Even if it comes to nothing it's still one of the best (only) options we have to try to control them.
There is another option: terminate diplomatic relations with them. The Dutch, Belgians, etc, could get together and say "GCHQ, either you pay for the cost of recalling and replacing those SIM cards, or we're terminating diplomatic relations with the UK." When these spying decisions start to have real blowback (either by paying for the recall or a termination of relations), you'll see these agencies start to change.
The rationale behind that statue was that ISPs can't be held accountable for copyright-infringing material going over their wires because filtering it would be too onerous [emphasis mine].
Too onerous? How about none of their damn business? The analogy I use is asking the operator to listen to phone calls to make sure there's no illegal activity being discussed. Just because that sort of thing can be automated for the Internet doesn't make it right.
but you may not even speak to your lawyer about a NSL.
Then when you make a mistake and get hauled before a judge, you can honestly say that 1) you asked to see your lawyer, and 2) the FBI refused to let you. That's been a get-out-of-jail-free card in quite a number of cases. Don't know if it will work this time though, IANAL.
Keep in mind that, even with new APIs introduced, the old stacks still continue working just fine. WinForms or WPF apps will still run on Windows desktop machines decades from now, just like native Windows applications are still using Windows API calls written decades ago.
This is exactly why I don't like Windows. They are unwilling to throw away the old crud and embrace new change. In just the past few years, Linux has completely gutted and replaced its sound system (PulseAudio), its init system (systemd), its default file system (btrfs), its default database server (MariaDB), its default web server (nginx; some distros), and its GUI (Wayland).
And all the developers have to do is gut & replace the API's their applications currently use with the new API's for those new systems. Why do developers and administrators stubbornly cling to Windows? Complacent in their old ways? Or just plain lazy? I know it can't possibly be the amount of work involved. It's all open source, and the thousand eyes means that your share of the work is only five keystrokes.
P.S. I hope the subtlety was not lost on you. On a more serious note, perhaps Linux developers should focus more on getting it right the first time, like the *BSD distros do.
If the NSA is in a position to MITM this connection then they are likely already in the possession of all necessary keys at either end and gain nothing by being able to send the client and server new keys.
Not true. There are a number of "poison the well" situations they could benefit from.
That's a pretty clear and measurable goal. The beauty is that you don't need to get rid of all of them (but it would be a great bonus). You just need to get rid of enough of them that if it is brought up again it would pass. How you go about accomplishing this goal is another matter entirely.
I think you're missing the point of the previous post. It is one thing to inter-operate with an init manager, like systemd, upstart, openrc, or sysvinit. It is quite another thing to be wholly dependent on a single init manager, which is the route GNOME has chosen to go.
A program can inter-operate with multiple init managers without having to be dependent on a single one of them.
Besides, what is the FCC going to do? Fine the FBI?
In theory, they could. The FCC has the authority to pierce the corporate veil and hold people personally accountable with fines. In this case, the "corporate veil" is a government agency, and the FCC could personally fine the specific FBI agents who used it. It will never happen of course, because the FCC is staffed with inbred bureaucrats who would dare not go against their government overlords. But it's an interesting thought.
You're missing the point. Are those eyes capable of the analysis and comprehension needed to understand the inner workings of the code?
Most blueprints are open source. They are publicly available from the local government office. However, no one tells the general public to "just read the blueprints." Everyone knows just looking at the blueprints isn't going to create some magical understanding in the reader.
Yet, this is exactly what Stallman and Raymond expect you to believe when they tell you to "just read the code."
If the number of convicts or felons is so high that they constitute a voting bloc that could influence law, then perhaps the laws that have convicted them need to be considered.
To build off your point, there are too many crimes that are felonies. Oregon tried to move the crime of falsely claiming to having a service dog from a misdemeanor to a felony. Politicians want to look like they're being tough on crime, so they tried to upgrade it to a felony. (Not sure if the effort was successful or not.)
Why does it need to be a felony? A misdemeanor can still carry a fine of up to $10,000. Isn't that enough punishment and discouragement for making a false claim about a dog?
Ultimately, I think the only thing that will put a stop to it is a constitutional amendment that says it's not a felony unless you serve (parole doesn't count) at least two years in prison. I don't think people have the stomach to put someone in prison for two years because of a fake service animal, which would force it down to a misdemeanor.
