I suggest you read those cases before you make such a grand sweeping characterization of the where the boundries of the right to privacy end. They do not, in some cases, end at your front door, and your understanding of a "right" as its defined in the US is a bit off.
Or they could find out what political groups you support with your donations. Are you a Democrat, Green, Republican, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, leftist or whatever? Do you support the ACLU, EFF, Amnesty International, GreenPeace, Nazi Party, Communist youth league or some other group? What is you support some group that is suing the police for violating your neighbors rights?
The point is that privacy of financial records is just a important, if not more so, than the privacy of the rest of your life. You can tell alot from where a person spends their dollars, which is exactly why the FBI wanted this.
There a numerous laws and cases that establish these definitions within specific contexts. Your lawyer friend really needs to read some law books it would seem. There is even recent additions to the federal code that establish significant penalties for violating customer privacy (Graham-Lee Act for financial records) and the Computer Privacy Act come to mind. In short, your friends supposition, that because someone else has control of the data that it is not private is not supported by either legislative law or case law.
Not to mention that the definition of private invalidates his argument. The government has a right to search you, in his example go through all those records, only as part of a reasonable search , even when that information is private.
Anyway, its not a very good argument your friend makes and I highly suggest he or she not practice law without fully understanding the concept of privacy. Not only might he get disbarred for giving some flawed advice in any area that will exclude the use of improperly obtained evidence in court, he or she could get sued for violating his customers privacy and he or she might also be acting criminally in some cases by violating a persons privacy.
Yeah, tell that to the people that are being held because of the "war on terrorism"[TM] without having been charged with a crime, or given any access to a lawyer.
The slippery slope here is that the government does not retain the right to torture small children, thus you by default have that right via the 10th amendment.
Except that this would violate some of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution, namely "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So your example, while interesting, is a straw man. There is no risk of that occuring, because all "men" have the right to life. Which makes for a fascinating issue all by itself with regard to capital punishment, but even in that regard if you look at the constitution its spells out at least one case where capital punishment is warranted, treason.
I digress,but the point is that your slippery slope supposition is flawed. The slippery slope is not nearly as treacherous as you try to illustrate. The right to life, liberty, property, and interestingly, the pursuit of happiness are already guaranteed by the constitution, so you do not, via the 10th, and by some stretch 9th amendment, have the right to "torture small children". In short, the dangerous slope you imagine is not there. The rights that are guaranteed are affirmative rights, not rights to wreak mayhem because of the totality of the document. There is far more to the consitution than just its amendments.
To the issue at hand, there are at least 4 amendments, the 4th, 9th, 10th and 5th amendments that affirm the right to privacy. For instance, the high court already established that these many amendments affirm the right to privacy. Numerous cases establish this over and over again. Heres an incomplete list: Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541., NAACP v. Alabama, Mapp v. Ohio, Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.
Heres a quote from GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court affirms and reaffirms the "right to privacy":
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 , as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." * We recently referred [381 U.S. 479, 485] in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 , to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).
So, the right to privacy is not some abstract pie in the sky extrapolation thats not clearly established, or created by some ill concieved "slippery slope". Its clearly spelled out in the case law and in several amendments in the constitution. The book is closed as to their being any doubt about there being any "right to privacy", the problem at hand is that certain members of congress have no respect for these rights and would like you believe that right does not exist.
In short, there absolutely is a "right to privacy" according to the law and the constitution , and that, amongst the obvious fact that people should be upset about this invasion of their privacy, should be reason enough to bring every politician that is destroying freedom for "security" to task for these unconstitutional acts. Lets stick to that and not waste time debating about the existence of the right to privacy. Its real and its critical to democracy.
Don't believe me? Then ask yourself this, if privacy isn't critical to a democracy, then why do we vote for the leaders of democracies via secret ballot?
So, using your friends "logic", all mail is not private, afterall the information about it is in the hands of the US Postal Service, e-mail is not private, ISP handle that, medical records are not private because, again, someone else has access to that, video rental and library records are public information, and so on. In fact, using your friends logic everything about a persons life, except for those thoughts they choose not to share with anyone, including their family, is not private.
So, since I'm confident that you friend, and the majority of people in the USA are not going to let just anyone go through those records, its safe to say that people expect, rightly, for this information to be private. In short, the flaw is inherent in the first supposition, the very word PRIVATE. Just because one other person has access to some data does NOT suddenly make that not private data. Thats absurd, the definition of private is not "Only one person has access to this information". Thats closer to a secret, but even the word secret doesn't require there to be only one party TO the secret.
