I fear that today there are more people willing to allow the police to crack down, wiretap, and abuse people (as long as they are "different") than there who believe in the rights of ALL to be respected.
Some politicians have whipped up people into a fear of terrorists, drugs, and death panels, that if the question to suspend the constitution and implement a police state were put to a vote, the police state would win.
We are already seeing people bringing guns to political rallies, and in the last few months there have been numerous acts of political violence, including an assassination attempt on a member of congress. Yet all of these actions have been initiated be people for whom the word freedom means low taxes, and the ability for the rich powerful to use their position to exploit the less well-off.
The whole thing seems pretty depressing.
The insurance file is very unlikely to be a bluff. I suspect that the key was released to some organization that has a lot to lose if the key were to be public.
That's about all the article says. It is amazingly information free. Anything else that is mentioned can be deduced by anybody who uses Google's services and has a bit of knowledge and the logic.
As I was reading it (yes, I know that is a cardinal sin on/.) It felt like there was going to be more in interesting information forthcoming, but there was never anything (other then use use of VMs) that was surprising in any way.
It would be nice if the editors would stop posting content-free stories.
Should have RTFA I guess, I now realize Mr Pike just talks in circles and really didn't have anything of value to say other than 'programming is hard'.
You are aware that he literally (co)-wrote
the book on UNIX. While you may disagree with his ideas, his credentials are impeccable.
I fail to see the business model behind this. They are selling a service to ISPs, which will do DPI, and add an HTTP header to traffic, most likely coming from the ISPs own database. (Only the ISP knows where its cables are terminated.) This is done for the benefit of third party advertisers, who, at least today, are not paying the ISP for the tracking info. I suppose that the info could be encrypted, with the key available to the ad providers who subscribe to a service, and the ISP get kickbacks, but otherwise, I fail to see why an ISP would want to invest in this service.
Google is offering a service, Google Apps for Education, that schools want. They are offering another service, SSL search, that schools want to block. It seems to me that it is distinctly the school's problem to figure out how to do that. (Which, since they are paying you to provide filtering, makes it your problem). Google's just going to do what they always do, stick services out there and see what makes money.
The problem, as I understand it is that it is impossible for a filtering proxy server (without doing MITM hacks) from telling the difference between the services. All the proxy sees is an https request to www.google.com, with the content of that request fully encrypted. What the filter providers would like to see is for google to segregate the two services, so that they can allow SSL access to (e.g.) apps.google.com without allowing access to search.google.com
Yes, I realize what bail is. I were merely commenting on what the immediate consequences someone "deserved" be subjected to as the result of committing a criminal offense.
There just might be a bit of justice in the world if that footage was available to anyone who makes a charge of police misconduct, or gets charge with assaulting (e.g. touching) an officer.
what slide? in each of those cases the person violated a law. the NYC one was by a bunch of idiots called Critical Mass who think it's OK to disrupt traffic. they deserve to get beat down for what they do....
Nobody deserves to get beat down by the police. They perhaps deserve to be arrested with the minimal amount of force and violence required to effect the arrest, and then detained in a safe facility (safe from both other detainees and staff) until they are released on bail or finish serving their sentence.
I'll be cautiously, quietly applauding from a far corner, until I can figure out what exactly their ulterior motives are. They want my trust, and this is a good first step, but boy-oh-boy do they have an uphill battle before them.
Their motives are pretty clear: malaria effects half a billion people a year, but they are mostly poor and in poor countries. This way Glaxo is able to outsource the R&D, and get good PR (and maybe do some good for the world at the same time).
Meanwhile, their scientists can focus on the very profitable lifestyle drugs (e.g Viagara, Procieca), and drugs for conditions that effect the rich (high blood pressure, depression, diabetes, and the like).
The only place where I have seen frames used to good effect is Javadoc and similar API documentation. Using frames, you get a convenient index of the classes on the left, and can scroll that list independently of the main API docs.
What business relationship? You pay nothing, it should be a hint that you are on the "business part" of the business. Have no expectation of having your say at someone you are not paying. Yes, there is no free lunch. Yes, if you don't see how you are paying for your lunch, it means you ARE lunch. We are lunch also here on Slashdot.
There may not be an exchange of money, but there is clearly a relationship between Facebook and their users. Users receive the ability to interact with each other, share picture, etc. Facebook gets eyes for their ads, and data to mine. This is a mutually beneficial situation. What I am opposed to is Facebook changing the terms of that relationship without (most) users being aware of it.
I think the real problem is not Facebook, but a system that allows businesses to retroactively and without notification, change the the agreement that the user agreed to when business relationship was first established.
If Facebook wants to change the TOS, privacy policy, or anything else, about the service, they should have to require an affirmative opt-in from the user first. They have the right (in the absence of a contract) to cancel a user's account, on the service, but not to change the terms or settings. If they want to change the terms, they can either advertise how great the new features are, and ask users to opt-in to them, or they can put up a notification at the next log-in telling exactly what has changed, and require the user to accept or reject the changes. (Depending on how critical the changes are to the business, a rejection may require closing the account.),
In a just world, that is how all terms with a business should be. It is unconscionable to require the users to keep checking a document on a website with no notification that the terms have changes. And yet, Facebook, ISPs, credit cards, and many other businesses scam their users with such sneakwrap provisions.