Headline from the Los Angles Times: "Obama urges net neutrality; Cruz calls it 'Obamacare for the Internet'"
The sad thing is that Cruz is probably right. Obamacare didn't reduce health care costs; in many cases, it drove up costs. Likewise, I have no faith that any of the proposed Obamanet regulations are going to protect net neutrality.
I think the key point is to decouple the content from the last mile network.
Decoupling the content from the network won't help you when Disney & ESPN have a monopoly on content, and want to charge $4 for a single channel which Disney & ESPN contractually requires the network to put in a lower tier that everyone gets.
How about the FCC adopt a no-cost regulation that says content providers cannot require their channel to be in any particular tier? This way the network would be free to place those expensive channels in a separate, optional tier, which you don't have to subscribe or pay for.
How do you intend for them to fine a company for buying advertisement space, and using it?
The advertising was political for the purposes of influencing the outcome of an election. (They specifically mentioned the referendum.) This is normally required to go through Separate Segregated Funds (SSF) or Political Action Committees (PAC), which have strict public disclosure requirements. None of that happened. These ads were paid for directly by the companies.
Since this happened in 2004 -- BTW, why are we hearing about this now? -- I believe the Statute of Limitations has expired. However, it would be something to keep an eye on for the next time companies try something like this.
the US is out of control. we all know this now and we all see it.
As an US citizen, I agree.
the question is: who has enough power to control the current top-dog and put him back in his dog-house?
The Founding Fathers provided two methods to amend the US Constitution. The first one is the one that has always been used. Congress passes an amendment by 2/3 of each house, and 3/4 of the states ratify it. However, the Founding Fathers asked, "What happens if the federal government is able to aquire too much power? Surely Congress would not pass an amendment to limit itself." They put in a second method for this case. 2/3 of the States can call for a Convention attended by state legislators, and whatever they pass gets ratified by 3/4 of the states. This takes the federal government completely out of the loop.
This has never before happened in US history, and it is starting to happen now. http://conventionofstates.com/ Believe me, the people who are most concerned about the US government being out of control are the citizens of the US. We realize that if the government can do it to you, it can do it to us.
The real question is: Are there enough US citiizens who think like I just said to pull the US government back from the brink? Or have too many of us gotten caught up in reality tv shows to care about the loss of freedom? When this effort succeeds or fails, you will have your answer.
Slashdot Mirror
If I was sleeping on a huge pile of money thanks to those powerful elites, why would I narc them out and stop my own personal gravy train?
There is another option: terminate diplomatic relations with them. The Dutch, Belgians, etc, could get together and say "GCHQ, either you pay for the cost of recalling and replacing those SIM cards, or we're terminating diplomatic relations with the UK." When these spying decisions start to have real blowback (either by paying for the recall or a termination of relations), you'll see these agencies start to change.
Too onerous? How about none of their damn business? The analogy I use is asking the operator to listen to phone calls to make sure there's no illegal activity being discussed. Just because that sort of thing can be automated for the Internet doesn't make it right.
They're using nVidia. That's punishment enough.
Then when you make a mistake and get hauled before a judge, you can honestly say that 1) you asked to see your lawyer, and 2) the FBI refused to let you. That's been a get-out-of-jail-free card in quite a number of cases. Don't know if it will work this time though, IANAL.
This is exactly why I don't like Windows. They are unwilling to throw away the old crud and embrace new change. In just the past few years, Linux has completely gutted and replaced its sound system (PulseAudio), its init system (systemd), its default file system (btrfs), its default database server (MariaDB), its default web server (nginx; some distros), and its GUI (Wayland).
And all the developers have to do is gut & replace the API's their applications currently use with the new API's for those new systems. Why do developers and administrators stubbornly cling to Windows? Complacent in their old ways? Or just plain lazy? I know it can't possibly be the amount of work involved. It's all open source, and the thousand eyes means that your share of the work is only five keystrokes.
P.S. I hope the subtlety was not lost on you. On a more serious note, perhaps Linux developers should focus more on getting it right the first time, like the *BSD distros do.
Not true. There are a number of "poison the well" situations they could benefit from.
Constructive feedback: The Dark Side of Time
You would need to de-elect the Republicans & Democrats in the House of Representatives who worked together to keep the surveillance funded (a yes vote would have barred funding)
That's a pretty clear and measurable goal. The beauty is that you don't need to get rid of all of them (but it would be a great bonus). You just need to get rid of enough of them that if it is brought up again it would pass. How you go about accomplishing this goal is another matter entirely.
