will also be amazed by how many people don't even know what's a why-fye (and what's a redaction))"
That's probably true. But I don't feel obligated to try to prove absolutely everything. In my experience most people barely know how to get their own wifi working, and wouldn't know a sniffer if it were sniffing them in the crotch.
"In fact, I've never seen it used either effectively nor efficiently*. Should it too be considered a specialised tool because of its complexity/feature-flood? I say yes."
No, that is not even remotely the criterion I was using. I was referring to tools that may be common in "the industry" but that most people do not know about at all.
By that standard, Word is exactly the opposite of what I was talking about: everybody knows about it, and most people can use it to at least some degree.
It is specifically designed for children, it is very tough, has better wifi (internet connectivity) than most expensive laptops, and has wonderful bang for the buck.
Buy one in great condition on ebay for $200 or less.
Having said all that: it will eventually need to be replaced. Your child isn't going to get through college with it. Or probably even high school.
"You might wish to google for "wireshark". It's an extremely "special" program routinely used by lots of different people for different purposes - network diagnostics, audit, and yes, sniffing - that can make sense of contents for lots of protocols."
I've been using Wireshark for years. But that's completely beside the point.
Wireshark is a "special tool" that takes "more knowledge than the common citizen" to use effectively.
It doesn't matter how easy it is to get, any more than it matters how easy it is to get lockpicks. It's whether you have the knowledge and skill to use them. And most people -- the VAST majority of people -- don't.
People here on Slashdot keep insisting on judging others in terms of themselves. But in law, you can't do that. You have to use the COMMON person as the standard. I doubt more than 0.5% of The People have ever even heard of Wireshark.
I told you before. I will tell you again: I am not arguing with you about climate science. I was only arguing about claims made by certain people on a certain blog post, and in particular their misleading reporting of statistics.
If you want to argue about other things, fine, but you can do it with somebody else. I am not interested.
"not some "special" supersecret program, just a common network testing tool"
And "common network testing tools" are NOT common. Probably better than 99% of the populace don't even know what they are.
I never argued that it had to be "supersecret" or some kind of great fancy thing. That's not the point. In law, you have to consider the COMMON person, not your typical Slashdot geek.
Pardon me. Technically you are correct. GP was wrong.
But MY argument, all along, has been about the content of those packets.
You can detect and record packets all day long, and it won't do you much good. Without "special" equipment (software, particularly) the content of the packets is just going to be bitstream gibberish. Standard tools won't help you with that.
"Dude, you're kinda like a deaf person trying to reason about spoken conversations. For umpteenth time, as others have already told you - there's nothing special about equipment and software needed to extract the contents of unencrypted wi-fi communications, it's as common as ears and speaking English."
Yes, people have told me, but they are wrong.
Go ahead. Use your "standard equipment" and sniff my unencrypted wifi packets. Then tell me what web site I was visiting, or what I was saying on my Skype phone call, or what video I was watching.
What's that you say? You can't? Why not?
Because making sense of the contents of those packets does not come automatically, or with "standard" equipment.
Pardon the multiple posts, but I have had distractions.
"If you set up a micro-FM transmitter in your home that reaches just outside to the street, I am fully within my legal rights to stand in the street with a portable radio and listen to what you transmit. You can scream that it wasn't intended for me all the time but that doesn't matter."
Well, no shit, Sherlock. But that isn't what I was arguing.
Telephone wires are public, too. Does that mean I can tap them? No. (Now, don't go telling me it's illegal because they are private property. That is true, but that is not WHY it's illegal. The courts have made their reasoning very clear.)
So explain to me where any other difference is. I can tap into the line with no special equipment, and record everything going on. Easily. Hell, I can even wrap a current loop around the line and detect the signal without damaging the wires at all, or even touching them. So what's the difference?
I'll tell you where the difference is: a telephone call is a communication that is intended to be private. It is a point-to-point communication. Just as with your cell phone to your cell tower, or your laptop to your wifi router. It may BE public, as a matter of technicality, but the intent is that the communication is private. Your FM radio analogy is not valid, else it would be perfectly legal to intercept cell phone communications. But it's not.
"THE AIRWAVES BELONG TO THE PUBLIC."
No, they don't. That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work that way. The FCC presumably regulates frequencies and the like on behalf of the public, but that's pretty debatable considering how they auction off blocks to large corporations.