You'd think a freaking lawyer would understand the importance of understanding the meaning of words. Private does not imply lack of access. I suggest you ask your lawyer friend to buy a dictionary and to look up the word "private", consider a new profession, something perhaps along the lines of PR perhaps, where its not so important that you get the words right.
Regardless, you friends flaw lies in the presumption that for something to be private it can not be between more than one party. That is simply not the case, either in terms of the very definition of the words or even, in your friends OWN domain, according to lots and lots of case law. I sure hope your friend is not close to taking the bar. He or she really needs to study some more it would seem.
Finally, the real test of your friends opinion on this can be tested by simply asking him, or her, for a copy of all their phone records, financial records, e-mails, web logs, video rental records, library records and travel records - and then posting them on the Internet. If they handly turn them over, then your friend is something far worse than hypocrite, had they refused the request to had over their private details of their lives, but rather a real fool.
ALmost nobody looks further ahead then a year or two. When we are down to two years worth of trees we are in big trouble.
Yet more nonsense. Lots of industries and individuals look ahead more two years down the road.
You're either making this stuff up or you're just repeating what someone else claims. Either way, you are wrong. Consider for a moment that the logging industry, which we all know many socialist... I mean "environmentalist" groups hate and point to as the quinticental example of "bad stewards of the land", actually operates on a many-decades planning model - they plant trees, and trees take many many years to grow.
They realize that future profits, and current earnings are based not just on how much wood they sell today, but on the value of the forests that they plan to harvest tomorrow, which means they have to plant trees. If the land is unable to support anymore trees, it looses value in the hear and now and that effects shareholder value.
When you build with wood you are ORDERING MORE TREES. Thats all about looking many many years into the future. Bah... this is the crux of the problem with the evironmental movement, it tugs at everyones sentimental heart strings. It feels good to try and save the world, and who wouldn't want to save the world? But many so-called "environmentalists" take advantage of this effect in good and decent people to feed them pseudo-scientific bullshit while using them for their own hidden agendas, plying the tricks of the propoagandist to create a religious furvor in their followers. It clouds peoples judgement, so they parrot the nonsense you have, and causes them to demonize anyone that doesn't share their religious view of the world. Its basically prevents rational discussion on the issue, and leads to bad science, bad policy and really bad consequences for us all.
If you really do care about the environment, and it seems that you do, set the political rhetoric aside and stop repeating what people have told you are the reasons for the "environment being in bad shape".
there is not an infinate amount of anything in the world.
Technically speaking no, but practically speaking there is a nearly infinite source of power, and its called the Sun. It'll still be burning long after the human species is long gone.
The founders of capitalism never took into account the impact of their theories would have on the global environment because they presumed there would be an infinate aount of trees, energy, clean water, air etc.
Utter nonsense. Capitalism is all about finite resources. Capitalism, amongst other things, is about exploiting scarcity. You obviously know nothing about economics or the whole concept of capitalism if you think it hinges upon the assumption of "infinite resources". This is just the socialist back argument bleeding through the "pro-environment" smoke screen that so many "environmental" organizations are really pushing, when what they are really all about is anti-capitalism. Your argument is utter bunk and you have been misinformed about how economies really work, and what capitalism really is. Next time you hear an "environmental" group blatthering on about how "evil" "capitalism" is, just ask yourself what this has to do with the evironment, when socialist countries have caused terrific and sometimes unimaginable damage to theirs (The former Soviet Union is a great example of Socialist Ecology gone amuk).
The structure of a countries economic system has nothing to do with it. As there are Socialist countries that have managed their ecologys well, there are also capitalist nations that have done likewise - and the inverse is true as well. Your suppositions is just one part of the larger agenda pushed by socialists that have taken over the environmental movement because they know green language raises money and can be a great tool for manipulating people towards other ends. The argument for or against socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with environmentalism. Those social and economics systems have proven to be no better or worse at managing the enviroment than has capitalism, although some of the worst ecological disasters of all time occured under socialist governments. Regardless, its a completely moot point. Its about the environment, not the economy.
