Due process wasn't followed - i.e. Green prosecuted - for the reason I already said: MPs closed ranks - they didn't want to see one of their own imprisoned.
[Citation needed.]
The official line was "insufficient evidence", which is ironic considering the amount of evidence they collected from his home/office.
If I were to make a completely unsubstantiated claim as well, I would offer that they didn't prosecute because it would have brought to light the horrific way it was handled (no warrant to search his home, potentially illegal bugging of his home) but I have no evidence to back that either.
It's not just photographers who are at the receiving end of this absolute abomination of a law. Does anyone remember Damien Green whose house was raided by Anti-Terror police for basically selling tittle-tattle to the press?
Surely something like this at the top of any intranet page that requires IE6:
<!--please_render_using_ie6-->
would solve it. You'd get a better browser for most sites, and anything that requires IE6 could be sandboxed away into a separate tab/process with minimal effort on the company's part (just grep the html header and add the comment underneath. The only problem is that Microsoft would have to bundle IE6 with all versions of windows along with the current IE
I was going to reply with comments related to the Constitution(specifically the Bill of Rights), how the court system works, the various court cases the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding protests and freedom of speech, and other facets of how the law protects you from government abuse related to freedom of speech and protest/demonstrations, but then I remembered that this is Slashdot, and the government is always bad, and corporations are always better than the government.
Sorry, I must have missed the bit where the GP said he was a US citizen.
It would be so funny to discover now that the laws of physics... be uneven in time. Maybe every 54.12 years the relation between produced matter/antimatter switches from 1:1.01 to 1.01:1.
You're not the first to think this (specifically the fundamental constants like the speed of light might be changing over time):
If ever I'm in Pennsylvania, I might spontaneously decide to sing "Killing in the Name" by RATM for no reason other than it's an awesome tune. Think of it as a free concert for anyone that wants to listen.
Absolutely. All laws must be obeyed without exception, and if you don't like speed camera, then you can take the bus. Don't worry about it being crowded; you can always evict a nego to make room.
This is exactly what I am talking about; if the law is wrong, change it (IANAL, but I understand it is now legal to mix on buses now in the US.) What you can't do is just say that you don't agree with the law. I'm under no illusions, wrong laws have been passed. I'm just saying that to ignore unjust laws is completely the wrong thing to do.
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow. If it isn't gospel, then it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, the defence of "I didn't agree with the guy who's trying to uphold the law, so I shot him" might be even more tenuous, but that's another kettle of fish:)
I don't get it. You speed, you're break the law, plain and simple. This ain't a pretty please with sugar on top think of the children type thing. One thing I hear a lot from people being stopped is "don't you have better things to do than to stop me speeding?" With a camera in place, these police officers need not be keeping the roads safe when any normal person can regulate speed perfectly well themselves.
Gatsometers have limitations true, but an average speed camera check (pictures taken at say 1 mile intervals and working out the av. speed from that) is reliable and pretty solid.
You only get off scot free if you've done something wrong. He did nothing wrong. He therefore did not get away with anything.
I agree with you, although this smells a lot like "working to rule." If you don't want to help the police, fine, but just be prepared that if you need their help, they don't return the work-to-rule favour.
Why do I need to know American rights to decide if someone is a douchebag? That just makes no sense. Is there a law defining douchebaggery?
all he did was refuse to state his name & I.D.
This is exactly my point; how is this not being deliberately truculent (and don't give me any crap from James Duane. That guy could sell sunglasses to a blindman.)? As I asked earlier, short of just letting this guy get off scot free, is there anything that the police could legally have done?
Mod this guy up. While I'm not for anything unconstitutional, there has to be something that the police can do to stop douchbags like this guy (if you don't think he is, you haven't read the article) from getting away with being a douche.
I'm sure I'll get many replies on what they could have done, which I don't mind. I'm genuinely curious, especially since I am not American.
