I agree completely with you. if you decide to sign something petitioning the government that you agree/disagree with something, that information should be public record.
The list of signatures can still be checked to make sure there are no duplicates etc.; the list and whether there are duplicates is just not a matter of public record.
By whom? you can't just assume that "it's complicated, the good old government will take care of it!" without the information being public, you're saying that the gov't has full power to decide if your signature was important. that's not much of a democracy, more like a dictatorship. really, it's almost hypocrisy.
if your signature holds as much sway as you think it does, get 10,000 people to sign a petition saying you'd like a gov't seat. see how that goes over. if the document was public record, the gov't has a responsibility to answer questions about why you hold more votes than an elected official and you're not in office.
whereas a closed petition, they have every ability to say: "no, only 5000 people signed. that's less than that guy who got 6000."
how does a democratic group of people place so much trust in it's system without ever verifying itself? it boggles the mind.
I'd be interested to see what would happen if there were two elections collections held, one with the public information remaining public, and one with closed ballots. I wonder how close they'd be. (knowing that some people would change their public vote to match "general consensus" so they don't get outed.)
why would a browser need to even be DNSSEC aware? the browser hands it's requests over to the OS to handle lookups, it just want's an IP back to make it's HTTP request?
why does everybody keep coming up with such bullshit analogy's? what you're saying would be the same as putting a wired router on a premise with a pile of network cables plugged into it and leaving a lengthy cable at the edge of your property "so you could use it when you wanted". then suing somebody for picking it up and plugging it into their laptop to seeing what kind of router's present, the WAN IP and some random network details. THAT might be illegal.
a wireless router asks in the channel via broadcasts what frequencies it's allowed to communicate with. from there an unencrypted router begins broadcasting all the details for how to connect to it freely and what it's got available. the computer "connected" to the router just broadcasts it's packets into the channel and tags them "hey, this is intended for [router] if this isn't you, please drop me!"
it's an RFC compliance issue not to drop them. it's NOT illegal.
had the packet contained encrypted contents and was divulged at a later date FOR THE INTENTION OF REVERSING THE ENCRYPTION, that would also be illegal. but storing what was send directly to you: not illegal.
you'd be more then welcome to. anything that's encrypted you'll glance over as too difficult to bother with, and I'll appreciate it that you'll leave the encrypted conversation with my significant other alone. the pizza online order details (with the exception of the payment that's encrypted with SSL) and the web history for the night are all yours!
what else? I expect you were looking for "I get away to hotels to be left alone! how else to i spend time with my mistress?"
if I were sitting in a coffee shop having a "private conversation" I understand that the people around me may hear the details.
if sitting on my porch, I expect my neighbors and maybe a few service people nearby might gleam a few.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your land is NOT your land. you pay your taxes to rent it from the government. there's law's about how much you can keep from the world. there's even a law preventing you from building a concrete wall around your house to keep "all your conversations private" (well, not a law intended to prevent that, more of a decency law really.):P
you're living on public land. just because you think something might be private, doesn't make it so.
and as per your wonderful quote you've completely overlooked that google has only collected and stored data. they have not used or disclosed anything.
law is ALWAYS gray. there is NO black and white.
and that doesn't even begin to cover "or had reason to know that the information intercepted or disclosed was acquired by electronic surveillance" somebody failing to understand how technology works is not the fault of an advertising business.
"I walked down the street and opened up people's mailboxes and read their letters. But they had it coming to them, they didn't have lockable mailboxes".
Excuse me? that analogy fails on SO many levels.
what you describe is analogous to BREAKING the encryption on their mailboxes, and making photo copies of the letters.
the postal system analogy here would be more like receiving all your postal mail via PDF's short-linked on twitter and "asking people not to read it".
NOWHERE did google intentionally GO INTO any mailboxes, they just collected data being broadcast freely to anybody who wants it. hell, if it's still being broadcast, the people that contributed to the whole thing have NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT FOR ONE SECOND!
but that's the problem. it's not their data.
by broadcasting the data via unencrypted WIFI, it's akin to putting up a note on a public billboard asking about pork recipies and putting a note on it saying "hey jewish friends of [me] don't read this please"
people need to learn that data is not theirs to keep/own/protect. bits are bits, free them already!
if you want to use the internet, don't complain when people trying to collect the data for the sake of improving the internet collect/store/make use of it.
