And the person can burn the papers before the law enforcement arrives, or hide them somewhere clever. If they know the papers are in one house in a large city, but they don't know which house it is, then they are not going to expend the manpower to knock down the door of every resident. The reason that they can knock down doors is because we haven't invented a strong enough way to keep out a determined force. But with encryption we have invented a way to keep out the bad guys or at least force them to expend a use amount of time and money to break in.
Encryption of your own files is not illegal in the US, and it is likely it could not be made illegal without changing the constitution. The government is going to have to learn to live with this.
If you weld shut the safe, embed it in concrete, and dumb it in the ocean, the warrant isn't going to be much help. Or if you burn all your papers no amount of warrants are going to put those papers back into readable form. So full disk encryption is the same thing, it is a layer of security to keep out prying eyes. Sure, once in awhile the prying eyes are from the government, and in extremely rare occasions may even be legitimate requests from the government, but they do not get to have special exemptions here. Once you give the government back door access then they will abuse that power in the majority of the cases; history shows this. If there's a back door, then someone other than the government can break in too. There is no safe way to have a back door.
The problem here is that security is getting good enough that the government can't crack it easily. This also means that people trying to crack into your phone for nefarious purposes can't do this either (government or not). The old days of just opening the file cabinet and copying some incriminating files are gone and they are not going to be coming back. Even if you force companies to abandon encryption you will be unable to prevent users from adding their own back in.
This is America. We sort of invented the idea that the people have rights that the government can't take away. I've seen nothing in the constitution or amendments that say rights can be abridged as long as someone claims they can solve a murder. Part of the core principals of America is that it is better for a guilty person to get away with a crime than an innocent person be convicted for one. Granted that principal is being watered down over time but we shouldn't hasten its demise. When the government says "trust us" the first response should be to not trust them.
The prosecutors need to find other means of investigation.
But the drone was probably not legally allowed to fly at low altitude over private property. Homeowner does have exclusive control of airspace for some number of feet (100 maybe, depends on what courts would accept or whether there was interference in the homeowner's use of the property).
It was a drone, not a human. If it was bird shot fired upwards, then the worst that happens to the neighborhood is that you get a lot of tiny pellets falling back down that are too light to break anything (unlike a bullet). Wind resistance keeps the pellets from flying very far.
Granted, still probably illegal to shoot even birdshot in an incorporated town, but probably also illegal to fly the drone over other people's property at a low altitude.
Ultimately, it was just a drone being where it should not have been, no harm done.
I dropped them last year, even though they were still a good service. But $70/month was hitting my limit while the number of shows I felt I wanted to watch was down to 4 at times.
I was planning on going with Netflix+Hulu, but stuck with Netflix only because the two shows I wanted on Hulu+ were changed so that they were delayed until they were also on Netflix anyway. So I really don't see the point of Hulu+, and I haven't even tried out the free month of it. There's so much to see on Netflix that I don't see the point of expanding the selection to other channels.
Good news, after waiting a very long year, I finally get to see last season's Doctor Who. Soon it's time for Walking Dead, but after about a year of being careful some idiot dropped some spoilers...
Once you cut the cord, you start cutting back on other things. Those initial plans to pay ala-carte vanish when you're thinking "is it worth $1.99 for this one episode"? You learn to wait a year instead of seeing the shows when they first run. You learn to watch older TV instead. The "must watch" list shrinks.
The only problem though is lack of a good DVR, as streaming wants you to stream on demand (even if high peak hours). No DVR means there's no point in even bothering to watch broadcast TV even if you get a good antenna, as it returns you to the dark ages of being a slave to the clock. But you learn to do without.
You've fallen into the trap. The real struggle should be corporate control of the country versus control by the people, but the corporations have convinced too many people that there's a left vs right fight going on, or a liberal versus conservative struggle. It is distracting you from the real enemy. If you think Disney or Comcast are "liberal" then you have drunk their lemonade. Corporations are not political, they are instead impersonal hive minds. They follow the winds of change without any loyalty to any political brand except for money. American has been deluded into thinking that if they're anti-abortion that they must always be anti-tax at the same time, and if they're pro-gay-rights that they must automatically be pro-union. It's stupid, there area million different political stances that any voter could have and yet we're being fooled into thinking that there are only two: us versus them.
Don't hate Disney because they have different political views than your tribe has, but hate them because they're replacing "we the people" with "we the stockholders".
Mediocre employees who mistakenly think they are great are upset that great employees who they think are mediocre are being paid the same.
$70K was also the minimum. What they complained about was that the person making a subsistence living at $20K to sweep the floors may have gotten a huge raise whereas someone make $100K got no raise at all. People can be petty that way.