So, if a Mass. residents sends me (or my business) an email, what does that mean?
The message will generally contain the sender's name and email address. It is sent in the clear over SMTP, and will generally be stored as plain text on the server as either flat files or perhaps some database until the message is picked up via IMAP, POP or some proprietary protocol. It is then likely to be stored, indefinitely, in plain text on the client machine.
It looks to me like someone did not think this through. (Unfortunately it is not news when a government regulates technology w/o understanding it.)
Perhaps this case is an exception, but I have always fest that the no-fly list is one of the dumbest ideas out there. In a criminal case (which terrorism and conspiracy are) you do not want to let the suspect know you are on to them until the cops come to arrest them. With the watch lists, all a sleeper has to do is take a commercial flight, and they will immediately know if they are on a watch list.
Not to mention the civil liberties abuses that result when someone is denied the right to travel (by air) with due process, no notification, and no effective means of appeal.
Actually, that is exactly his point. In times of war or crisis, the level of democracy is somewhat compromised. (Look at that the US did during WWII, especially to those of Japanese descent.)
Global warming is a crisis, but unlike a war, the rights that need to be abridged are not the civil rights of individual people, but rather the freedom of corporations to do as the will in a never ending quest for more wealth and power. If that is the sacrifice that we are called to make, I will have a hard time mourning the loss of freedom.
If, on the other hand this is implemented as more wiretaps, secret arrests, torture, restrictions on speech, travel and the like, first of all, I don't see why that would be necessary, and secondly, the cure may be worse than the disease.
I don't see a problem as long as they are not doing anything that any other user can do. If they lie to you to get you to accept them as a friend, or browse public data, that is perfectly OK.
On the other hand, I would have problem if they get access to the database, or otherwise bypass the user-managed access control/privacy features. I would also have a problem if they developed a Facebook app and tricked a suspect into running it. (apps can have more access to your profile than friends do.)
Slashdot Mirror
I fear that today there are more people willing to allow the police to crack down, wiretap, and abuse people (as long as they are "different") than there who believe in the rights of ALL to be respected. Some politicians have whipped up people into a fear of terrorists, drugs, and death panels, that if the question to suspend the constitution and implement a police state were put to a vote, the police state would win. We are already seeing people bringing guns to political rallies, and in the last few months there have been numerous acts of political violence, including an assassination attempt on a member of congress. Yet all of these actions have been initiated be people for whom the word freedom means low taxes, and the ability for the rich powerful to use their position to exploit the less well-off. The whole thing seems pretty depressing.
The insurance file is very unlikely to be a bluff. I suspect that the key was released to some organization that has a lot to lose if the key were to be public.
That's about all the article says. It is amazingly information free. Anything else that is mentioned can be deduced by anybody who uses Google's services and has a bit of knowledge and the logic.
As I was reading it (yes, I know that is a cardinal sin on /.) It felt like there was going to be more in interesting information forthcoming, but there was never anything (other then use use of VMs) that was surprising in any way.
It would be nice if the editors would stop posting content-free stories.
</rant>
volcano information recorder going into netherworld
jhead is simple command-line tool that manipulates EXIF data.
Completely understandable. Elves hate going underground, so the market for tours in elvish languages is naturally limited.
Should have RTFA I guess, I now realize Mr Pike just talks in circles and really didn't have anything of value to say other than 'programming is hard'.
You are aware that he literally (co)-wrote the book on UNIX. While you may disagree with his ideas, his credentials are impeccable.
Is is really a good idea to advertise how similar VP8 and H.264 are? Send in the patent trolls.
I fail to see the business model behind this. They are selling a service to ISPs, which will do DPI, and add an HTTP header to traffic, most likely coming from the ISPs own database. (Only the ISP knows where its cables are terminated.) This is done for the benefit of third party advertisers, who, at least today, are not paying the ISP for the tracking info. I suppose that the info could be encrypted, with the key available to the ad providers who subscribe to a service, and the ISP get kickbacks, but otherwise, I fail to see why an ISP would want to invest in this service.
Google is offering a service, Google Apps for Education, that schools want. They are offering another service, SSL search, that schools want to block. It seems to me that it is distinctly the school's problem to figure out how to do that. (Which, since they are paying you to provide filtering, makes it your problem). Google's just going to do what they always do, stick services out there and see what makes money.
The problem, as I understand it is that it is impossible for a filtering proxy server (without doing MITM hacks) from telling the difference between the services. All the proxy sees is an https request to www.google.com, with the content of that request fully encrypted. What the filter providers would like to see is for google to segregate the two services, so that they can allow SSL access to (e.g.) apps.google.com without allowing access to search.google.com
Yes, I realize what bail is. I were merely commenting on what the immediate consequences someone "deserved" be subjected to as the result of committing a criminal offense.