1. Looking at the history of physics, it seem very likely that our understanding of physics will change
I agree, which is why I didn't ignore the issue. However, if we were to invent a devise in which all the quantum states of an object could be simultaneously extracted, our/entire/ understanding of the world would fall like a pack of cards (the philosophical problem of determinism would rear its ugly head again.)
2. The devices implementing these exchanges are still hardware and subject to faults and bad design
Only fools will use this technology, when other technology is available that gives both better assurances and far better cost.
Well, yes, it's still prone to go wrong, but I would be very surprised if any brand new technology could appear with bulletproof reliability these days. Refining it might be tricky, but I'm sure the people working on it are well aware of that.
There's no reason to believe a brute force attack on AES128 will ever succeed.
You use the word "believe". Does that mean you're not 100% certain? That's exactly what I'm trying to say! Quantum cryptography is uncrackable at the physical level.
You only need secure transmission of keys. After that you don't care.
Almost. Classical cryptography works on the assumption that a brute force attack is impractical (even if possible in pseudo infinite time.)
Quantum cryptography has no such restriction. This means that unless our understanding of the laws of physics change, no increase in computing firepower will help Eve.
How many people knew what a terabyte was 10 years ago?
How many people know what a petabyte is now?
In any case, your reply shouldn't be directed at me. I have no intention of using YoctoNewton more than three times in a sentence. What I was getting at is that scientific notation is not mainstream.
Slashdot Mirror
Due process wasn't followed - i.e. Green prosecuted - for the reason I already said: MPs closed ranks - they didn't want to see one of their own imprisoned.
[Citation needed.]
The official line was "insufficient evidence", which is ironic considering the amount of evidence they collected from his home/office.
If I were to make a completely unsubstantiated claim as well, I would offer that they didn't prosecute because it would have brought to light the horrific way it was handled (no warrant to search his home, potentially illegal bugging of his home) but I have no evidence to back that either.
It's not just photographers who are at the receiving end of this absolute abomination of a law. Does anyone remember Damien Green whose house was raided by Anti-Terror police for basically selling tittle-tattle to the press?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Green
Makes me sick.
Surely something like this at the top of any intranet page that requires IE6:
<!--please_render_using_ie6-->
would solve it. You'd get a better browser for most sites, and anything that requires IE6 could be sandboxed away into a separate tab/process with minimal effort on the company's part (just grep the html header and add the comment underneath. The only problem is that Microsoft would have to bundle IE6 with all versions of windows along with the current IE
Please, stop feeding the trolls.
Unless it's broccoli and fish oil that is :)
I was going to reply with comments related to the Constitution(specifically the Bill of Rights), how the court system works, the various court cases the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding protests and freedom of speech, and other facets of how the law protects you from government abuse related to freedom of speech and protest/demonstrations, but then I remembered that this is Slashdot, and the government is always bad, and corporations are always better than the government.
Sorry, I must have missed the bit where the GP said he was a US citizen.
No nitpicking with semantics now :) I guess they'd be called parameters in keeping with Hubble's constant/parameter.
It would be so funny to discover now that the laws of physics ... be uneven in time. Maybe every 54.12 years the relation between produced matter/antimatter switches from 1:1.01 to 1.01:1.
You're not the first to think this (specifically the fundamental constants like the speed of light might be changing over time):
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html
If ever I'm in Pennsylvania, I might spontaneously decide to sing "Killing in the Name" by RATM for no reason other than it's an awesome tune. Think of it as a free concert for anyone that wants to listen.
Absolutely. All laws must be obeyed without exception, and if you don't like speed camera, then you can take the bus. Don't worry about it being crowded; you can always evict a nego to make room.
This is exactly what I am talking about; if the law is wrong, change it (IANAL, but I understand it is now legal to mix on buses now in the US.) What you can't do is just say that you don't agree with the law. I'm under no illusions, wrong laws have been passed. I'm just saying that to ignore unjust laws is completely the wrong thing to do.