The Ogallala aquifer is not falling because of global warming or any other doomsdays environmental hogwash, its falling because the rain fall is not keeping up with demand caused not by communities, but by farming irrigation. The models clearly show that as well levels drop, and pump lift costs rise that total costs to irrigate, not supply water to towns and cities, will rise to shut down irrigation demand. In short, the system will correct itself because the cost of irrigation will rise to the point where it is no longer viable (read: profitable) to engage in farming activites that require large amounts of water. There will still be plenty of water in the aquifer for communities, and the rate of rain fall will, and HAS provided adequate renewal sources for the aquifer.
He doesn't have to explain the fact that demand is temporarily exceeding supply, and that as the supply costs increase eventually demand will drop off as well - its well known and its common sense.
Here's a question I always wish I could ask managers, whenever the topic of 'outsourcing' comes up: if dealing with programmers overseas is more appealing to the bottom line, why not let your programmers work from home for 50-80% of their current in-office pay?
Because the overseas costs can be as low as 10% of the cost of a US developer, even when that US developer is working from home. Its still a lower cost.
Its more than naive, it reeks of being a troll. Assuming for a moment that its not, it presumes that no one has ever been wrongly convicted of a crime. Such is not the case.
The problem with what your propose is that it requires a very tight surveillance net that would track the position of your car across most, if not all to be effective, roads. This gives the government the ability to track the movements of all its citizens, which is a terrible thing. TFor example, it would allow for the political party in power to track the movements of its opponents and to use that advantage to stay in power, oppress, blackmail and all the other sort of evilness that humans with unchecked powers have shown to have over the history of humanity. This information will be used by police officers to stalk women (and men), it will be stolen by "bad guys" to determine routes for delivery trucks, mail trucks, armored cars, police patrols, and so on. Imagine how incredible a tool this would be for criminals to know when all a target will be at a location, or to know where the police aren't - and what if they can get this data in real time?
And this all assumes that this system would even be effective at stopping speeding. I suspect that it wouldn't because people would jam/shield the transmitters, spoof transmitters and whatever else people can come up with. The system would only work against people with no clue, and probably wouldn't be any better than the technological solutions the government has come up with to stop crime. The really bad news is that any such systems ethical goodt presumes that the data will only be used for "good" and that the government is clueful enough to protect it, not only from the external bad guys, but all the INTERNAL scum bags.
In short, how do you prevent this information from being used for "bad" purposes, from being leaked or incorrectly released to the public? Can you guarantee that the security model will prevent these problems from occuring? If history is any judge the answer is a big fat no. The government can't even properly handle an election, so why should we trust them to protect anything else? The real defense against this sort of attack is not to allow anyone to collect this data. Thats the only real way to prevent the misuse of this data.
Except that this counter measure is useless. You are tracked when you enter and leave, which is all that is needed in most cases to track your movements. You passed through booth 53 going south at 9:53 AM, you exited at booth 77 going south at 10:05AM. Average speed, 74.4 MPH, here is your ticket citizen.
Sigh... the "but albums will disappear!" argument is a red herring. If people want albums, they will buy albums. To force a product on a market is to deny the market forces themselves. As it is right now people buy albums because they must. With choice, the market will decide and thats a good thing. It will cause artists to only put together combinations of songs when fans want them that way.
The bottom line is that its utter bunk that the albums must be protected somehow. Fans will buy what interests them. Anything else is just creating artifical markets via legislative fiat, and thats not capitalism.
How does your organization enforce IP laws within itself? To expand on that, what procedures, methdologies, rules, etc. does your office have in place to ensure that all software, copyrighted materials, photo-copies, etc. are properly licensed?
Is this documented somewhere so that other organizations can draw from this experierence for their own benefit?
How many cases has your office prosecuted to date?
How many cases has your office, on average, prosecuted per year?
How long does the average case take to prosecute?
How many attorneys are assigned to a case?
How many successful convictions has your office had? And where can we find more information about these?
What was the average sentence/fine for these convictions?
For your cases, what is the demographic makeup of the defendants? (age, race, education, etc.)
How many cases are referred to your office per year?
How many of those cases do you prosecute?
Of the cases sent to your office, how many involve defendants overseas and how many are domestic?
For the overseas cases, how many result in prosecutions? And how do you pursue overseas defendants, especially in countries without extradition treaties with the US?
What is the annual budget for your office? Is the budget adequate for your task? If not, what would be an adequate budget?
Does your office rely on expert witnesses and computer security/forensics consultants outside of the DoJ, within the DoJ or both to assist with prosecuting computer related cases?