Mine is on the internet. It's pretty damn hard to prevent it without beating up people with cameras and smartphones. However they haven't tagged me in them as I disallow that on G+ and I'm not on Facebook so the picture doesn't link to anything about me. When someone does want to tag me, I just say "what the hell is wrong with you and how did your parents screw up so badly?"
Why can't Adobe write a PDF view that just does the job simply and without the feature overload that leads to the most bug ridden software since the Microsoft Butterfly 98 Home Edition?
It's all part of the bizarre non-design of the PC. The bootloader was always given far too much responsibility, compare to real computers that actual designers and you never see a boot system so bloated as the PC. There should never be a "need to work even if an unsupported or no operating system is running" feature.
It reemphasizes the overreliance on a monoculture that we have.
But how else are they supposed to make money from their youtube channel? That's the real reason everyone wants a 10 minute long video to relay two sentences of value.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
The US wanted an unconditional surrender, true.. However the Japanese military was also divided about whether or not there were more bombs available, or whether things were hopeless, and of course there are always the die-hard generals on any side.
We could have demonstrated and then sued for peace negotiations. It would be like saying that war is expensive and we have more important things to do, so let's just stop fighting the Taliban and pull out of Iraq; theoretically possible but politically very difficult.
Remember that against the Nazis, both the western and eastern fronts essentially met each other, racing to see who would get to Berlin first, and still the high command wasn't surrendering.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
We finished the fight with Germany and could focus everything on Japan. We could have blockaded them, which would have caused a lot of deaths as well but possibly not as many.
There were a couple of things going on. First, the US wanted unconditional surrender, not just surrender. We wanted revenge for daring to attack first. Second, the US wanted to get the war out of the way in order to deal with problem of the USSR.
Nagasaki had fewer casualties, mostly because of hills surrounding the epicenter that stopped a lot of the spread of damage. But the US didn't like it as a first choice because it was too far in the south and they wanted something more central - it was a terror attack after all.
There was a belief though that the US only had the resources for a single bomb. The US expected an instant surrender, but it took time for the realization of what happened to sink in as much of the damage was similar to that of fire bombing and direct damage from the blast was not as large as damage from the ensuing fires. Ie, it looked like a repeat of the Tokyo attacks in some ways, which definitely cemented the view of the US as evil aggressors for targeting civilians directly.
Flip things around. If the Germans had gotten the bomb first and dropped one over the top of New York City would the US have surrendered?
Add in the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden. As far as the bomb went, I think most of the casualties were caused by the fires than by the blast, because a lot of fires were ignited and then a huge wind came up because of the bomb to spread it further. Radiation sickness followed later.
A lot of the myth about the bomb too came from the fires. The scars that many survivors had were from burns, their children don't have inherited genetic flaws from the bomb (though it is an ongoing prejudice in a country that's very big on prejudice), etc.
The third party interface may not be to make the default interface "usable" but becuase that's what the user wants to use instead. Ie, if a user installs KDE to override Gnome, and some other user installs Gnome to override KDE, then that doesn't mean both of those interfaces are unusable. Instead means that the two users want different things. It's just basic customization. People overrode the Windows 7 and XP start menus too. For Windows 8, there are third party utilities to bring a start menu with an option that looks a LOT like Windows 10.
It works in many countries already. It also treats men and women equally in this regard, rather than the "traditional" sense the men don't need time off after becoming fathers or that taking time off for becoming a parent generally means you're quitting the job or career.
People other than Jobs also did the innovation. Other people brought together the various ideas inside the company, created an executive summary about it all, then got approval from Steve Jobs. If the idea ended up being great, then Jobs took credit for it, if the idea was mediocre then someone got fired. Occasionally Jobs would go micromanage something, wasting both his time and the time of the engineers who were being cussed at.
The media slobbering is just silly. I got a recruitment email from someone who had to parenthetically add that this particular company was run by a cousin of Elon Musk. Completely irrelevant, yet people get too full of awe of being in the presence of divinity that they stop thinking. Even if Elon Musk is a genius it says nothing whatsoever about the abilities of their relatives - no one today is singing about the fantastic scientific accomplishments of Albert Einstein's cousins.
(then again, this is typical startup mentality - wave your hands and make wild statements in order to recruit people too stupid to realize that they're being scammed, then make them work long hours for a small salary with the promise of non-negotiable pieces of paper)
Slashdot Mirror
The prosecutors have the phones. Ie, they have the evidence. It is their own responsibiliity now to decrypt them.
