ALL security is through obscurity... It's just a matter of degree.
In terms of computer technology this appears to be the case. In the real world one could have brute force security, like the military has weapons and soldiers, but in the military camouflage (i.e. security through obscurity) and other obscurity techniques are very important parts of security. One can only hide behind the complexity of a hash or the teeth (or bittings) of a key for so long before a diligent "hacker" can undermine these protections.
An interesting question would be, is there such a thing as (practical) security without obscurity?
Look at it this way. Is it more likely that these journalists are true sentinels of fairness and democracy and are about to uncover a massive and elaborate plot to illegally elect Huckabee in '08, or is it more likely that they need someone concrete to point the finger at for a tabloidesque story on an ultimately inconsequential Wikipedia edit.
It doesn't matter; Wikipedia should be the one deciding what they wish to share with the public (it is there Website after all). Posters and editors also have the discretion to decide if they wish to publish with Wikipedia, and if they wish to do so in a more anonymous manner or not. This should not be a state issue. If a person doesn't like the rules, then they don't have to play the game.
But the architect's drawing of the bank could reveal it's actually not very secure at all, if it reveals a point of attack that's easier than going after the vault door.
It's one of the concepts of open source software; such things can more easily be spotted and fixed when they are in the open.
The director of the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, Claire Bailey, claimed in court that releasing this information would allow hackers to target these state offices."
Which is a good thing, because without "hackers" knowing about these IP addresses then they would not be able to "hack" the information pertaining to potential abuses. Public information is generally better left in the public; let the chips fall where they may. Of course sensitive government information probably shouldn't be on public networks anyways, and state officials should be thinking more about security than censorship. Their priorities are misplaced.
Y'know, maybe it's just me, but I always thought the constitution is clear enough for pretty much *everyone* to understand it
Yeah, the problem is that if you ask ten people what it means, they will all agree that it is absolutely clear with no room for any doubt, and they will all disagree on what it means...
If there was any doubt, then they should have consulted the general public to ask them whether what they were planning on implementing was constitutionally correct. Democracy has a way of weeding out the extremes (of abuse, when it is practiced).
The same line of reasoning was used by the military to justify the torture of (innocent) civilians at Abu Ghraib prison, but in that case only the Generals and politicians got immunity.
I chose the bank because they have an ethical investment policy, and refuse to invest in arms manufacturing
I obviously didn't refresh the window before I posted. At least you put some thought into things. I'd also advise you to change that security password -:)
The banker didn't like where her PC said I'd put "438@@/arcCHK" as my mother's maiden name, and asked for a real name. I'm waiting for the online banking activation codes to come through, I hope it doesn't depend on this value.
Maybe you should choose a more intelligent and security conscious bank. Rewarding bad business practices through patronage is just as bad as rewarding spammers by purchasing penis enlargement devices; they are both dubious practices.
I'm certainly not advocating licenses to use the Internet; just education. As for the car analogy; it all depends on the diligence and intelligence one puts into it, and if you aren't sure of yourself then have somebody qualified help you along.
The real problem is people visiting Web sites through email links, and replying to unsolicited email (from companies they recognize or not). Banks don't conduct business through yahoo email addresses. The real issue is educating consumers, or having consumers educate themselves. One does not drive a car without knowing the rules of the road (despite what people may think of cliched analogies), and email clients shouldn't be Web 2.0 browsers.
Here's the dilemma -- how much freedom do you give to students? The state mandates web filtering on all machines. However, there is some flexibility on exactly what should be filtered.
If you must filter, then filter only political and religious blogs, as these are the things that can "damage" a young and naive mind the most.
Are things like Facebook and Myspace a legitimate use of a school computer?
Yes, they are good for school related correspondence with a few extra tools added for good measure (I'm being presumptuous here because I don't use these forums). At the least, it will expose them to different technologies and forums; variety is good.
What about games, forums, or blogs, all of which could be educational, distracting or obscene?
I'm up on all of this. In terms of forums, Slashdot seems pretty good. The GNAA Trolls can be studied as a communication phenomena in themselves. AS for "distracting or obscene"; it's best to white-list anything that comes up as such (except for political and religious blogs). Exposing a young mind to alternative expressions will help open their minds to reality; intelligent discussion and observations of such things will always be better than censorship.