You ever tried that? got any real scientific reason it won't work?
as highly untested as some procedures are, everything's got to start somewhere. why not offer it to terminally ill people? if it works, it was worth the coin. if not, they don't need it anymore, do they?
so you're saying that me not being able to see a doctor to get the cancer in my lung checked out for years because bill gates has bought all the doctors that I can go see to take care of himself somehow doesn't cause harm to me? (completely hypothetical here. but honestly, the tiered system DOES prevent people from being able to attend a doctor when thy need one.)
if you were american, this would make a lot more sense.
though you can't change the person you pay your taxes to there, you CAN change who you pay your medical bills to, and some will provide you with better service than others, often based on how much you pay.
in Canada, it's the equivalent of changing your cable service provider, or wanting to pay somebody for trash pickup. (if you live outside of a city that's more realistic.)
technically, there's no such thing as private health insurance here in canada. there's basic health coverage provided by the federal gov't, and then there's extra charges.
things like ambulance coverage private/semi-private hospital room charges, home healthcare equipment, dental care, vision care, and perspiration/over the counter drugs cost money here. you can purchase an insurance policy that will offset the costs of these things, but there's no point purchasing insurance to get a doctor to replace your liver faster because a doctor will not honor it.
people get the same basic care, access to doctors is effectively regulated so everyone has the same opportunity to see a doctor in order of appearence. (with a SLIGHT exception with severity. a nurse will place the person with a skull fracture ahead of the guy with a sprained ankle in most cases.)
Private insurance in canada covers all the things that make your life more convenient. you COULD go back to a hospital to get your blood pressure tested every day, but for a little money you can save the trip and do it at home.
Wow really? I guess I've never bought milk out of province. in Manitoba, it's all carton/plastic jug. working in the food services industry, it's cheaper to get milk by the jug then in boxed bags.
if you go way out of your way, you can get it in a glass jug. but I'd have to say it's damn hard - near impossible as a consumer to get a bag.
so what's the guy potentially saving your life worth at 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon worth to you? $20/month?
the road maintenance alone is millions of dollars a year. the police would cost you ten times what it does if people like you didn't pay for a small portion of the overall budget. sure, you pay significantly more per patrol than the guy living in downtown new york, but you'd have to pay a whole hell of a lot more if everyone else like you didn't have to also cover their fair portion.
that's not to even mention the maintenance in any sort of fire system (hydrants) that may be available at the street, the tax money that goes into infrastructure for supplying power to your home, the cost of subsidies so rural people can get internet/phone, the cost of paying the national debt down for all that infrastructure money that "came of thin air when you needed it years ago", and dozens of others.
i've never had much of a problem with it. only once did I have to refer to a piece of paper my client signed and looking back on it, I could have just scanned it and provided it to the court that way rather than bring it in for a judge to look at.
what in the world can't you do on a computer that you can do with physical documents? let alone what can you do faster with physical documents?
sorry, I don't get paid by the hour. I like to get things done quickly.
1)why the hell not?
2)the speed of a "pop quiz" would likely be drastically improved on a notebook.
3)a laptop can provide more instruction to more people in a shorter amount of time, allowing the kids/people to learn more or get more information about the topic based on levels of interest.
and it's been brought up that the UK doesn't not differentiate a digital or physical signature. as long as it identifies you in a manner that proves your intent of verification, it can be upheld in a court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
The list of signatures can still be checked to make sure there are no duplicates etc.; the list and whether there are duplicates is just not a matter of public record.
By whom? you can't just assume that "it's complicated, the good old government will take care of it!" without the information being public, you're saying that the gov't has full power to decide if your signature was important. that's not much of a democracy, more like a dictatorship. really, it's almost hypocrisy.
if your signature holds as much sway as you think it does, get 10,000 people to sign a petition saying you'd like a gov't seat. see how that goes over. if the document was public record, the gov't has a responsibility to answer questions about why you hold more votes than an elected official and you're not in office.
whereas a closed petition, they have every ability to say: "no, only 5000 people signed. that's less than that guy who got 6000."
