I think FF should just clearly show a warning sign and tell the user that any communication he or she has is encrypted, but that the receiver could be anyone. Therefore the user should not engage in any sensitive communication over this connection such as visiting banks etc.
I feel that there is too much scaremongering going on. Usually programs will tell you, "you are about to do something really dangerous/stupid/embarasing, proceed yes or no?". It is better to inform the user why this is dangerous/stupid/embarasing and let him or her make up their own mind. Otherwise you are just putting the blame on the user for when things go wrong without him/her being able to make an informaed decision. Many users may act less than perfect, but at least give them a chance to understand.
Yes I know that the new FF is much better at informing the user than older browsers where, but it is still too alarmist in my opinion.
This reminds me of a really good biology teacher we had and his prediction.
We where on the topic of biodiversity and he said that "I am 100% sure, that somewhere on this planet, there are people immune to AIDS". Concidering HIV and AIDS where new at the time (at least to us students), it seemed like such a bold/crazy statement, since AIDS was looked upon as a real killer/impossible to cure/prevent once infected with HIV.
Many years later, I was reminded of him, after hearing they had found some prositutes in africa(don't remember where) who did not develop AIDS.
---
I find it kind of poetic that important information and possibly a cure could come from some of the "lowest" people. People looked down upon by the rest of society, could be the ones to save parts of africa from this terrible disease.
I can't tell the future, but I do know that biodiversity will help us find the cure for the next man-killer disease as well. It would be such a shame if we will have gotten rid of the ones who could save us.
What do you think of people arrested for soliciting a prostitute (played by a police woman)? A person like that would only have thought to be commiting an illegal act, unless the police woman was prepared to go above and beyond the call of duty.
There probably is some law making the request for an illegal act an illegal act, but I'm interested in comparing a person soliciting a (fake)prostitute with a person taking part in a supposed Nigerian money laundering scheme. Both people aim to commit a crime, and both end up missing their goals. Are they both innocent?
I know you are joking, but you are on to a great principle: we need to raise the cost of reading someones messages or rather, the automated reading of a message.
I prefer the idea of making the encryption key open to any human but impossible or hard for a machine to come up with.
This would work like:
1. Take a picture, for example of a dog.
2. Send the picture along with your encrypted messsage.
3. Dog is now the decryption key.
4 ???
5. Profit (from the government being unable to automate listening in on you)
A sequence of pictures could make up a longer passphrase(CatTableFlower). I'm sure there are just 4 possible photo motives people would normally send so the password could be the name of the individual animal/person if the receiver is known. The whole point of this is not the exact protocol of what password is used. The point is to send information that machines would have a hard time interpreting, but a human would not.
A working scheme could be to take a picture of a picture of a celebrity. That way you will send a unique picture of Gisele Bundchen for example, and only a computer with great knowledge of women would come up with the right password, whereas a lot of/.:ers would have no problem with this. You could also send pictures of GW but that would be less plesant for the eyes and perhaps too humorus.
This would not prevent anyone actively looking for information about you, and no one could claim you are sending encrypted "terrist" messages. You can just say, "feel free to look, but please do so manually".
What are the penalties in Michigan for practicing as a private detective? Some states (like Texas) have some pretty strict laws regulating this profession.
Agreed, in the lone star state, you are shot for this offence.
Unlawful how? Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.
That is, I am not allowed to copy the (butt-ugly) design of RyanAirs website, but I am allowed to copy and republish information that it makes available. This information does not constitue a work of art (I dont know the correct term, but similar to height of invention)
---
Terms of Use
If my company sets up Terms of Use for our telephone service, disallowing customers to call us to compare prices with our competitors... Would this not violate consumer rights? Since IANAL I cant say for sure, but I would be very surprised if a companys ToS was allowed to take precedence over consumer law. This may be different in the USA (I live in Europe).
Moreover, get off your high horse. There are plenty of governments across this planet with no constitutions at all, or with constitutions that grant the government the power to ignore them at will (The United Kingdom and Canada, respectively, for those of you not keeping track).