We also have the ability to monitor any machine remotely, lock the machine down at certain hours, prevent the installation of any software by the user, and prevent the use of iChat.
Bad idea; note the reasons above. Monitoring will only get them conditioned to authoritarian ideologies and practices. It also demonstrates a lack of trust. If teachers cannot trust students then students will never be able to trust teachers. Educational environments should be open and unoppressive. If students make mistakes in this regard then view this as a positive; people learn from making mistakes.
How far do we take this?
As far as legally possible (and moreso, if you have any sense of responsibility).
While on one hand we need to avoid legal problems and irresponsible behavior, there's a danger of going so far to minimize liability that we make the tool nearly useless.
There's no point have an educational tool if it can only be used for political mandates like Abstinance Education.
Equally concerning is the message sent to the students. Will a perceived lack of trust cripple the effectiveness of the program?"
Interesting I already mentioned this. Good for you that you already considered this aspect before it was brought up.
Also, if anybody brings up think-of-the-children arguments then consider them to be automatically fallacious and don't bother arguing. They got the same weight as a Godwin argument.
We can't have anyone knowing about suicides, or rapes, or murders, or thefts, or corruption, or anything else, because it could impede the justice system? Seriously, do you not think before you speak?
There is generally a voluntarily (and unwritten) code of conduct involving such issues as suicide amongst professional news publishers. Unfortunately the Internet is nullifying the effects of such practices.
Haha. Well really, my point was that their may have been no "seducing" involved on either side. They could have just been in love. Though I am quite disappointed that many people here are framing this issue as some type of sexually devious selfishness.
However, my personal morality and ethics doesn't mean that I won't accept that if I were found in possession of marijuana, that I would accept my legal responsibility
If I was to ever get charged with marijuana possession (or charged with any law that contradicts [what I consider to be] morality or human nature) then I would do everything in my power to fight against such laws (like to obtain jury nullification, as what happen with Henry Morgentaler in his successful attempt to decriminalize abortion in Canada; or to try something brute force like having large scale protests of people smoking marijuana in front of police officers). However, in reality, I will not know if my ideals will defeat any forms of pragmatism (I may just psychologically and financially cower to a lowest common denominator "no contest" type of plea. I hope that if any such thing happens, that I would have the courage to remain steadfast).
I agree with you. The same needs to be true of publishing the details of the accuser though as well. If not, then the justice system is not "blind". Transparency in public matters is generally better than obscurity. In the case of sexual crimes there will be witch hunts, scapegoating, prejudice, irrational groupthink, and many levels of FUD. It is something we will have to live with. We clearly need to educate society to minimize these occurrences. Unfortunately education often involves agendas and political motivation (for something relevant consider Abstinence Education).
There may be an argument for publishing the records while maintaining the privacy of the individuals though; like using hashes to replace identities. The fairly recent AOL fiasco of publishing their search result to the general public however revealed that good detective work can seek to un-obscure any obscurities. There doesn't seem to be any immediate solutions.
In the old days girls did have kids quite young especially going very far back (cavemen times) when life expectancy was very low and the need to reproduce young was an imperative for the tribe to survive.
You've got your time ranges wrong. Legitimate and socially acceptable pregnancy (and marriage) for the young still occurs in many parts of the world. As for the West, you can look back to the early 20th century where age-of-consent (in Canada at least, was 12); much the same elsewhere. It was only through the power of the printing press and the growth of christian religious fundamentalism that things started to change.
Have you thought this through before posting? If so, I really wonder how you have the nerve to do such a proclamation when "fucking of a 17yr old girl" ended up in pregnancy and abortion.
The answer is: if you don't want there to be a possibility of an abortion then do not "fuck" any girl who is fertile who would want to have an abortion and who is not interested in birth control. Just like seat belts save lives, schools should be giving out free condoms as a preventative measure.
Though it looks like you haven't thought your post through. You certainly present a lot of "nerve" in your post. Logic usually goes out the window when there is ideology involved. People should be teaching Logic in America instead of Abstinence Education.
The moral of the buddy's story is that reckless sexual behavior with a teenager can have serious consequences, like unwanted pregnancy, abortion (which is frequently emotionally devestating for a woman), and criminal prosecution, especially when her dad is a cop who is not afraid to abuse his power.