Aside from all the very valid reasons everyone else has pointed out as to why various distributions do not chroot more services, there is one more: chroots, on many OSes (OpenBSD, Solaris, FreeBSD and default Linux kernels) are actually not that hard to escape from. With this in mind, some may consider chroots to have marginal value at best and at worst, they can create a false sense of security.
For instance, there are several ways to get out of a chrooted environment that have been known for years. Futhermore, the means to correct many of these problems has also been known and available in patch form for years. Yet, all of the afore mentioned UNIXes have failed to make these fixes part of their vanilla kernel trees. Thankfully, there are external patches that fix these problems for some OSes (Linux for instance), but they are not fixed in the default kernels of many distributions, including OpenBSD 3.2, Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux. Here is just a partial list of the known ways of escaping or circumventing a chroot:
double chroot
fchdir
Attaching to shared memory outside of the chroot, that can be fun.
mknod (Oh boy! Make whatever you want inside the chroot!)
And of course, Raw I/O. Nothing stops you from doing that in a chrooted environment.
So, before you assume that chrooting something will add X amount of security to your system, understand that most kernels (Solaris, BSD and Linux) allow for many widely known ways of escaping a chrooted environment and even making the chroot environment irrelevant by still affording an attacker too much control over the box.
Its still admirable to see more services being configured to run in a chrooted environment, but until more kernels are modified to make chroots stronger and to close these holes, the security they create can just be an illusion at best. I'm not advocating that services not be chrooted, but rather that OSes fix many of these issues and that users understand the limitations of chroots as a security tool until that happens.
Classic case of the good guys spotting the bug before the bad ones.
No, this is a classic case of why this myth keeps getting passed on by the masses. Simply put, how do you know the bad guys didn't spot this a long time ago? You're assuming the bad guys will put out a big press release saying "We found a big bug in sendmail and we're exploiting it!"
That is definitely not how it works and its not even logically consitent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "Bad guys" can and have kept their exploits to themselves in the past. We know this for a fact. So why should this case be any different? Its not.
Why would anyone that has owned your servers tell you that they owned them, unless they didn't want to own those boxes in the future. If you're a "bad guy" and you figured out a nifty way to own 75% of all the mail servers out there, why would you be so stupid as to tell everyone?
In short, if you think you're safe because the "good guys" found it "first", because the "bad guys" didn't put up a big notice that they found a flaw in your software, you're doomed. Software is flawed: it was written by people for goodness sake. It is very difficult to write "secure software" so you must assume that the software you use is filled with holes and they someone, somewhere, has figured out how to exploit one of or more of them.
Real computer risk management is about acknowledging that fact. There are vulnerabilities that you and the good guys do not know about.
The solution to computer security is not more obscurity, its about building your risk management model around reality. Your software has holes, your employees can not be trusted, life is dangerous: there be dragons out there.
"Unfortunately, I typed americangirls.com instead of americangirl.com." Yeah, SURE this happened. You story just doesn't check out "Fred". Ya see, both americangirl.com and americangirls.com are registered to the SAME people, and neither one of them are porn sites:
Registrant: Pleasant Company (AMERICANGIRL3-DOM)
8400 Fairway Place
null
US
Domain Name: AMERICANGIRL.COM
Administrative Contact:
ACKER, BOB-WN-CADA (BA5375) bob_acker@PLEASANTCO.COM
PLEASANT COMPANY
8400 fairway place
MIDDLETON, WI 53562
608 836 4848 (FAX) 608 828 4777
Technical Contact:
Schneider, Rick (RS16264) rick_schneider@PLEASANTCO.COM
Pleasant Company
8400 Fairway Place
Middleton , WI 53562
608-836-4848
Record expires on 26-Mar-2004.
Record created on 25-Mar-1997.
Database last updated on 4-Mar-2003 18:20:43 EST.
Registrant: Pleasant Company (AMERICANGIRLS9-DOM)
8400 Fairway Place
Middletown
WI,53562-0998
US
Domain Name: AMERICANGIRLS.COM
Administrative Contact:
ACKER, BOB-WN-CADA (BA5375) bob_acker@PLEASANTCO.COM
PLEASANT COMPANY
8400 fairway place
MIDDLETON, WI 53562
608 836 4848 (FAX) 608 828 4777
Technical Contact:
Schneider, Rick (RS16264) rick_schneider@PLEASANTCO.COM
Pleasant Company
8400 Fairway Place
Middleton , WI 53562
608-836-4848
Record expires on 24-May-2004.