I see your point, if someone else is lacking these rights, shouldn't americans as well? The chinese are also ignoring their constitution (just in case you wheren't keeping track) They seem to be doing fine.
Neither of those governments are any more tyrannical than the government of the United States, and some might say, in fact, that they are less so.
Yes, I agree, but does that not suggest that americans should keep their guns?
I mean, I could stay warm during the winter by burning my house piece-by-piece, but that seems a touch short-sighted.
No, no, it's an ok plan. I'll even help you burn down your house to keep warm.
I am of course joking as well. I won't really burn down your house as it is generally frowned upon by the general public. (Not your house, but the act of burning houses.)
Please don't let anyone get away with calling the internet the cloud!
Although I strongly agree with you I could not help wonder what Senator Steven Williams would have thought:
Ten movies streaming across that, that Cloud, and what happens to your own personal Cloud? I just the other day got... a Cloud was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Cloud commercially.
Would you tell that to an ex-boss of mine who actually ruined a network cable and its socket in his attempt to unplug it without pressing down the little securing pin on it?
And may I be there to watch?
We've had men unplugging network cables without pressing down the little security pin, since before any of you guys were watching "Howdy Doody"!
Now I myself sleep pretty well knowing those boys are down there, exercising the network.
and while Indy 3 may have had a few parts like that, pretty much all later Lucasfilm games never had any parts where you couldn't backtrack far enough to solve the puzzles.
Slashdot Mirror
I think FF should just clearly show a warning sign and tell the user that any communication he or she has is encrypted, but that the receiver could be anyone. Therefore the user should not engage in any sensitive communication over this connection such as visiting banks etc.
I feel that there is too much scaremongering going on. Usually programs will tell you, "you are about to do something really dangerous/stupid/embarasing, proceed yes or no?". It is better to inform the user why this is dangerous/stupid/embarasing and let him or her make up their own mind. Otherwise you are just putting the blame on the user for when things go wrong without him/her being able to make an informaed decision. Many users may act less than perfect, but at least give them a chance to understand.
Yes I know that the new FF is much better at informing the user than older browsers where, but it is still too alarmist in my opinion.
What do you think?
General Failure and why is he reading my USB drive?
I agree. Not to them being innocent, but to them not having commited any crimes.
1. Buy gold
... that is: Sell your gold after teh GW upgrades public "terrist" threat level.
2. Poison huge ISP DNS, redirecting to various sites with extreme info on chemical warfare
3. ???
4. Profit
This reminds me of a really good biology teacher we had and his prediction.
We where on the topic of biodiversity and he said that "I am 100% sure, that somewhere on this planet, there are people immune to AIDS". Concidering HIV and AIDS where new at the time (at least to us students), it seemed like such a bold/crazy statement, since AIDS was looked upon as a real killer/impossible to cure/prevent once infected with HIV.
Many years later, I was reminded of him, after hearing they had found some prositutes in africa(don't remember where) who did not develop AIDS.
---
I find it kind of poetic that important information and possibly a cure could come from some of the "lowest" people. People looked down upon by the rest of society, could be the ones to save parts of africa from this terrible disease.
I can't tell the future, but I do know that biodiversity will help us find the cure for the next man-killer disease as well. It would be such a shame if we will have gotten rid of the ones who could save us.
What do you think of people arrested for soliciting a prostitute (played by a police woman)? A person like that would only have thought to be commiting an illegal act, unless the police woman was prepared to go above and beyond the call of duty.
There probably is some law making the request for an illegal act an illegal act, but I'm interested in comparing a person soliciting a (fake)prostitute with a person taking part in a supposed Nigerian money laundering scheme. Both people aim to commit a crime, and both end up missing their goals. Are they both innocent?
And before that, they used the african swallow.
Skynet became self-aware on August 6, 1997.
Oops, we forgot its birthday this year again. I really hope it won't make a big deal about it.
I know you are joking, but you are on to a great principle: we need to raise the cost of reading someones messages or rather, the automated reading of a message.
/.:ers would have no problem with this. You could also send pictures of GW but that would be less plesant for the eyes and perhaps too humorus.