And the person can burn the papers before the law enforcement arrives, or hide them somewhere clever. If they know the papers are in one house in a large city, but they don't know which house it is, then they are not going to expend the manpower to knock down the door of every resident. The reason that they can knock down doors is because we haven't invented a strong enough way to keep out a determined force. But with encryption we have invented a way to keep out the bad guys or at least force them to expend a use amount of time and money to break in.
Encryption of your own files is not illegal in the US, and it is likely it could not be made illegal without changing the constitution. The government is going to have to learn to live with this.
If you weld shut the safe, embed it in concrete, and dumb it in the ocean, the warrant isn't going to be much help. Or if you burn all your papers no amount of warrants are going to put those papers back into readable form. So full disk encryption is the same thing, it is a layer of security to keep out prying eyes. Sure, once in awhile the prying eyes are from the government, and in extremely rare occasions may even be legitimate requests from the government, but they do not get to have special exemptions here. Once you give the government back door access then they will abuse that power in the majority of the cases; history shows this. If there's a back door, then someone other than the government can break in too. There is no safe way to have a back door.
The problem here is that security is getting good enough that the government can't crack it easily. This also means that people trying to crack into your phone for nefarious purposes can't do this either (government or not). The old days of just opening the file cabinet and copying some incriminating files are gone and they are not going to be coming back. Even if you force companies to abandon encryption you will be unable to prevent users from adding their own back in.
This is America. We sort of invented the idea that the people have rights that the government can't take away. I've seen nothing in the constitution or amendments that say rights can be abridged as long as someone claims they can solve a murder. Part of the core principals of America is that it is better for a guilty person to get away with a crime than an innocent person be convicted for one. Granted that principal is being watered down over time but we shouldn't hasten its demise. When the government says "trust us" the first response should be to not trust them.
The prosecutors need to find other means of investigation.
These systems in my view are too big for IoT.
Hmm, you haven't noticed the corrosive right in the country which despises anyone who doesn't share their opinions?
But the drone was probably not legally allowed to fly at low altitude over private property. Homeowner does have exclusive control of airspace for some number of feet (100 maybe, depends on what courts would accept or whether there was interference in the homeowner's use of the property).
It was a drone, not a human. If it was bird shot fired upwards, then the worst that happens to the neighborhood is that you get a lot of tiny pellets falling back down that are too light to break anything (unlike a bullet). Wind resistance keeps the pellets from flying very far.
Granted, still probably illegal to shoot even birdshot in an incorporated town, but probably also illegal to fly the drone over other people's property at a low altitude.
Ultimately, it was just a drone being where it should not have been, no harm done.
I dropped them last year, even though they were still a good service. But $70/month was hitting my limit while the number of shows I felt I wanted to watch was down to 4 at times.
I was planning on going with Netflix+Hulu, but stuck with Netflix only because the two shows I wanted on Hulu+ were changed so that they were delayed until they were also on Netflix anyway. So I really don't see the point of Hulu+, and I haven't even tried out the free month of it. There's so much to see on Netflix that I don't see the point of expanding the selection to other channels.
Good news, after waiting a very long year, I finally get to see last season's Doctor Who. Soon it's time for Walking Dead, but after about a year of being careful some idiot dropped some spoilers...
Once you cut the cord, you start cutting back on other things. Those initial plans to pay ala-carte vanish when you're thinking "is it worth $1.99 for this one episode"? You learn to wait a year instead of seeing the shows when they first run. You learn to watch older TV instead. The "must watch" list shrinks.
The only problem though is lack of a good DVR, as streaming wants you to stream on demand (even if high peak hours). No DVR means there's no point in even bothering to watch broadcast TV even if you get a good antenna, as it returns you to the dark ages of being a slave to the clock. But you learn to do without.
You've fallen into the trap. The real struggle should be corporate control of the country versus control by the people, but the corporations have convinced too many people that there's a left vs right fight going on, or a liberal versus conservative struggle. It is distracting you from the real enemy. If you think Disney or Comcast are "liberal" then you have drunk their lemonade. Corporations are not political, they are instead impersonal hive minds. They follow the winds of change without any loyalty to any political brand except for money. American has been deluded into thinking that if they're anti-abortion that they must always be anti-tax at the same time, and if they're pro-gay-rights that they must automatically be pro-union. It's stupid, there area million different political stances that any voter could have and yet we're being fooled into thinking that there are only two: us versus them.
Don't hate Disney because they have different political views than your tribe has, but hate them because they're replacing "we the people" with "we the stockholders".
Mediocre employees who mistakenly think they are great are upset that great employees who they think are mediocre are being paid the same.