More to the point: states can and do regulate the reception of some frequency bands. For example, in some states it is illegal to receive police-band radio. And if they can regulate the one, then they can regulate the other. Both can be argued to be "in the public good".
"This is why a SECOND LAYER -- ENCRYPTION -- is needed for protection"
And this is where you are missing the point. It is NOT the equivalent of shouting in a public space, because anybody can hear the shouting. You don't need special knowledge or equipment to intercept it.
Now, don't misunderstand me like those others did. Yes, the SIGNAL is very public and can be recorded by just about anybody with standard tools in their laptop. But the same is not true for the communication content of those packets. Your everyday tools will not make sense of that. That takes more work and more sophisticated tools, even if it is unencrypted. Otherwise all you are looking at is a meaningless bitstream.
You have to distinguish between the signal itself, and the communication content of that signal. Because there are legal differences.
For example: a "pen-register" can be attached to telephone switching equipment, and will record when a call was made, where it was from, and where it went. But the courts have ruled that it is not a wiretap, because it doesn't intercept the actual communication of the phone call. Therefore, pen registers (according to recent rulings) don't require the same standard of evidence to get as a wiretap does. A warrant based on probably cause is required for a wiretap. A pen register still requires a judge's permission, based on evidence, but that evidence does not have to meet probable cause standards.
So that is what I am talking about here. Sure, the signal is public and can be detected or recorded. But that is NOT the same as actually eavesdropping on me. Making sense of the actual content requires equipment and knowledge that is not common in the streets.
"Well, why don't try and find an AGW theory that doesn't involve CO2. Gee, that will be like half of them."
I already mentioned the biggest one which many scientists believe is more important than CO2: land-use changes. From forest to farmland, field to parking lot. Is it enough to affect those figures compared to "CO2-only"? Probably. But of course I can't say for sure.
"I have a degree in stats"
I find that hard to believe. You didn't seem to pick up on the "no true Scotsman" ploy in that paper.
"It doesn't matter how you study your population and calibrate -- you cannot change the inherent randomness in how people respond."
That's why you choose an appropriate and large sample, and do your best to determine how sampling bias and sampling error might affect your results. No, you can't control it, but you can estimate it. That's what statistics is for.
You still don't just pull a percentage out of the air and call it good.
Slashdot Mirror
I know somebody who did this, about 4 years ago.
The ironic thing -- or funny, I suppose, depending on your point of view -- is that Hashrocket did not hire him. He's one of the best programmers I know (I know a lot), and he was also quite familiar with their development process. He taught it in college.
I think it's a pretty good bet that Hashrocket made a mistake in his case. He went on to work for other prestigious companies.
"Even police scanners work off of the same principals you see at work here. Various police departments tried to ban people from using them, but since they were broadcasting a regular analog signal over radio waves they were struck down by the courts."
The laws may have been overturned in regard to home reception, but a number of states still outlaw the reception of police-band radio in a vehicle.
It is also against Federal law to intercept cell phone transmissions. That's radio, too, over the "public" airwaves.
"If you transmit something in plain text over the air waves then don't expect the law to protect the privacy of that message, you are the one being the fool."
Just no. If you transmit that text with a cell phone, it is protected by Federal law. A cell phone is a radio and the signal is public. And in many circumstances the the content of your cell phone communication is not encrypted.
"If you don't know the difference between plain text, barely obfuscated plain text..."
I know the difference very well, thank you very much. You haven't been paying very close attention to what I have been saying. But really, that's not the main point anyway and it doesn't matter very much. The main point here is that there is solid legal precedent for -- there is existing federal law -- outlawing the reception of unencrypted, "public" airwaves, where that communication is intended to be private.
"Because the only time I saw you say it was, 'In my state...'"
Jeez. Pardon the hell out of me. It was "in my state" rather than "in this state". I am all fucking corrected now.
"what you originally wrote was 'in most US states would be illegal'"
Yes, and I do believe that pointing a camera covertly through somebody's window would be illegal in most states. I could be wrong... I was using my own state as a model.
"You meant that "it is water under the bridge" but you thought you would be clever and mimic my earlier statement. The thing is, you don't seem to understand that what I wrote was a standard form of insult that only works when you quote something already written once before. Since you did not actually use the words "water under the bridge""
No shit, Sherlock. Wow, what a genius. If you think I did it out of "ignorance", you are very much mistaken. Sure... maybe you didn't appreciate the joke, but then I get the impression you would not have liked anything I wrote.