Agreed. Completely.
how does a democratic group of people place so much trust in it's system without ever verifying itself? it boggles the mind.
I'd be interested to see what would happen if there were two elections collections held, one with the public information remaining public, and one with closed ballots. I wonder how close they'd be. (knowing that some people would change their public vote to match "general consensus" so they don't get outed.)
why would a browser need to even be DNSSEC aware? the browser hands it's requests over to the OS to handle lookups, it just want's an IP back to make it's HTTP request?
unless I'm missing something key here?
the patent in question was http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7742468.html
which unless I'm HIGHLY mistaken was filed on 09/01/2009, well AFTER google voice was developed and released into beta. PRIOR ART MUCH?
What!?
why does everybody keep coming up with such bullshit analogy's? what you're saying would be the same as putting a wired router on a premise with a pile of network cables plugged into it and leaving a lengthy cable at the edge of your property "so you could use it when you wanted". then suing somebody for picking it up and plugging it into their laptop to seeing what kind of router's present, the WAN IP and some random network details. THAT might be illegal.
a wireless router asks in the channel via broadcasts what frequencies it's allowed to communicate with. from there an unencrypted router begins broadcasting all the details for how to connect to it freely and what it's got available. the computer "connected" to the router just broadcasts it's packets into the channel and tags them "hey, this is intended for [router] if this isn't you, please drop me!"
it's an RFC compliance issue not to drop them. it's NOT illegal.
had the packet contained encrypted contents and was divulged at a later date FOR THE INTENTION OF REVERSING THE ENCRYPTION, that would also be illegal. but storing what was send directly to you: not illegal.
you'd be more then welcome to. anything that's encrypted you'll glance over as too difficult to bother with, and I'll appreciate it that you'll leave the encrypted conversation with my significant other alone. the pizza online order details (with the exception of the payment that's encrypted with SSL) and the web history for the night are all yours!
what else? I expect you were looking for "I get away to hotels to be left alone! how else to i spend time with my mistress?"
What?
:P
if I were sitting in a coffee shop having a "private conversation" I understand that the people around me may hear the details.
if sitting on my porch, I expect my neighbors and maybe a few service people nearby might gleam a few.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but your land is NOT your land. you pay your taxes to rent it from the government. there's law's about how much you can keep from the world. there's even a law preventing you from building a concrete wall around your house to keep "all your conversations private" (well, not a law intended to prevent that, more of a decency law really.)
you're living on public land. just because you think something might be private, doesn't make it so.
and as per your wonderful quote you've completely overlooked that google has only collected and stored data. they have not used or disclosed anything.
law is ALWAYS gray. there is NO black and white.
and that doesn't even begin to cover "or had reason to know that the information intercepted or disclosed was acquired by electronic surveillance" somebody failing to understand how technology works is not the fault of an advertising business.
"I walked down the street and opened up people's mailboxes and read their letters. But they had it coming to them, they didn't have lockable mailboxes".
Excuse me? that analogy fails on SO many levels.
what you describe is analogous to BREAKING the encryption on their mailboxes, and making photo copies of the letters.
the postal system analogy here would be more like receiving all your postal mail via PDF's short-linked on twitter and "asking people not to read it".
NOWHERE did google intentionally GO INTO any mailboxes, they just collected data being broadcast freely to anybody who wants it. hell, if it's still being broadcast, the people that contributed to the whole thing have NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT FOR ONE SECOND!
but that's the problem. it's not their data.
by broadcasting the data via unencrypted WIFI, it's akin to putting up a note on a public billboard asking about pork recipies and putting a note on it saying "hey jewish friends of [me] don't read this please"
people need to learn that data is not theirs to keep/own/protect. bits are bits, free them already!
if you want to use the internet, don't complain when people trying to collect the data for the sake of improving the internet collect/store/make use of it.