Record created on 24-May-2001.
Database last updated on 4-Mar-2003 18:21:05 EST.
DRm technologies are not going to prevent documents from falling into the wrong hands. The security model for DRM is weak and depends on a lot of factors that are outside the control of the party that is trying to protect that information.
Using DRM to secure information is selling snake oil.
The last thing open source needs is divisive political themes attached to products.
Yes and clearly one of the most divisive things there could possibly be is human rights! How can encouraging human rights possibly be a bad thing? I can see it possibly being divisice to folks like China and other oppresive regimes, but isn't that the point? Setting that rhetorical aside for moment consider how hypocritical it is to complain about this license being political. New flash: Open Source licenses are already political! The idea of making source code available to any and all and giving any all takers certain rights to that code is highly political. The licenses out there are neither universal nor singular in their approach because people can't agree on what rights and terms licensees should be held to. Look at all the licenses out there under the banner of "Open Source" not to mention the debate over what "Open Source" means and you can see just how political open source is. And need I mention that the very intent behind some of the licenses is to bring radical change to the concept of "Intellectual Property".
I suggest you take a look at RMS' original thoughts on the subject. Open Source is about freedom and there are few things in life more political than that. The idea of requiring a licensee to observe more concepts of freedom, like human rights, seems only fiting to me and will draw attention to the subject - much like open source has been doing for years. Start small, do something radical, draw attention and effect change. Afterall, freedom is what open source is all about and human rights about about freeing people. I say more power to using software licenses to effect political change. Its the ONE THING software developers can already do to make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no, financial records are heavily regulated under federal law. They can not just be made available to others at any given point.
Yes, you're right it was in the declaration.
I suggest you read those cases before you make such a grand sweeping characterization of the where the boundries of the right to privacy end. They do not, in some cases, end at your front door, and your understanding of a "right" as its defined in the US is a bit off.
The point is that privacy of financial records is just a important, if not more so, than the privacy of the rest of your life. You can tell alot from where a person spends their dollars, which is exactly why the FBI wanted this.
Not to mention that the definition of private invalidates his argument. The government has a right to search you, in his example go through all those records, only as part of a reasonable search , even when that information is private.
Anyway, its not a very good argument your friend makes and I highly suggest he or she not practice law without fully understanding the concept of privacy. Not only might he get disbarred for giving some flawed advice in any area that will exclude the use of improperly obtained evidence in court, he or she could get sued for violating his customers privacy and he or she might also be acting criminally in some cases by violating a persons privacy.
Yeah, tell that to the people that are being held because of the "war on terrorism"[TM] without having been charged with a crime, or given any access to a lawyer.
Except that this would violate some of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution, namely "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So your example, while interesting, is a straw man. There is no risk of that occuring, because all "men" have the right to life. Which makes for a fascinating issue all by itself with regard to capital punishment, but even in that regard if you look at the constitution its spells out at least one case where capital punishment is warranted, treason.
I digress,but the point is that your slippery slope supposition is flawed. The slippery slope is not nearly as treacherous as you try to illustrate. The right to life, liberty, property, and interestingly, the pursuit of happiness are already guaranteed by the constitution, so you do not, via the 10th, and by some stretch 9th amendment, have the right to "torture small children". In short, the dangerous slope you imagine is not there. The rights that are guaranteed are affirmative rights, not rights to wreak mayhem because of the totality of the document. There is far more to the consitution than just its amendments.
To the issue at hand, there are at least 4 amendments, the 4th, 9th, 10th and 5th amendments that affirm the right to privacy. For instance, the high court already established that these many amendments affirm the right to privacy. Numerous cases establish this over and over again. Heres an incomplete list: Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541., NAACP v. Alabama, Mapp v. Ohio, Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.
Heres a quote from GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court affirms and reaffirms the "right to privacy":
So, the right to privacy is not some abstract pie in the sky extrapolation thats not clearly established, or created by some ill concieved "slippery slope". Its clearly spelled out in the case law and in several amendments in the constitution. The book is closed as to their being any doubt about there being any "right to privacy", the problem at hand is that certain members of congress have no respect for these rights and would like you believe that right does not exist.