Nope, the moral of the story is that of the reckless behaviour of a father who abuses his power and the draconian laws which seek to limit natural and healthy sexuality between two people should be repealed and that teenagers need to be covert in their behavior and cognizant of the fanatism that may place themselves and their partners in jeopardy.
The buddy wanted to play house with a teenager and wants to complain that it came back to bite him. Sex is not a casual thing. It has serious emotional and physical ramfications, for good or ill. That's not society mistreating you. It's just nature.
Sex is not a casual thing
Depends, although for you it appears to have too much undo emotional and physical ramifications projected onto this activity.
That's not society mistreating you.
Sex never mistreats anybody. Societies reaction to sex and sexuallity is where the mistreatment arises.
I know it's not entrapment, which is why I didn't say it was.
Sorry about that, I was thinking you were the same person. My bad. To elaborate on my original statement; I am actually intrigued that such a large and growing thread is based on an anecdote that the poster was not directly involved in.
If you search Google or Google Scholar for "teen brain development" you will find some relevant information.
Perhaps, but all of your links are irrelevant (and I'm sure the person who very quickly modded you Informative never bothered referencing them) because they don't support the AC's statement that teenage brains are "emotionally unstable".
present to me a reasonable judicial due process to evaluate whether the person is really crazy, or more rationally crazy.
That's an important point. Mental "illness" is a medical condition that should be evaluated by doctors and not judges and juries. In the US the Insanity Defense has little credibility in the court room, despite what any medical doctor may say. And yes, there are methods to determine whether people are "faking it". Unfortunately for the truly guilty, they cannot successfully fake a mental condition (one severe enough to use an insanity defense) to any competent professional, nor for any length of time.
Though I don't know what you mean by "really crazy" and "rationally crazy". Most (all?) people have at least some amount of rationality, and usually this evidence is used successfully for a prosecution. So a person who hears voices telling him to kill people may know it's a crime, but in the eyes of a jury these types of people are often proclaimed guilty because they obeyed their hallucinations.
Slashdot Mirror
ALL security is through obscurity... It's just a matter of degree.
In terms of computer technology this appears to be the case. In the real world one could have brute force security, like the military has weapons and soldiers, but in the military camouflage (i.e. security through obscurity) and other obscurity techniques are very important parts of security. One can only hide behind the complexity of a hash or the teeth (or bittings) of a key for so long before a diligent "hacker" can undermine these protections.
An interesting question would be, is there such a thing as (practical) security without obscurity?
Look at it this way. Is it more likely that these journalists are true sentinels of fairness and democracy and are about to uncover a massive and elaborate plot to illegally elect Huckabee in '08, or is it more likely that they need someone concrete to point the finger at for a tabloidesque story on an ultimately inconsequential Wikipedia edit.
It doesn't matter; Wikipedia should be the one deciding what they wish to share with the public (it is there Website after all). Posters and editors also have the discretion to decide if they wish to publish with Wikipedia, and if they wish to do so in a more anonymous manner or not. This should not be a state issue. If a person doesn't like the rules, then they don't have to play the game.
But the architect's drawing of the bank could reveal it's actually not very secure at all, if it reveals a point of attack that's easier than going after the vault door.
It's one of the concepts of open source software; such things can more easily be spotted and fixed when they are in the open.
The director of the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, Claire Bailey, claimed in court that releasing this information would allow hackers to target these state offices."
Which is a good thing, because without "hackers" knowing about these IP addresses then they would not be able to "hack" the information pertaining to potential abuses. Public information is generally better left in the public; let the chips fall where they may. Of course sensitive government information probably shouldn't be on public networks anyways, and state officials should be thinking more about security than censorship. Their priorities are misplaced.
If there was any doubt, then they should have consulted the general public to ask them whether what they were planning on implementing was constitutionally correct. Democracy has a way of weeding out the extremes (of abuse, when it is practiced).
The same line of reasoning was used by the military to justify the torture of (innocent) civilians at Abu Ghraib prison, but in that case only the Generals and politicians got immunity.
Yes they do, what rock have you been living under?
Fraggle Rock
I chose the bank because they have an ethical investment policy, and refuse to invest in arms manufacturing
I obviously didn't refresh the window before I posted. At least you put some thought into things. I'd also advise you to change that security password -:)
The banker didn't like where her PC said I'd put "438@@/arcCHK" as my mother's maiden name, and asked for a real name. I'm waiting for the online banking activation codes to come through, I hope it doesn't depend on this value.