You ever tried that? got any real scientific reason it won't work?
as highly untested as some procedures are, everything's got to start somewhere. why not offer it to terminally ill people? if it works, it was worth the coin. if not, they don't need it anymore, do they?
that was one of the best reports to ever give to the people monitoring your money.
Really? not hurting the rest of us?
so you're saying that me not being able to see a doctor to get the cancer in my lung checked out for years because bill gates has bought all the doctors that I can go see to take care of himself somehow doesn't cause harm to me? (completely hypothetical here. but honestly, the tiered system DOES prevent people from being able to attend a doctor when thy need one.)
if you were american, this would make a lot more sense.
though you can't change the person you pay your taxes to there, you CAN change who you pay your medical bills to, and some will provide you with better service than others, often based on how much you pay.
in Canada, it's the equivalent of changing your cable service provider, or wanting to pay somebody for trash pickup. (if you live outside of a city that's more realistic.)
technically, there's no such thing as private health insurance here in canada. there's basic health coverage provided by the federal gov't, and then there's extra charges.
things like ambulance coverage private/semi-private hospital room charges, home healthcare equipment, dental care, vision care, and perspiration/over the counter drugs cost money here. you can purchase an insurance policy that will offset the costs of these things, but there's no point purchasing insurance to get a doctor to replace your liver faster because a doctor will not honor it.
people get the same basic care, access to doctors is effectively regulated so everyone has the same opportunity to see a doctor in order of appearence. (with a SLIGHT exception with severity. a nurse will place the person with a skull fracture ahead of the guy with a sprained ankle in most cases.)
Private insurance in canada covers all the things that make your life more convenient. you COULD go back to a hospital to get your blood pressure tested every day, but for a little money you can save the trip and do it at home.
Wow really? I guess I've never bought milk out of province. in Manitoba, it's all carton/plastic jug. working in the food services industry, it's cheaper to get milk by the jug then in boxed bags.
if you go way out of your way, you can get it in a glass jug. but I'd have to say it's damn hard - near impossible as a consumer to get a bag.
here's a Service Canada link to all the topics the gov't of Canada participates in.
over 150 topics and that's just the federal gov't. most the local things you see daily are provincial or municipal.
so what's the guy potentially saving your life worth at 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon worth to you? $20/month?
the road maintenance alone is millions of dollars a year. the police would cost you ten times what it does if people like you didn't pay for a small portion of the overall budget. sure, you pay significantly more per patrol than the guy living in downtown new york, but you'd have to pay a whole hell of a lot more if everyone else like you didn't have to also cover their fair portion.
that's not to even mention the maintenance in any sort of fire system (hydrants) that may be available at the street, the tax money that goes into infrastructure for supplying power to your home, the cost of subsidies so rural people can get internet/phone, the cost of paying the national debt down for all that infrastructure money that "came of thin air when you needed it years ago", and dozens of others.
so you pay no municipal taxes, that's a huge chunk right there.
I also expect that you live more than three hours north of the border, and quite enjoy being outside of a city. I know I would.
can I trade you my place in the city for your place out of it?
I wonder if they'd thaw? then I guess we'd only have worry about them 1/3'rd of the year.
Half? I think it's closer to 80%. maybe within about two hours I guess.
I disagree with the written requirement of voting machines.
however your signature is the core of my beliefs. so I understand that people WANT paper for things.
i've never had much of a problem with it. only once did I have to refer to a piece of paper my client signed and looking back on it, I could have just scanned it and provided it to the court that way rather than bring it in for a judge to look at.
what in the world can't you do on a computer that you can do with physical documents? let alone what can you do faster with physical documents?
sorry, I don't get paid by the hour. I like to get things done quickly.
...what? that's a flat out false statement.
1)why the hell not?
2)the speed of a "pop quiz" would likely be drastically improved on a notebook.
3)a laptop can provide more instruction to more people in a shorter amount of time, allowing the kids/people to learn more or get more information about the topic based on levels of interest.
I don't get your statement at all.
and it's been brought up that the UK doesn't not differentiate a digital or physical signature. as long as it identifies you in a manner that proves your intent of verification, it can be upheld in a court of law.