I'm wondering if there's a business opportunity here...
I'm not an IT wizard or lawyer, but supposing one formed a partnership with major ISPs to run high-bandwidth proxy servers just beyond the perimeter of their network backbone. The proxy-server owners wouldn't be "ISP"s by definition, so they wouldn't be subject to data retention or any sort of disclosure laws. Then, ISP customers can have encrypted communications to the proxy, which then travel outwards to the rest of the web in whatever manner.
The police would only have legal access to the communications that the isp sees which is entirely encrypted.
I want them forced to advertise "Get your limited, conditional and revokeable without warning license to possibly view it at some point in the future!"
Correct, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet.
You do, however, have a reasonable expectation of anonymity. The courts' logic that you should NOT have anonymity based on having no reasonable expectation of privacy is what I disagree with.
Most studio "engineers" mix and master on loudspeakers because headphones are too flattering.
Headphones give you a totally different perception of the image (left-right positioning) than loudspeakers. With loudspeakers, sound from the left source arrives at both the right and left ear. Sound from the right source arrives at both the right and left ear. This is not true for headphones.
Hypothetical scenario where it is disadvantageous to use such a device:
The targeting system fails for mosquitoes who fly fast and are translucent.
Result:
Future generations of mosquitoes are fast and really damn hard to see. You won't know if it's your itchy rash that's acting up again, or if it's time to slap on some deet. And forget about the notion of "keep moving to stay bite-free" next time you're in a marsh.
would you expect privacy if you went into a train station and started shouting out your thoughts as hundreds walked past?
If my definition of privacy was having only the person I was yelling at across the station receive my thoughts, no.
If my definition of privacy was having nobody in the station able to identify me, yes. It's called privacy through anonymity, and it is both technically and philosophically possible, provided that laws protect online anonymity. This ruling appears at first glance to do the opposite.
Can someone please explain this "expectation of privacy" business to me?
I don't "expect" that my snail mail correspondence is private. I "expect" it could be intercepted and read by a third party, with or even without my knowledge. I don't think the Ontario Court would be justified in ruling that based on this fact the police can read my mail and use it as evidence in court without a warrant. (Maybe it already is, IANAL)
How is internet communication any different? Is it because it is a little bit easier to spy online? If so, where is the line drawn? Is this Ontario Court Judge deserving of the ability to draw that line?
If internet communications become more private due to some technology in the future, and people become justified in expecting more privacy, will they reverse this ruling? (I'd guess: not bloody likely)
Just wait for an exceptionally tech-savy pedophile to engineer a worm which rampantly distributes child-porn across its victims' computers.
Would that not underscore the futility of this ruling?
but the idea of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" about anything you do on the internet is absurd.
I have an expectation of privacy on the internet, as I think many people do - but I have an understanding that currently my expectation is not being met.
Just because there isn't online privacy, doesn't mean there shouldn't be. Rulings like these are a kick in the kidneys to any movement which aims to improve online privacy.
Have the networked swipe card security system send a WOL to your computer the minute you enter the building. By the time you get your coffee, flirt with the hot accounting lady, and walk to your desk your computer is ready to go. Unless you run Vista...
Employees access famous people's account info all the time, just out of curiousity. Such was my experience with co-workers during the summer I spent as a call centre representative at the local hydro company. After having the same phone conversation 100 times a day, people needed something to entertain them.
"OMG Wayne Gretzky missed a bill payment back in 1997!!!!"
My picture is already taken all over the place if I go to the airport, this would take my picture and cross-check it with a database of known criminals, terrorists and fugitives.
...and store your picture in a non-terrorist database, and in the event that you join a revolutionary movement to overthrow your highly corrupt government move your entry into the terrorist list, providing a convenient means to locate and apprehend you. And I don't necessarily mean your government is corrupt today, just that it could one day be.
Your picture may be taken all over the place already, but citing this as a reason why the proposed system isn't big-brother-eque doesn't make much sense. If people already routinely defacated on your doorstep, would you be apathetic about a government proposal to defecate on your doorstep?
Slashdot Mirror
A Care Bear Stare would be far more effective and less complicated from an IT standpoint.
+1 WishItWereTrue
I'm wondering if there's a business opportunity here...
I'm not an IT wizard or lawyer, but supposing one formed a partnership with major ISPs to run high-bandwidth proxy servers just beyond the perimeter of their network backbone. The proxy-server owners wouldn't be "ISP"s by definition, so they wouldn't be subject to data retention or any sort of disclosure laws. Then, ISP customers can have encrypted communications to the proxy, which then travel outwards to the rest of the web in whatever manner.
The police would only have legal access to the communications that the isp sees which is entirely encrypted.
Or have they considered this loophole?
This article has been up for quite a while and is a very thorough technical analysis for anyone interested:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
Sounds like a biological warfare weapon designer's wet dream.