Maybe you should choose a more intelligent and security conscious bank. Rewarding bad business practices through patronage is just as bad as rewarding spammers by purchasing penis enlargement devices; they are both dubious practices.
I'm certainly not advocating licenses to use the Internet; just education. As for the car analogy; it all depends on the diligence and intelligence one puts into it, and if you aren't sure of yourself then have somebody qualified help you along.
Best regards,
UTW
The real problem is people visiting Web sites through email links, and replying to unsolicited email (from companies they recognize or not). Banks don't conduct business through yahoo email addresses. The real issue is educating consumers, or having consumers educate themselves. One does not drive a car without knowing the rules of the road (despite what people may think of cliched analogies), and email clients shouldn't be Web 2.0 browsers.
It's a good thing there is anti-spam legislation.
Here's the dilemma -- how much freedom do you give to students? The state mandates web filtering on all machines. However, there is some flexibility on exactly what should be filtered.
If you must filter, then filter only political and religious blogs, as these are the things that can "damage" a young and naive mind the most.
Are things like Facebook and Myspace a legitimate use of a school computer?
Yes, they are good for school related correspondence with a few extra tools added for good measure (I'm being presumptuous here because I don't use these forums). At the least, it will expose them to different technologies and forums; variety is good.
What about games, forums, or blogs, all of which could be educational, distracting or obscene?
I'm up on all of this. In terms of forums, Slashdot seems pretty good. The GNAA Trolls can be studied as a communication phenomena in themselves. AS for "distracting or obscene"; it's best to white-list anything that comes up as such (except for political and religious blogs). Exposing a young mind to alternative expressions will help open their minds to reality; intelligent discussion and observations of such things will always be better than censorship.
We also have the ability to monitor any machine remotely, lock the machine down at certain hours, prevent the installation of any software by the user, and prevent the use of iChat.
Bad idea; note the reasons above. Monitoring will only get them conditioned to authoritarian ideologies and practices. It also demonstrates a lack of trust. If teachers cannot trust students then students will never be able to trust teachers. Educational environments should be open and unoppressive. If students make mistakes in this regard then view this as a positive; people learn from making mistakes.
How far do we take this?
As far as legally possible (and moreso, if you have any sense of responsibility).
While on one hand we need to avoid legal problems and irresponsible behavior, there's a danger of going so far to minimize liability that we make the tool nearly useless.
There's no point have an educational tool if it can only be used for political mandates like Abstinance Education.
Equally concerning is the message sent to the students. Will a perceived lack of trust cripple the effectiveness of the program?"
Interesting I already mentioned this. Good for you that you already considered this aspect before it was brought up.
Also, if anybody brings up think-of-the-children arguments then consider them to be automatically fallacious and don't bother arguing. They got the same weight as a Godwin argument.
Good Luck!! and best regards,
UTW
We can't have anyone knowing about suicides, or rapes, or murders, or thefts, or corruption, or anything else, because it could impede the justice system? Seriously, do you not think before you speak?
There is generally a voluntarily (and unwritten) code of conduct involving such issues as suicide amongst professional news publishers. Unfortunately the Internet is nullifying the effects of such practices.
Haha. Well really, my point was that their may have been no "seducing" involved on either side. They could have just been in love. Though I am quite disappointed that many people here are framing this issue as some type of sexually devious selfishness.
However, my personal morality and ethics doesn't mean that I won't accept that if I were found in possession of marijuana, that I would accept my legal responsibility
If I was to ever get charged with marijuana possession (or charged with any law that contradicts [what I consider to be] morality or human nature) then I would do everything in my power to fight against such laws (like to obtain jury nullification, as what happen with Henry Morgentaler in his successful attempt to decriminalize abortion in Canada; or to try something brute force like having large scale protests of people smoking marijuana in front of police officers). However, in reality, I will not know if my ideals will defeat any forms of pragmatism (I may just psychologically and financially cower to a lowest common denominator "no contest" type of plea. I hope that if any such thing happens, that I would have the courage to remain steadfast).
My morality does not condone immoral laws.