"No, you did not. Is there some other place you wrote that in this thread?"
Are you thick-headed? I was referring to my very first statement: "In this state."
Your opinions about my motivation for not telling you what state it is are nothing more than guesswork on your part, and rather assholey guesswork at that.
"I dunno, the part where you never actually wrote "water under the bridge" until just now."
You didn't even get what I meant by that, did you? Sheesh.
"You are clearly delusional -- unable to support your position with anything more than wishes."
I told you right up front that I wasn't going to tell you that part. If you think any of your insulting, asshole comments are going to get me to change my mind, it is not me who is delusional here.
You might as well just drop it. You haven't made any points for your argument and I am not about to change my policy for your sake.
"If you want to cut 40% of the internet users off from your content, that's your prerogative."
Yes, indeed it is. But it could be 30%, or 20%, or whatever, if it were some browser other than Explorer. The only reason I mentioned Explorer at all is because it is Microsoft doing this.
But I don't agree with companies using coercive tactics to push a standard THEY decided THEY like. I don't particularly care what standard that is.
"What part of, "You did not have to tell me you live in the state" do you fail to understand?"
Hahahaha! I had already told you it was my state. What part of "water under the bridge" do YOU not understand? However, it's good advice and I will keep it in mind if I decide to make similar statements in the future.
"You are particularly pathetic in trying to frame this as some sort of personal safety issue."
And you can just fuck off, asshole. You know nothing about my personal situation or my reasons, so you have no place trying to second-guess me in that regard. You don't know the slightest thing about me and pretending you do ruins YOUR credibility.
"You have utterly ruined your credibility in this debate with such transparently disingenuous claims."
Your opinion that my statement was disingenuous is just that. An opinion.
The law in this state -- which the courts have upheld -- say that "covert surveillance" is illegal, even if it is through the front window with the curtains wide open. And it further states that "surveillance" is any "watching" in order to determine my activities or invade my privacy. They further ruled that a home is a place where one might have a reasonable expectation of privacy from that surveillance. (Repeat: surveillance is NOT the same thing as glancing in the window. It is deliberate "watching" without my knowledge or permission. A camera pointed in the window most definitely qualifies, unless I knew about it and gave permission. You can ask the guy who went to prison a couple of years ago all about it.)
BUT -- as I say: you don't have to believe me. You are entitled to your opinion. But you have no sound basis for arguing with me, either. Your guesswork has no more credibility than you say my statements do.
So believe it if you want, or don't and fuck off. I don't really care.
"The political comment was based on the the opening presented to go on a political rant. The similarities with our(US for me) current climate are quite obvious and very tempting."
Again, you are reading more into it than actually exists. Sure I wrote "Microsoft", but that is just because Microsoft happens to be the one doing it. It could just as easily have been some other browser.
"Your site with the old cert will expire in less than three years from the second I post this comment. This is not something that is happening tomorrow. Your post implies that you would not "upgrade" for the benefit of one user. Why not?"
That's two different issues. So (A) who cares? That's a completely separate issue, and it IS, as you say, 3 years. (B) Because if it's an old site that I have not bothered upgrading to this point, I probably don't care that much about it to support a particular browser anyway.
"Are you saying that you refuse to adopt a standard that progresses the security of our current computing environment?"
Of course not. Where did I actually state anything even remotely like that?
"You push a political edge with your comments that I am not quite comfortable answering. I will let someone else start that conversation."
You read far more into my comment than I actually wrote.
There's nothing "political" about it. If I had an old site with an old certificate, I simply would not be motivated to upgrade it just for the benefit of the user of one browser. I could say the same about Chrome or Safari or Firefox.
Now, if several browsers imposed that restriction, I might be inclined to upgrade.
By the way: I considered making some insignificant changes to the wording of the laws and posting them here for you anyway, but when I took the changed versions and put them in Google it led straight to my state.
You may think I am being paranoid, but you try being a woman who speaks up, in this kind of forum. I already have one person I consider to be borderline harassing me, and I am beginning to suspect him of "cyberstalking".
No, I am not lying. But I'm not going to cite the state's laws, because then you could tell what state it is. The laws are not identical, you know.