In short, there absolutely is a "right to privacy" according to the law and the constitution , and that, amongst the obvious fact that people should be upset about this invasion of their privacy, should be reason enough to bring every politician that is destroying freedom for "security" to task for these unconstitutional acts. Lets stick to that and not waste time debating about the existence of the right to privacy. Its real and its critical to democracy.
Don't believe me? Then ask yourself this, if privacy isn't critical to a democracy, then why do we vote for the leaders of democracies via secret ballot?
So, since I'm confident that you friend, and the majority of people in the USA are not going to let just anyone go through those records, its safe to say that people expect, rightly, for this information to be private. In short, the flaw is inherent in the first supposition, the very word PRIVATE. Just because one other person has access to some data does NOT suddenly make that not private data. Thats absurd, the definition of private is not "Only one person has access to this information". Thats closer to a secret, but even the word secret doesn't require there to be only one party TO the secret.
You'd think a freaking lawyer would understand the importance of understanding the meaning of words. Private does not imply lack of access. I suggest you ask your lawyer friend to buy a dictionary and to look up the word "private", consider a new profession, something perhaps along the lines of PR perhaps, where its not so important that you get the words right.
Regardless, you friends flaw lies in the presumption that for something to be private it can not be between more than one party. That is simply not the case, either in terms of the very definition of the words or even, in your friends OWN domain, according to lots and lots of case law. I sure hope your friend is not close to taking the bar. He or she really needs to study some more it would seem.
Finally, the real test of your friends opinion on this can be tested by simply asking him, or her, for a copy of all their phone records, financial records, e-mails, web logs, video rental records, library records and travel records - and then posting them on the Internet. If they handly turn them over, then your friend is something far worse than hypocrite, had they refused the request to had over their private details of their lives, but rather a real fool.
Have fun stealing their identity though!
Yet more nonsense. Lots of industries and individuals look ahead more two years down the road.
You're either making this stuff up or you're just repeating what someone else claims. Either way, you are wrong. Consider for a moment that the logging industry, which we all know many socialist... I mean "environmentalist" groups hate and point to as the quinticental example of "bad stewards of the land", actually operates on a many-decades planning model - they plant trees, and trees take many many years to grow.
They realize that future profits, and current earnings are based not just on how much wood they sell today, but on the value of the forests that they plan to harvest tomorrow, which means they have to plant trees. If the land is unable to support anymore trees, it looses value in the hear and now and that effects shareholder value.
When you build with wood you are ORDERING MORE TREES. Thats all about looking many many years into the future. Bah... this is the crux of the problem with the evironmental movement, it tugs at everyones sentimental heart strings. It feels good to try and save the world, and who wouldn't want to save the world? But many so-called "environmentalists" take advantage of this effect in good and decent people to feed them pseudo-scientific bullshit while using them for their own hidden agendas, plying the tricks of the propoagandist to create a religious furvor in their followers. It clouds peoples judgement, so they parrot the nonsense you have, and causes them to demonize anyone that doesn't share their religious view of the world. Its basically prevents rational discussion on the issue, and leads to bad science, bad policy and really bad consequences for us all.
If you really do care about the environment, and it seems that you do, set the political rhetoric aside and stop repeating what people have told you are the reasons for the "environment being in bad shape".
Technically speaking no, but practically speaking there is a nearly infinite source of power, and its called the Sun. It'll still be burning long after the human species is long gone.
Utter nonsense. Capitalism is all about finite resources. Capitalism, amongst other things, is about exploiting scarcity. You obviously know nothing about economics or the whole concept of capitalism if you think it hinges upon the assumption of "infinite resources". This is just the socialist back argument bleeding through the "pro-environment" smoke screen that so many "environmental" organizations are really pushing, when what they are really all about is anti-capitalism. Your argument is utter bunk and you have been misinformed about how economies really work, and what capitalism really is. Next time you hear an "environmental" group blatthering on about how "evil" "capitalism" is, just ask yourself what this has to do with the evironment, when socialist countries have caused terrific and sometimes unimaginable damage to theirs (The former Soviet Union is a great example of Socialist Ecology gone amuk).
The structure of a countries economic system has nothing to do with it. As there are Socialist countries that have managed their ecologys well, there are also capitalist nations that have done likewise - and the inverse is true as well. Your suppositions is just one part of the larger agenda pushed by socialists that have taken over the environmental movement because they know green language raises money and can be a great tool for manipulating people towards other ends. The argument for or against socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with environmentalism. Those social and economics systems have proven to be no better or worse at managing the enviroment than has capitalism, although some of the worst ecological disasters of all time occured under socialist governments. Regardless, its a completely moot point. Its about the environment, not the economy.
