Damn straight I log what my kids do online, but I never admit it or tell them about it.
So do tell, what has your monitoring saved your kids from? I'm guessing nothing, since you appear to be raising them in an environment of lies and ignorance (rootkit?). I fear that one day you are really going to find out that your monitoring has some huge blindspots (and yes, I know you probably have a relationship with your child outside of network monitoring), since monitoring (whether kids or computers) typically fails in spectacular if not catastrophic ways.
Although some other stories--like the one about him having two one-night-stands in a night--make you wonder about his priorities
Jealous much? This kind of thing is not uncommon, you know, and rarely-if-ever impinges on a person's politics. Why should Assange be treated differently?
We've got a long way to go before something as even as controversial and intentionally offensive as (oh) "Piss Christ" is banned
You may not consider it a ban, but a gallery show including "Piss Christ" was shut down after some nut tried to remove it and some others attacked it with a hammer. Tomato, tomahto, I call it a constructive ban via extremist actions. And don't forget the changes brought to the NEA after the controversy exploded in Jesse Helms' tiny brain.
He wants to have it both ways, but only when and how he sees fit.
No he doesn't. Privacy for the government isn't the same as privacy for the individual, and at any rate he's only asking for the logs to back up what Lamo has already been talking to the press about, which is conflicting to say the least.
IANAL, but I am a speaker of the English language.
You don't say.
Please do tell us what the name of this fancy "UK DMCA" law is called. What's that, you're an authoritarian who wants the world to live by the USA's laws? I couldn't quite hear you, that's all I could make out.
Oh right, you're actually referring to the "other style notification." What form would this take, exactly, in order to be legally defensible? In the UK? Maybe "state secrets," eh?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with the suits that they don't look at this and go "hmmmm, free research" instead of "OMG TEH WURLD IZ FALLIN?!"
Because they are corrupt. If they incorporate this research, their friends who own the chip and pin companies may not be capable of fulfilling the concomitant contracts that would derive from increased rigor. They consider security to be a cost center.
After he did that, I followed up with their law firm directly, pointing them to my new page full of DeCSS links and telling them if they wanted to test their theory in court they could.
But suppose the officer is exonerated in a court of law, and the person with the recording decides to get the officer in trouble in the court of public opinion by releasing the tape to the press? (For that matter, isn't this a much more plausible venue for such a recording than using it as evidence in a brutality charge?)
The way I see it, the response to an otherwise-judged-innocent situation indicates that maybe people would prefer if what is on video is illegal. That is, that the law should maybe change. You're presupposing a lot of evidence up to this point, since a police officer would be exonerated in their own department's investigation and prosecutors almost without fail will decline prosecution then and there, officers standing trial for on-the-job actions being such a rarity as to warrant TV coverage.
There are so many garbage ebooks selling for $40 on Amazon, certainly this means it's easy enough for someone to compile an ebook of wikileaks and sell it from any of a billion ebook marketplaces, not the least Amazon itself. And once the scam ebook scene smells blood (money) around wikileaks, it will become SEO fodder and also an advertising keyword. After that, Wikileaks will be fairly ubiquitable for the near term.
Yes, efreedom are bad people. It looks like they popped up right after the last time Google rejiggered their algorithm (or at least around an announced/confirmed change), but who knows how long they've been around and whether their prominence is due to new science or a lucky SEO windfall finally rewarding them for something they'd been doing for some time (lurking at the 50th SERP. They have been falling off my searches somewhat since then.
They execute their opponents because they claim it preserves their society and ideological way of life. Under this lens the US is doing the exact same thing.
If they do indeed use those terms to describe what is happening to Chinese people using the Chinese language, then they have a leg-up on the US.
The public has a right to know what the government is doing as long as it doesn't compromise operational security.
We've already seen that the definition of "operational security" can be expanded arbitrarily, so how about we limit operations to a more reasonable level of public accountability? It's our money.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we forget about Sanford Wallace so soon?
Damn straight I log what my kids do online, but I never admit it or tell them about it.
So do tell, what has your monitoring saved your kids from? I'm guessing nothing, since you appear to be raising them in an environment of lies and ignorance (rootkit?). I fear that one day you are really going to find out that your monitoring has some huge blindspots (and yes, I know you probably have a relationship with your child outside of network monitoring), since monitoring (whether kids or computers) typically fails in spectacular if not catastrophic ways.
Then there should be a law preventing different legal rights to different parties, shouldn't all parties be considered the same? If not, why not?
Because the GPL allows you to license and/or sell your code separately if you want.
A little?