I prefer the idea of making the encryption key open to any human but impossible or hard for a machine to come up with.
This would work like:
1. Take a picture, for example of a dog.
2. Send the picture along with your encrypted messsage.
3. Dog is now the decryption key.
4 ???
5. Profit (from the government being unable to automate listening in on you)
A sequence of pictures could make up a longer passphrase(CatTableFlower). I'm sure there are just 4 possible photo motives people would normally send so the password could be the name of the individual animal/person if the receiver is known. The whole point of this is not the exact protocol of what password is used. The point is to send information that machines would have a hard time interpreting, but a human would not.
A working scheme could be to take a picture of a picture of a celebrity. That way you will send a unique picture of Gisele Bundchen for example, and only a computer with great knowledge of women would come up with the right password, whereas a lot of
This would not prevent anyone actively looking for information about you, and no one could claim you are sending encrypted "terrist" messages. You can just say, "feel free to look, but please do so manually".
What are the penalties in Michigan for practicing as a private detective? Some states (like Texas) have some pretty strict laws regulating this profession.
Agreed, in the lone star state, you are shot for this offence.
Yes they have been too slow. But perhaps the sleeping giant has been finally awakened from its slumber.
Tora! Tora! Tora!
slashdotlurker, "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
Unlawful how?
Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.
That is, I am not allowed to copy the (butt-ugly) design of RyanAirs website, but I am allowed to copy and republish information that it makes available. This information does not constitue a work of art (I dont know the correct term, but similar to height of invention)
---
Terms of Use
If my company sets up Terms of Use for our telephone service, disallowing customers to call us to compare prices with our competitors... Would this not violate consumer rights? Since IANAL I cant say for sure, but I would be very surprised if a companys ToS was allowed to take precedence over consumer law. This may be different in the USA (I live in Europe).
Tell me again why we should trust anything he says.
Because he makes sense?
"If you are reading this on Slashdot..."
Good point. How do we know this really is Slashdot?
... or as Bill Gates mother would put it:
"Word to your mom?"
Word to your mom.
Moreover, get off your high horse. There are plenty of governments across this planet with no constitutions at all, or with constitutions that grant the government the power to ignore them at will (The United Kingdom and Canada, respectively, for those of you not keeping track).
I see your point, if someone else is lacking these rights, shouldn't americans as well? The chinese are also ignoring their constitution (just in case you wheren't keeping track) They seem to be doing fine.
Neither of those governments are any more tyrannical than the government of the United States, and some might say, in fact, that they are less so.
Yes, I agree, but does that not suggest that americans should keep their guns?
And the last time any member of the human race has harpooned something in space was precisely when?
I believe you are refering to Armstrongs "Moby-Dick" incident.
No, the judges of slashdot can be quite grim on the premature "whooser".
I think the general idea is to only whoosh the deserving.
I mean, I could stay warm during the winter by burning my house piece-by-piece, but that seems a touch short-sighted.
No, no, it's an ok plan. I'll even help you burn down your house to keep warm.
I am of course joking as well. I won't really burn down your house as it is generally frowned upon by the general public. (Not your house, but the act of burning houses.)
Please don't let anyone get away with calling the internet the cloud!
Although I strongly agree with you I could not help wonder what Senator Steven Williams would have thought:
Ten movies streaming across that, that Cloud, and what happens to your own personal Cloud? I just the other day got... a Cloud was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Cloud commercially.
Would you tell that to an ex-boss of mine who actually ruined a network cable and its socket in his attempt to unplug it without pressing down the little securing pin on it?
And may I be there to watch?
We've had men unplugging network cables without pressing down the little security pin, since before any of you guys were watching "Howdy Doody"!
Now I myself sleep pretty well knowing those boys are down there, exercising the network.
Fredrik Reinfeldt, is that you?
and while Indy 3 may have had a few parts like that, pretty much all later Lucasfilm games never had any parts where you couldn't backtrack far enough to solve the puzzles.
Except, like you said, Lucasfilm did do this.