As I said before: it's true, and I could prove it, but I am not going to. You can believe it or not. I don't owe you anything and I have very good reasons for not citing anything verbatim.
"Does anyone know why 1024 was selected?"
But one has to wonder why Microsoft is doing the selection.
I'm not Microsoft-bashing here, but if I had an old cert on a site somewhere, there is no way in hell I would update it just to be compatible with Internet Explorer. Let Explorer users do without. I don't care in the slightest.
In my state -- I'm not going to tell you which one it is, because I don't discuss my location on Slashdot -- open curtains or not, if someone actively watches you through the window in order to determine what you are doing inside (as opposed to, for example, merely glancing in while walking past), it constitutes "illegal surveillance" and it is a prosecutable crime.
You can believe it or not, as you choose, but I promise you that is the case.
Of course, you should not expect someone to not "look in", and you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. I am well aware of that. But looking in the window is one thing. But actively watching through the window in order to observe my activities inside, or watching through binoculars, or recording with a camera is indeed illegal here.
"P.S: Before arguing that, you should produce a poll about people's knowledge about WiFi protection and people's knowledge about Word's redactions (You probably will also be amazed by how many people don't even know what's a why-fye (and what's a redaction))"
That's probably true. But I don't feel obligated to try to prove absolutely everything. In my experience most people barely know how to get their own wifi working, and wouldn't know a sniffer if it were sniffing them in the crotch.
"In fact, I've never seen it used either effectively nor efficiently*. Should it too be considered a specialised tool because of its complexity/feature-flood? I say yes."
No, that is not even remotely the criterion I was using. I was referring to tools that may be common in "the industry" but that most people do not know about at all.
By that standard, Word is exactly the opposite of what I was talking about: everybody knows about it, and most people can use it to at least some degree.
It is specifically designed for children, it is very tough, has better wifi (internet connectivity) than most expensive laptops, and has wonderful bang for the buck.
Buy one in great condition on ebay for $200 or less.
Having said all that: it will eventually need to be replaced. Your child isn't going to get through college with it. Or probably even high school.
"You might wish to google for "wireshark". It's an extremely "special" program routinely used by lots of different people for different purposes - network diagnostics, audit, and yes, sniffing - that can make sense of contents for lots of protocols."
I've been using Wireshark for years. But that's completely beside the point.
Wireshark is a "special tool" that takes "more knowledge than the common citizen" to use effectively.
It doesn't matter how easy it is to get, any more than it matters how easy it is to get lockpicks. It's whether you have the knowledge and skill to use them. And most people -- the VAST majority of people -- don't.
People here on Slashdot keep insisting on judging others in terms of themselves. But in law, you can't do that. You have to use the COMMON person as the standard. I doubt more than 0.5% of The People have ever even heard of Wireshark.
""What sites you was visiting" is easy."
No, it isn't. Unless you follow the whole bitstream, all you'll get is the IP address. But there can be many sites on an IP address.
If it's so easy, let's see you do it. With nothing more then OEM, factory software and hardware.
Explain your methodology, and post your results online. I would be VERY interested in seeing this.
"So, Skype is private even over unencrypted wi-fi. Your web browsing and mail sent without TLS encryption over same wi-fi are not."
"Unencrypted" is not the same as "obvious". Go ahead. I invite you to try it on someone. Let us know how it works out.
I told you before. I will tell you again: I am not arguing with you about climate science. I was only arguing about claims made by certain people on a certain blog post, and in particular their misleading reporting of statistics.
If you want to argue about other things, fine, but you can do it with somebody else. I am not interested.
"not some "special" supersecret program, just a common network testing tool"
And "common network testing tools" are NOT common. Probably better than 99% of the populace don't even know what they are.
I never argued that it had to be "supersecret" or some kind of great fancy thing. That's not the point. In law, you have to consider the COMMON person, not your typical Slashdot geek.
I already admitted my mistake in that regard. You are arguing with nobody.
However:
"The airwaves are public. You are fully allowed to received any signal that you can reach from your property or public property. "
Absolute bollocks. It is against Federal law to intercept cell phone communications. Those are RADIO, in case you hadn't noticed.
And, as I already mentioned, some states regulate what radio bands you are allowed to legally receive.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this.
"read GP again. My response is correct."
Pardon me. Technically you are correct. GP was wrong.