Although some other stories--like the one about him having two one-night-stands in a night--make you wonder about his priorities
Jealous much? This kind of thing is not uncommon, you know, and rarely-if-ever impinges on a person's politics. Why should Assange be treated differently?
Which is the problem. The Palestinian Authority also has the right to exist, assuming that it can do so peaceably
Oh yes, always the only conditions are those imposed on the Pals.
"Go fuck yourself" -Dick Cheney
Okay so what about airline pilots?
Getting off the topic a bit. There's no connection between a drug test for (or in the course of) a job and a DUI checkpoint.
We've got a long way to go before something as even as controversial and intentionally offensive as (oh) "Piss Christ" is banned
You may not consider it a ban, but a gallery show including "Piss Christ" was shut down after some nut tried to remove it and some others attacked it with a hammer. Tomato, tomahto, I call it a constructive ban via extremist actions. And don't forget the changes brought to the NEA after the controversy exploded in Jesse Helms' tiny brain.
He wants to have it both ways, but only when and how he sees fit.
No he doesn't. Privacy for the government isn't the same as privacy for the individual, and at any rate he's only asking for the logs to back up what Lamo has already been talking to the press about, which is conflicting to say the least.
IANAL, but I am a speaker of the English language.
You don't say.
Please do tell us what the name of this fancy "UK DMCA" law is called. What's that, you're an authoritarian who wants the world to live by the USA's laws? I couldn't quite hear you, that's all I could make out.
Oh right, you're actually referring to the "other style notification." What form would this take, exactly, in order to be legally defensible? In the UK? Maybe "state secrets," eh?
Are those the names you were referring to?
No, the law firm's was.
Because they are corrupt. If they incorporate this research, their friends who own the chip and pin companies may not be capable of fulfilling the concomitant contracts that would derive from increased rigor. They consider security to be a cost center.
If they close some accounts despite their legality, we must assume they actively support those they don't shut down.
This is known as "guilt by association" and is a . Try again.
After he did that, I followed up with their law firm directly, pointing them to my new page full of DeCSS links and telling them if they wanted to test their theory in court they could.
Then again, you're not naming names, either.
But suppose the officer is exonerated in a court of law, and the person with the recording decides to get the officer in trouble in the court of public opinion by releasing the tape to the press? (For that matter, isn't this a much more plausible venue for such a recording than using it as evidence in a brutality charge?)
The way I see it, the response to an otherwise-judged-innocent situation indicates that maybe people would prefer if what is on video is illegal. That is, that the law should maybe change. You're presupposing a lot of evidence up to this point, since a police officer would be exonerated in their own department's investigation and prosecutors almost without fail will decline prosecution then and there, officers standing trial for on-the-job actions being such a rarity as to warrant TV coverage.
If you're on the clock, you cannot lie, under penalty of law.
Where do you draw the line between lying and shading the truth? Be specific.
I agree that these strengths of his are to benefit his purpose, but I see that purpose is to advance himself.
You're making a category error. He is advancing himself no more than an antenna is advancing its plans to become a skyscraper.
That's entirely different.
Really? "Maybe they didn't want to" is the logic here?
Mind you his threat to do that if he was arrested (I don't think he specified for a particular reason) seemed a bit off.
Do you have a cite for even this? I've been trying to find one since it's being promulgated as something other than a baseless assertion.
There are so many garbage ebooks selling for $40 on Amazon, certainly this means it's easy enough for someone to compile an ebook of wikileaks and sell it from any of a billion ebook marketplaces, not the least Amazon itself. And once the scam ebook scene smells blood (money) around wikileaks, it will become SEO fodder and also an advertising keyword. After that, Wikileaks will be fairly ubiquitable for the near term.
Yes, efreedom are bad people. It looks like they popped up right after the last time Google rejiggered their algorithm (or at least around an announced/confirmed change), but who knows how long they've been around and whether their prominence is due to new science or a lucky SEO windfall finally rewarding them for something they'd been doing for some time (lurking at the 50th SERP. They have been falling off my searches somewhat since then.
The two pictures even looked a lot a like.
You know we pay people a lot of money to be good at this kind of thing, right? I'm not so sure I'd want to let them off the hook so easily.
They execute their opponents because they claim it preserves their society and ideological way of life. Under this lens the US is doing the exact same thing.
If they do indeed use those terms to describe what is happening to Chinese people using the Chinese language, then they have a leg-up on the US.
The public has a right to know what the government is doing as long as it doesn't compromise operational security.
We've already seen that the definition of "operational security" can be expanded arbitrarily, so how about we limit operations to a more reasonable level of public accountability? It's our money.