I agree with you. The same needs to be true of publishing the details of the accuser though as well. If not, then the justice system is not "blind". Transparency in public matters is generally better than obscurity. In the case of sexual crimes there will be witch hunts, scapegoating, prejudice, irrational groupthink, and many levels of FUD. It is something we will have to live with. We clearly need to educate society to minimize these occurrences. Unfortunately education often involves agendas and political motivation (for something relevant consider Abstinence Education).
There may be an argument for publishing the records while maintaining the privacy of the individuals though; like using hashes to replace identities. The fairly recent AOL fiasco of publishing their search result to the general public however revealed that good detective work can seek to un-obscure any obscurities. There doesn't seem to be any immediate solutions.
We cannot live in a democracy unless every arrest is accounted for in pubic records.
Freudian slip?
In the old days girls did have kids quite young especially going very far back (cavemen times) when life expectancy was very low and the need to reproduce young was an imperative for the tribe to survive.
You've got your time ranges wrong. Legitimate and socially acceptable pregnancy (and marriage) for the young still occurs in many parts of the world. As for the West, you can look back to the early 20th century where age-of-consent (in Canada at least, was 12); much the same elsewhere. It was only through the power of the printing press and the growth of christian religious fundamentalism that things started to change.
Best regards,
UTW
Have you thought this through before posting? If so, I really wonder how you have the nerve to do such a proclamation when "fucking of a 17yr old girl" ended up in pregnancy and abortion.
The answer is: if you don't want there to be a possibility of an abortion then do not "fuck" any girl who is fertile who would want to have an abortion and who is not interested in birth control. Just like seat belts save lives, schools should be giving out free condoms as a preventative measure.
Though it looks like you haven't thought your post through. You certainly present a lot of "nerve" in your post. Logic usually goes out the window when there is ideology involved. People should be teaching Logic in America instead of Abstinence Education.
There is evidence in this thread that a FEMALE just posted on slashdot!!!!
You'd be surprised at how many "females" you may think you talk to over the Internet, or a dark bar even.
The moral of the buddy's story is that reckless sexual behavior with a teenager can have serious consequences, like unwanted pregnancy, abortion (which is frequently emotionally devestating for a woman), and criminal prosecution, especially when her dad is a cop who is not afraid to abuse his power.
Nope, the moral of the story is that of the reckless behaviour of a father who abuses his power and the draconian laws which seek to limit natural and healthy sexuality between two people should be repealed and that teenagers need to be covert in their behavior and cognizant of the fanatism that may place themselves and their partners in jeopardy.
The buddy wanted to play house with a teenager and wants to complain that it came back to bite him. Sex is not a casual thing. It has serious emotional and physical ramfications, for good or ill. That's not society mistreating you. It's just nature.
Sex is not a casual thing
Depends, although for you it appears to have too much undo emotional and physical ramifications projected onto this activity.
That's not society mistreating you.
Sex never mistreats anybody. Societies reaction to sex and sexuallity is where the mistreatment arises.
I know it's not entrapment, which is why I didn't say it was.
Sorry about that, I was thinking you were the same person. My bad. To elaborate on my original statement; I am actually intrigued that such a large and growing thread is based on an anecdote that the poster was not directly involved in.
Best regards,
UTW
If you search Google or Google Scholar for "teen brain development" you will find some relevant information.
Perhaps, but all of your links are irrelevant (and I'm sure the person who very quickly modded you Informative never bothered referencing them) because they don't support the AC's statement that teenage brains are "emotionally unstable".
present to me a reasonable judicial due process to evaluate whether the person is really crazy, or more rationally crazy.
That's an important point. Mental "illness" is a medical condition that should be evaluated by doctors and not judges and juries. In the US the Insanity Defense has little credibility in the court room, despite what any medical doctor may say. And yes, there are methods to determine whether people are "faking it". Unfortunately for the truly guilty, they cannot successfully fake a mental condition (one severe enough to use an insanity defense) to any competent professional, nor for any length of time.
Though I don't know what you mean by "really crazy" and "rationally crazy". Most (all?) people have at least some amount of rationality, and usually this evidence is used successfully for a prosecution. So a person who hears voices telling him to kill people may know it's a crime, but in the eyes of a jury these types of people are often proclaimed guilty because they obeyed their hallucinations.