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow. If it isn't gospel, then it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, the defence of "I didn't agree with the guy who's trying to uphold the law, so I shot him" might be even more tenuous, but that's another kettle of fish :)
I don't get it. You speed, you're break the law, plain and simple. This ain't a pretty please with sugar on top think of the children type thing. One thing I hear a lot from people being stopped is "don't you have better things to do than to stop me speeding?" With a camera in place, these police officers need not be keeping the roads safe when any normal person can regulate speed perfectly well themselves.
Gatsometers have limitations true, but an average speed camera check (pictures taken at say 1 mile intervals and working out the av. speed from that) is reliable and pretty solid.
Really? I don't mind it so much.
as long as Outlook continues to encourage top-posting and HTML formatted content, and discourage quoted reply trimming, it will still suck.
I was going to say this is NSFW, but on closer inspection, I just don't know what to say.
Use a VPN provider of your choice.
And immediately get throttled by the ISP for using encryption
You only get off scot free if you've done something wrong. He did nothing wrong. He therefore did not get away with anything.
I agree with you, although this smells a lot like "working to rule." If you don't want to help the police, fine, but just be prepared that if you need their help, they don't return the work-to-rule favour.
Why do I need to know American rights to decide if someone is a douchebag? That just makes no sense. Is there a law defining douchebaggery?
all he did was refuse to state his name & I.D.
This is exactly my point; how is this not being deliberately truculent (and don't give me any crap from James Duane. That guy could sell sunglasses to a blindman.)? As I asked earlier, short of just letting this guy get off scot free, is there anything that the police could legally have done?
Mod this guy up. While I'm not for anything unconstitutional, there has to be something that the police can do to stop douchbags like this guy (if you don't think he is, you haven't read the article) from getting away with being a douche.
I'm sure I'll get many replies on what they could have done, which I don't mind. I'm genuinely curious, especially since I am not American.
I may be corrected on this, but as I understand it, a classical computer, I agree, would take a very very long time to brute force AES256.
A quantum computer with enough qbits (one doesn't exist yet, but it may do in the future) would crack it before my tea's finished brewing.
1. Looking at the history of physics, it seem very likely that our understanding of physics will change
I agree, which is why I didn't ignore the issue. However, if we were to invent a devise in which all the quantum states of an object could be simultaneously extracted, our /entire/ understanding of the world would fall like a pack of cards (the philosophical problem of determinism would rear its ugly head again.)
2. The devices implementing these exchanges are still hardware and subject to faults and bad design
Only fools will use this technology, when other technology is available that gives both better assurances and far better cost.
Well, yes, it's still prone to go wrong, but I would be very surprised if any brand new technology could appear with bulletproof reliability these days. Refining it might be tricky, but I'm sure the people working on it are well aware of that.
There's no reason to believe a brute force attack on AES128 will ever succeed.
You use the word "believe". Does that mean you're not 100% certain? That's exactly what I'm trying to say! Quantum cryptography is uncrackable at the physical level.
You only need secure transmission of keys. After that you don't care.
Almost. Classical cryptography works on the assumption that a brute force attack is impractical (even if possible in pseudo infinite time.)
Quantum cryptography has no such restriction. This means that unless our understanding of the laws of physics change, no increase in computing firepower will help Eve.
Faux turtle necks? You mean they're not made from real turtles?!
Alas, it's not turtles all the way down.
How many people knew what a terabyte was 10 years ago?
How many people know what a petabyte is now?
In any case, your reply shouldn't be directed at me. I have no intention of using YoctoNewton more than three times in a sentence. What I was getting at is that scientific notation is not mainstream.
I was addressing this point:
Who hasn't hearsd of Scientific Notation?
+1x10^0 insightful :)
Your comming up with miniscule amounts of movement, and your worrying about finding the proper prefix? Who hasn't hearsd of Scientific Notation?
Scientific notation may be good in science, bad for general press.
Can you imagine someone selling a 1x10^12B HardDrive?