$70K was also the minimum. What they complained about was that the person making a subsistence living at $20K to sweep the floors may have gotten a huge raise whereas someone make $100K got no raise at all. People can be petty that way.
Mine is on the internet. It's pretty damn hard to prevent it without beating up people with cameras and smartphones. However they haven't tagged me in them as I disallow that on G+ and I'm not on Facebook so the picture doesn't link to anything about me. When someone does want to tag me, I just say "what the hell is wrong with you and how did your parents screw up so badly?"
Why can't Adobe write a PDF view that just does the job simply and without the feature overload that leads to the most bug ridden software since the Microsoft Butterfly 98 Home Edition?
Hipsters with keys to the family car.
It's all part of the bizarre non-design of the PC. The bootloader was always given far too much responsibility, compare to real computers that actual designers and you never see a boot system so bloated as the PC. There should never be a "need to work even if an unsupported or no operating system is running" feature.
It reemphasizes the overreliance on a monoculture that we have.
But how else are they supposed to make money from their youtube channel? That's the real reason everyone wants a 10 minute long video to relay two sentences of value.
The US wanted an unconditional surrender, true.. However the Japanese military was also divided about whether or not there were more bombs available, or whether things were hopeless, and of course there are always the die-hard generals on any side.
We could have demonstrated and then sued for peace negotiations. It would be like saying that war is expensive and we have more important things to do, so let's just stop fighting the Taliban and pull out of Iraq; theoretically possible but politically very difficult.
Remember that against the Nazis, both the western and eastern fronts essentially met each other, racing to see who would get to Berlin first, and still the high command wasn't surrendering.
We finished the fight with Germany and could focus everything on Japan. We could have blockaded them, which would have caused a lot of deaths as well but possibly not as many.
There were a couple of things going on. First, the US wanted unconditional surrender, not just surrender. We wanted revenge for daring to attack first. Second, the US wanted to get the war out of the way in order to deal with problem of the USSR.
Nagasaki had fewer casualties, mostly because of hills surrounding the epicenter that stopped a lot of the spread of damage. But the US didn't like it as a first choice because it was too far in the south and they wanted something more central - it was a terror attack after all.
There was a belief though that the US only had the resources for a single bomb. The US expected an instant surrender, but it took time for the realization of what happened to sink in as much of the damage was similar to that of fire bombing and direct damage from the blast was not as large as damage from the ensuing fires. Ie, it looked like a repeat of the Tokyo attacks in some ways, which definitely cemented the view of the US as evil aggressors for targeting civilians directly.
Flip things around. If the Germans had gotten the bomb first and dropped one over the top of New York City would the US have surrendered?
Add in the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden. As far as the bomb went, I think most of the casualties were caused by the fires than by the blast, because a lot of fires were ignited and then a huge wind came up because of the bomb to spread it further. Radiation sickness followed later.
A lot of the myth about the bomb too came from the fires. The scars that many survivors had were from burns, their children don't have inherited genetic flaws from the bomb (though it is an ongoing prejudice in a country that's very big on prejudice), etc.
The third party interface may not be to make the default interface "usable" but becuase that's what the user wants to use instead. Ie, if a user installs KDE to override Gnome, and some other user installs Gnome to override KDE, then that doesn't mean both of those interfaces are unusable. Instead means that the two users want different things. It's just basic customization. People overrode the Windows 7 and XP start menus too. For Windows 8, there are third party utilities to bring a start menu with an option that looks a LOT like Windows 10.
It works in many countries already. It also treats men and women equally in this regard, rather than the "traditional" sense the men don't need time off after becoming fathers or that taking time off for becoming a parent generally means you're quitting the job or career.
People other than Jobs also did the innovation. Other people brought together the various ideas inside the company, created an executive summary about it all, then got approval from Steve Jobs. If the idea ended up being great, then Jobs took credit for it, if the idea was mediocre then someone got fired. Occasionally Jobs would go micromanage something, wasting both his time and the time of the engineers who were being cussed at.
The isolation from day to day realities of running a company gives them enough free time to run for political office.
The media slobbering is just silly. I got a recruitment email from someone who had to parenthetically add that this particular company was run by a cousin of Elon Musk. Completely irrelevant, yet people get too full of awe of being in the presence of divinity that they stop thinking. Even if Elon Musk is a genius it says nothing whatsoever about the abilities of their relatives - no one today is singing about the fantastic scientific accomplishments of Albert Einstein's cousins.
(then again, this is typical startup mentality - wave your hands and make wild statements in order to recruit people too stupid to realize that they're being scammed, then make them work long hours for a small salary with the promise of non-negotiable pieces of paper)