But MY argument, all along, has been about the content of those packets.
You can detect and record packets all day long, and it won't do you much good. Without "special" equipment (software, particularly) the content of the packets is just going to be bitstream gibberish. Standard tools won't help you with that.
"Dude, you're kinda like a deaf person trying to reason about spoken conversations. For umpteenth time, as others have already told you - there's nothing special about equipment and software needed to extract the contents of unencrypted wi-fi communications, it's as common as ears and speaking English."
Yes, people have told me, but they are wrong.
Go ahead. Use your "standard equipment" and sniff my unencrypted wifi packets. Then tell me what web site I was visiting, or what I was saying on my Skype phone call, or what video I was watching.
What's that you say? You can't? Why not?
Because making sense of the contents of those packets does not come automatically, or with "standard" equipment.
Get a clue yourself.
"If you set up a micro-FM transmitter in your home that reaches just outside to the street, I am fully within my legal rights to stand in the street with a portable radio and listen to what you transmit. You can scream that it wasn't intended for me all the time but that doesn't matter."
Well, no shit, Sherlock. But that isn't what I was arguing.
Telephone wires are public, too. Does that mean I can tap them? No. (Now, don't go telling me it's illegal because they are private property. That is true, but that is not WHY it's illegal. The courts have made their reasoning very clear.)
So explain to me where any other difference is. I can tap into the line with no special equipment, and record everything going on. Easily. Hell, I can even wrap a current loop around the line and detect the signal without damaging the wires at all, or even touching them. So what's the difference?
I'll tell you where the difference is: a telephone call is a communication that is intended to be private. It is a point-to-point communication. Just as with your cell phone to your cell tower, or your laptop to your wifi router. It may BE public, as a matter of technicality, but the intent is that the communication is private. Your FM radio analogy is not valid, else it would be perfectly legal to intercept cell phone communications. But it's not.
"THE AIRWAVES BELONG TO THE PUBLIC."
No, they don't. That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work that way. The FCC presumably regulates frequencies and the like on behalf of the public, but that's pretty debatable considering how they auction off blocks to large corporations.
More to the point: states can and do regulate the reception of some frequency bands. For example, in some states it is illegal to receive police-band radio. And if they can regulate the one, then they can regulate the other. Both can be argued to be "in the public good".
"This is why a SECOND LAYER -- ENCRYPTION -- is needed for protection"
And this is where you are missing the point. It is NOT the equivalent of shouting in a public space, because anybody can hear the shouting. You don't need special knowledge or equipment to intercept it.
Now, don't misunderstand me like those others did. Yes, the SIGNAL is very public and can be recorded by just about anybody with standard tools in their laptop. But the same is not true for the communication content of those packets. Your everyday tools will not make sense of that. That takes more work and more sophisticated tools, even if it is unencrypted. Otherwise all you are looking at is a meaningless bitstream.
You have to distinguish between the signal itself, and the communication content of that signal. Because there are legal differences.
For example: a "pen-register" can be attached to telephone switching equipment, and will record when a call was made, where it was from, and where it went. But the courts have ruled that it is not a wiretap, because it doesn't intercept the actual communication of the phone call. Therefore, pen registers (according to recent rulings) don't require the same standard of evidence to get as a wiretap does. A warrant based on probably cause is required for a wiretap. A pen register still requires a judge's permission, based on evidence, but that evidence does not have to meet probable cause standards.
So that is what I am talking about here. Sure, the signal is public and can be detected or recorded. But that is NOT the same as actually eavesdropping on me. Making sense of the actual content requires equipment and knowledge that is not common in the streets.
"Well, why don't try and find an AGW theory that doesn't involve CO2. Gee, that will be like half of them."
I already mentioned the biggest one which many scientists believe is more important than CO2: land-use changes. From forest to farmland, field to parking lot. Is it enough to affect those figures compared to "CO2-only"? Probably. But of course I can't say for sure.
"I have a degree in stats"
I find that hard to believe. You didn't seem to pick up on the "no true Scotsman" ploy in that paper.
"It doesn't matter how you study your population and calibrate -- you cannot change the inherent randomness in how people respond."
That's why you choose an appropriate and large sample, and do your best to determine how sampling bias and sampling error might affect your results. No, you can't control it, but you can estimate it. That's what statistics is for.
You still don't just pull a percentage out of the air and call it good.