I think you're missing the point of the previous post. It is one thing to inter-operate with an init manager, like systemd, upstart, openrc, or sysvinit. It is quite another thing to be wholly dependent on a single init manager, which is the route GNOME has chosen to go.
A program can inter-operate with multiple init managers without having to be dependent on a single one of them.
It was still better than The Interview.
This is 90% of the games on iPhone and Android.
In theory, they could. The FCC has the authority to pierce the corporate veil and hold people personally accountable with fines. In this case, the "corporate veil" is a government agency, and the FCC could personally fine the specific FBI agents who used it. It will never happen of course, because the FCC is staffed with inbred bureaucrats who would dare not go against their government overlords. But it's an interesting thought.
You're missing the point. Are those eyes capable of the analysis and comprehension needed to understand the inner workings of the code?
Most blueprints are open source. They are publicly available from the local government office. However, no one tells the general public to "just read the blueprints." Everyone knows just looking at the blueprints isn't going to create some magical understanding in the reader.
Yet, this is exactly what Stallman and Raymond expect you to believe when they tell you to "just read the code."
To build off your point, there are too many crimes that are felonies. Oregon tried to move the crime of falsely claiming to having a service dog from a misdemeanor to a felony. Politicians want to look like they're being tough on crime, so they tried to upgrade it to a felony. (Not sure if the effort was successful or not.)
Why does it need to be a felony? A misdemeanor can still carry a fine of up to $10,000. Isn't that enough punishment and discouragement for making a false claim about a dog?
Ultimately, I think the only thing that will put a stop to it is a constitutional amendment that says it's not a felony unless you serve (parole doesn't count) at least two years in prison. I don't think people have the stomach to put someone in prison for two years because of a fake service animal, which would force it down to a misdemeanor.
The government's definition of "reasonable technical assistance" is "insert this backdoor." What's so hard to understand about that?
I can barely get a signal within my own house. Will 5G improve that?
The underemployed are a self-identified group. It is people who want more work, but can't get it.
You've just identified that you don't want more work, and are thus not underemployed.
The system works!
The sad thing is that Cruz is probably right. Obamacare didn't reduce health care costs; in many cases, it drove up costs. Likewise, I have no faith that any of the proposed Obamanet regulations are going to protect net neutrality.
Upstart. It was actually in a number of distributions for some time, including:
Decoupling the content from the network won't help you when Disney & ESPN have a monopoly on content, and want to charge $4 for a single channel which Disney & ESPN contractually requires the network to put in a lower tier that everyone gets.
How about the FCC adopt a no-cost regulation that says content providers cannot require their channel to be in any particular tier? This way the network would be free to place those expensive channels in a separate, optional tier, which you don't have to subscribe or pay for.
The advertising was political for the purposes of influencing the outcome of an election. (They specifically mentioned the referendum.) This is normally required to go through Separate Segregated Funds (SSF) or Political Action Committees (PAC), which have strict public disclosure requirements. None of that happened. These ads were paid for directly by the companies.
Since this happened in 2004 -- BTW, why are we hearing about this now? -- I believe the Statute of Limitations has expired. However, it would be something to keep an eye on for the next time companies try something like this.
Yes, just look at who they vote for.
As an US citizen, I agree.
The Founding Fathers provided two methods to amend the US Constitution. The first one is the one that has always been used. Congress passes an amendment by 2/3 of each house, and 3/4 of the states ratify it. However, the Founding Fathers asked, "What happens if the federal government is able to aquire too much power? Surely Congress would not pass an amendment to limit itself." They put in a second method for this case. 2/3 of the States can call for a Convention attended by state legislators, and whatever they pass gets ratified by 3/4 of the states. This takes the federal government completely out of the loop.
This has never before happened in US history, and it is starting to happen now. http://conventionofstates.com/ Believe me, the people who are most concerned about the US government being out of control are the citizens of the US. We realize that if the government can do it to you, it can do it to us.
The real question is: Are there enough US citiizens who think like I just said to pull the US government back from the brink? Or have too many of us gotten caught up in reality tv shows to care about the loss of freedom? When this effort succeeds or fails, you will have your answer.