There just might be a bit of justice in the world if that footage was available to anyone who makes a charge of police misconduct, or gets charge with assaulting (e.g. touching) an officer.
what slide? in each of those cases the person violated a law. the NYC one was by a bunch of idiots called Critical Mass who think it's OK to disrupt traffic. they deserve to get beat down for what they do. ...
Nobody deserves to get beat down by the police. They perhaps deserve to be arrested with the minimal amount of force and violence required to effect the arrest, and then detained in a safe facility (safe from both other detainees and staff) until they are released on bail or finish serving their sentence.
I'll be cautiously, quietly applauding from a far corner, until I can figure out what exactly their ulterior motives are. They want my trust, and this is a good first step, but boy-oh-boy do they have an uphill battle before them.
Their motives are pretty clear: malaria effects half a billion people a year, but they are mostly poor and in poor countries. This way Glaxo is able to outsource the R&D, and get good PR (and maybe do some good for the world at the same time).
Meanwhile, their scientists can focus on the very profitable lifestyle drugs (e.g Viagara, Procieca), and drugs for conditions that effect the rich (high blood pressure, depression, diabetes, and the like).
The only place where I have seen frames used to good effect is Javadoc and similar API documentation. Using frames, you get a convenient index of the classes on the left, and can scroll that list independently of the main API docs.
For example, check out: the JDK API
However, if you are referring to cross-site frames, I completely agree with you (and am grateful for Firefox's 'show only this frame' function).
What business relationship? You pay nothing, it should be a hint that you are on the "business part" of the business. Have no expectation of having your say at someone you are not paying. Yes, there is no free lunch. Yes, if you don't see how you are paying for your lunch, it means you ARE lunch. We are lunch also here on Slashdot.
There may not be an exchange of money, but there is clearly a relationship between Facebook and their users. Users receive the ability to interact with each other, share picture, etc. Facebook gets eyes for their ads, and data to mine. This is a mutually beneficial situation. What I am opposed to is Facebook changing the terms of that relationship without (most) users being aware of it.
I think the real problem is not Facebook, but a system that allows businesses to retroactively and without notification, change the the agreement that the user agreed to when business relationship was first established.
If Facebook wants to change the TOS, privacy policy, or anything else, about the service, they should have to require an affirmative opt-in from the user first. They have the right (in the absence of a contract) to cancel a user's account, on the service, but not to change the terms or settings. If they want to change the terms, they can either advertise how great the new features are, and ask users to opt-in to them, or they can put up a notification at the next log-in telling exactly what has changed, and require the user to accept or reject the changes. (Depending on how critical the changes are to the business, a rejection may require closing the account.),
In a just world, that is how all terms with a business should be. It is unconscionable to require the users to keep checking a document on a website with no notification that the terms have changes. And yet, Facebook, ISPs, credit cards, and many other businesses scam their users with such sneakwrap provisions.
I stand corrected. As another post indicates, this only applies to SSN, credit card numbers or state-issued IDs (driver's licenses.)
Actually, this does not sound too bad. The article, on the other hand looks like a piece of FUD to get users to update their MSSQL software
So, if a Mass. residents sends me (or my business) an email, what does that mean?
The message will generally contain the sender's name and email address. It is sent in the clear over SMTP, and will generally be stored as plain text on the server as either flat files or perhaps some database until the message is picked up via IMAP, POP or some proprietary protocol. It is then likely to be stored, indefinitely, in plain text on the client machine.
It looks to me like someone did not think this through. (Unfortunately it is not news when a government regulates technology w/o understanding it.)
Perhaps this case is an exception, but I have always fest that the no-fly list is one of the dumbest ideas out there. In a criminal case (which terrorism and conspiracy are) you do not want to let the suspect know you are on to them until the cops come to arrest them. With the watch lists, all a sleeper has to do is take a commercial flight, and they will immediately know if they are on a watch list.
Not to mention the civil liberties abuses that result when someone is denied the right to travel (by air) with due process, no notification, and no effective means of appeal.
What does the donor look like now, and what are they going to do about not having a face?
Rot in the ground as worm food. (As most organ donor do.)
But only from 2-6AM Korea time.
Actually, that is exactly his point. In times of war or crisis, the level of democracy is somewhat compromised. (Look at that the US did during WWII, especially to those of Japanese descent.)
Global warming is a crisis, but unlike a war, the rights that need to be abridged are not the civil rights of individual people, but rather the freedom of corporations to do as the will in a never ending quest for more wealth and power. If that is the sacrifice that we are called to make, I will have a hard time mourning the loss of freedom.
If, on the other hand this is implemented as more wiretaps, secret arrests, torture, restrictions on speech, travel and the like, first of all, I don't see why that would be necessary, and secondly, the cure may be worse than the disease.
I don't see a problem as long as they are not doing anything that any other user can do. If they lie to you to get you to accept them as a friend, or browse public data, that is perfectly OK.
On the other hand, I would have problem if they get access to the database, or otherwise bypass the user-managed access control/privacy features. I would also have a problem if they developed a Facebook app and tricked a suspect into running it. (apps can have more access to your profile than friends do.)
here