I want them forced to advertise "Get your limited, conditional and revokeable without warning license to possibly view it at some point in the future!"
Fixed that for you.
don't be surprised if the FTC comes calling.
Sony: "Hello?"
FTC: "Hi, this is the FTC, you have some deceptive DRM in your latest product"
Sony: "Oh?"
FTC: "Yeah, so we're just calling to let you know"
Sony: "I'm not surprised that you're calling"
FTC: "Wonderful. Have a good day, sir. Goodbye."
"640k ought to be enough for anybody"
[citation needed]
People can't notify you of unexpected things.
Proof that you're wrong: Your mom and I had a great time last night.
Correct, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet.
You do, however, have a reasonable expectation of anonymity. The courts' logic that you should NOT have anonymity based on having no reasonable expectation of privacy is what I disagree with.
That's a blu-ray movie download in 10 minutes.
They're missing the tightly integrated monitoring/filtering scheme that will have to exist before the MAFIAA lets deployment occur.
If they block everyone, they reason, the sites will go out of business and the exploitation will stop. That's admirable.
Admirable? If they nuke the entire country the exploitation will also stop. Such policies often have unintended consequences that must be considered.
Most studio "engineers" mix and master on loudspeakers because headphones are too flattering.
Headphones give you a totally different perception of the image (left-right positioning) than loudspeakers. With loudspeakers, sound from the left source arrives at both the right and left ear. Sound from the right source arrives at both the right and left ear. This is not true for headphones.
Hypothetical scenario where it is disadvantageous to use such a device:
The targeting system fails for mosquitoes who fly fast and are translucent.
Result:
Future generations of mosquitoes are fast and really damn hard to see. You won't know if it's your itchy rash that's acting up again, or if it's time to slap on some deet. And forget about the notion of "keep moving to stay bite-free" next time you're in a marsh.
would you expect privacy if you went into a train station and started shouting out your thoughts as hundreds walked past?
If my definition of privacy was having only the person I was yelling at across the station receive my thoughts, no.
If my definition of privacy was having nobody in the station able to identify me, yes. It's called privacy through anonymity, and it is both technically and philosophically possible, provided that laws protect online anonymity. This ruling appears at first glance to do the opposite.
Can someone please explain this "expectation of privacy" business to me?
I don't "expect" that my snail mail correspondence is private. I "expect" it could be intercepted and read by a third party, with or even without my knowledge. I don't think the Ontario Court would be justified in ruling that based on this fact the police can read my mail and use it as evidence in court without a warrant. (Maybe it already is, IANAL)
How is internet communication any different? Is it because it is a little bit easier to spy online? If so, where is the line drawn? Is this Ontario Court Judge deserving of the ability to draw that line?
If internet communications become more private due to some technology in the future, and people become justified in expecting more privacy, will they reverse this ruling? (I'd guess: not bloody likely)
Just wait for an exceptionally tech-savy pedophile to engineer a worm which rampantly distributes child-porn across its victims' computers. Would that not underscore the futility of this ruling?
but the idea of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" about anything you do on the internet is absurd.
I have an expectation of privacy on the internet, as I think many people do - but I have an understanding that currently my expectation is not being met.
Just because there isn't online privacy, doesn't mean there shouldn't be. Rulings like these are a kick in the kidneys to any movement which aims to improve online privacy.
Officer, you can't hear the click, but it's there, honest! My phone plays the click sound summed to itself 180 degrees out of phase!
It'll be a little bit easier for police officers engaging in brutality to identify bystanders who snap incriminating pictures of their actions.
Have the networked swipe card security system send a WOL to your computer the minute you enter the building. By the time you get your coffee, flirt with the hot accounting lady, and walk to your desk your computer is ready to go. Unless you run Vista...
Employees access famous people's account info all the time, just out of curiousity. Such was my experience with co-workers during the summer I spent as a call centre representative at the local hydro company. After having the same phone conversation 100 times a day, people needed something to entertain them. "OMG Wayne Gretzky missed a bill payment back in 1997!!!!"
...yet another rip-off of Philogelos
My picture is already taken all over the place if I go to the airport, this would take my picture and cross-check it with a database of known criminals, terrorists and fugitives.
...and store your picture in a non-terrorist database, and in the event that you join a revolutionary movement to overthrow your highly corrupt government move your entry into the terrorist list, providing a convenient means to locate and apprehend you. And I don't necessarily mean your government is corrupt today, just that it could one day be.
Your picture may be taken all over the place already, but citing this as a reason why the proposed system isn't big-brother-eque doesn't make much sense. If people already routinely defacated on your doorstep, would you be apathetic about a government proposal to defecate on your doorstep?
Yup. Can't find it in the slashdot search, but I remember this being posted before.