He doesn't have to explain the fact that demand is temporarily exceeding supply, and that as the supply costs increase eventually demand will drop off as well - its well known and its common sense.
Because the overseas costs can be as low as 10% of the cost of a US developer, even when that US developer is working from home. Its still a lower cost.
Its more than naive, it reeks of being a troll. Assuming for a moment that its not, it presumes that no one has ever been wrongly convicted of a crime. Such is not the case.
Then you won't mind posting a detail accounting of where you spend your days?
And this all assumes that this system would even be effective at stopping speeding. I suspect that it wouldn't because people would jam/shield the transmitters, spoof transmitters and whatever else people can come up with. The system would only work against people with no clue, and probably wouldn't be any better than the technological solutions the government has come up with to stop crime. The really bad news is that any such systems ethical goodt presumes that the data will only be used for "good" and that the government is clueful enough to protect it, not only from the external bad guys, but all the INTERNAL scum bags.
In short, how do you prevent this information from being used for "bad" purposes, from being leaked or incorrectly released to the public? Can you guarantee that the security model will prevent these problems from occuring? If history is any judge the answer is a big fat no. The government can't even properly handle an election, so why should we trust them to protect anything else? The real defense against this sort of attack is not to allow anyone to collect this data. Thats the only real way to prevent the misuse of this data.
Except that this counter measure is useless. You are tracked when you enter and leave, which is all that is needed in most cases to track your movements. You passed through booth 53 going south at 9:53 AM, you exited at booth 77 going south at 10:05AM. Average speed, 74.4 MPH, here is your ticket citizen.
The bottom line is that its utter bunk that the albums must be protected somehow. Fans will buy what interests them. Anything else is just creating artifical markets via legislative fiat, and thats not capitalism.
Is this documented somewhere so that other organizations can draw from this experierence for their own benefit?
How many cases has your office, on average, prosecuted per year?
How long does the average case take to prosecute?
How many attorneys are assigned to a case?
How many successful convictions has your office had? And where can we find more information about these?
What was the average sentence/fine for these convictions?
For your cases, what is the demographic makeup of the defendants? (age, race, education, etc.)
How many cases are referred to your office per year?
How many of those cases do you prosecute?
Of the cases sent to your office, how many involve defendants overseas and how many are domestic?
For the overseas cases, how many result in prosecutions? And how do you pursue overseas defendants, especially in countries without extradition treaties with the US?
What is the annual budget for your office? Is the budget adequate for your task? If not, what would be an adequate budget?
Does your office rely on expert witnesses and computer security/forensics consultants outside of the DoJ, within the DoJ or both to assist with prosecuting computer related cases?
What sort of expertise do these experts have?
For instance, there are several ways to get out of a chrooted environment that have been known for years. Futhermore, the means to correct many of these problems has also been known and available in patch form for years. Yet, all of the afore mentioned UNIXes have failed to make these fixes part of their vanilla kernel trees. Thankfully, there are external patches that fix these problems for some OSes (Linux for instance), but they are not fixed in the default kernels of many distributions, including OpenBSD 3.2, Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux. Here is just a partial list of the known ways of escaping or circumventing a chroot:
double chroot
fchdir
Attaching to shared memory outside of the chroot, that can be fun.
mknod (Oh boy! Make whatever you want inside the chroot!)
And of course, Raw I/O. Nothing stops you from doing that in a chrooted environment.
So, before you assume that chrooting something will add X amount of security to your system, understand that most kernels (Solaris, BSD and Linux) allow for many widely known ways of escaping a chrooted environment and even making the chroot environment irrelevant by still affording an attacker too much control over the box.
Its still admirable to see more services being configured to run in a chrooted environment, but until more kernels are modified to make chroots stronger and to close these holes, the security they create can just be an illusion at best. I'm not advocating that services not be chrooted, but rather that OSes fix many of these issues and that users understand the limitations of chroots as a security tool until that happens.
No, this is a classic case of why this myth keeps getting passed on by the masses. Simply put, how do you know the bad guys didn't spot this a long time ago? You're assuming the bad guys will put out a big press release saying "We found a big bug in sendmail and we're exploiting it!"
That is definitely not how it works and its not even logically consitent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "Bad guys" can and have kept their exploits to themselves in the past. We know this for a fact. So why should this case be any different? Its not.
Why would anyone that has owned your servers tell you that they owned them, unless they didn't want to own those boxes in the future. If you're a "bad guy" and you figured out a nifty way to own 75% of all the mail servers out there, why would you be so stupid as to tell everyone?
In short, if you think you're safe because the "good guys" found it "first", because the "bad guys" didn't put up a big notice that they found a flaw in your software, you're doomed. Software is flawed: it was written by people for goodness sake. It is very difficult to write "secure software" so you must assume that the software you use is filled with holes and they someone, somewhere, has figured out how to exploit one of or more of them.
Real computer risk management is about acknowledging that fact. There are vulnerabilities that you and the good guys do not know about.
The solution to computer security is not more obscurity, its about building your risk management model around reality. Your software has holes, your employees can not be trusted, life is dangerous: there be dragons out there.
"Unfortunately, I typed americangirls.com instead of americangirl.com."
Yeah, SURE this happened. You story just doesn't check out "Fred". Ya see, both americangirl.com and americangirls.com are registered to the SAME people, and neither one of them are porn sites:
Registrant:
Pleasant Company (AMERICANGIRL3-DOM)
8400 Fairway Place
null
US
Domain Name: AMERICANGIRL.COM
Administrative Contact:
ACKER, BOB-WN-CADA (BA5375) bob_acker@PLEASANTCO.COM
PLEASANT COMPANY
8400 fairway place
MIDDLETON, WI 53562
608 836 4848 (FAX) 608 828 4777
Technical Contact:
Schneider, Rick (RS16264) rick_schneider@PLEASANTCO.COM
Pleasant Company
8400 Fairway Place
Middleton , WI 53562
608-836-4848
Record expires on 26-Mar-2004.
Record created on 25-Mar-1997.
Database last updated on 4-Mar-2003 18:20:43 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
GLACIER.BINC.NET 205.173.176.10
SMOKIES.BINC.NET 205.173.176.11
Registrant:
Pleasant Company (AMERICANGIRLS9-DOM)
8400 Fairway Place
Middletown
WI,53562-0998
US
Domain Name: AMERICANGIRLS.COM
Administrative Contact:
ACKER, BOB-WN-CADA (BA5375) bob_acker@PLEASANTCO.COM
PLEASANT COMPANY
8400 fairway place
MIDDLETON, WI 53562
608 836 4848 (FAX) 608 828 4777
Technical Contact:
Schneider, Rick (RS16264) rick_schneider@PLEASANTCO.COM
Pleasant Company
8400 Fairway Place
Middleton , WI 53562
608-836-4848
Record expires on 24-May-2004.
Record created on 24-May-2001.
Database last updated on 4-Mar-2003 18:21:05 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
GLACIER.BINC.NET 205.173.176.10
SMOKIES.BINC.NET 205.173.176.11
DRm technologies are not going to prevent documents from falling into the wrong hands. The security model for DRM is weak and depends on a lot of factors that are outside the control of the party that is trying to protect that information.
Using DRM to secure information is selling snake oil.
Yes and clearly one of the most divisive things there could possibly be is human rights! How can encouraging human rights possibly be a bad thing? I can see it possibly being divisice to folks like China and other oppresive regimes, but isn't that the point? Setting that rhetorical aside for moment consider how hypocritical it is to complain about this license being political. New flash: Open Source licenses are already political! The idea of making source code available to any and all and giving any all takers certain rights to that code is highly political. The licenses out there are neither universal nor singular in their approach because people can't agree on what rights and terms licensees should be held to. Look at all the licenses out there under the banner of "Open Source" not to mention the debate over what "Open Source" means and you can see just how political open source is. And need I mention that the very intent behind some of the licenses is to bring radical change to the concept of "Intellectual Property".
I suggest you take a look at RMS' original thoughts on the subject. Open Source is about freedom and there are few things in life more political than that. The idea of requiring a licensee to observe more concepts of freedom, like human rights, seems only fiting to me and will draw attention to the subject - much like open source has been doing for years. Start small, do something radical, draw attention and effect change. Afterall, freedom is what open source is all about and human rights about about freeing people. I say more power to using software licenses to effect political change. Its the ONE THING software developers can already do to make a difference.