Also understand that he spoke in Japanese. The quote in TFS is a translation of what he said. I noticed when looking at the various media accounts of this story (NPR, New York Times, Reuters, etc.) that they all had slightly different wordings.
Not sure if matters, just pointing out that part of his meaning could have been lost in translation.
If anyone in the residence, say someone you just met and have known for all of 2 minutes, says yes if the cops ask to search while you vehemently deny them entry, they can still search. You don't see a problem with this?
The ruling clearly states the police may enter home as long as one occupant consents. Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in".
And if you think you see a rational reason why DARPA should be involved you would be further misled:
They have an interest in keeping soldiers in good working order and that includes mental health. Whether dream reasearch can further that goal is an open question, but as long as they are willing to fund the research, I don't see a problem with it. Who knows? Maybe it will help, maybe it will be a dead end. Let's do the science and find out.
The NRC regulates commercial applications. It has no authority over the military, and it would require congressional action to allocate funds and authority to scratch the fleas on this sleeping dog.
This isn't about assigning blame; everyone knows that you can't hold the US military accountable for anything. it's about finding out if the site is safe to build on before it is developed commericially. From TFS "Treasure Island is being transferred into civilian hands, and the city of San Francisco has plans to turn it into a 'second downtown.'
That's why I said the NRC should be involved. I don't really care if they do it or some other entity. I was just questioning why anyone thought it would be a good idea to let the Navy handle the investigation.
Why would you even want the Navy investigating nuclear contamination if they are the ones who are responsible for it in the first place? Honestly, what do you expect them to find?
That's a bit like asking BP to determine if there is any oil contaminating the Gulf of Mexico or asking Union Carbide if there happens to be any toxic chemical pollution in Bhupal.
The Nuclear Regulation Commision is the agency that oversees radioactive material safety, have them do it.
Off the top of my head I can think of more than a dozen excellent engineering managers. I know a lot of lousy ones, too. But to say that there are no good engineering managers is just plain stupid.
Those who can't do, teach, but those who can't teach manage.
Well, that's better that keeping them doing actual engineering work where they can actively fuck things up. Someone has to attend meetings, let those who can't design worth a shit do it.
I can tell you right now that we regularly drum into everyone's heads the level of confidentiality we require, that under no circumstances are you to give someone your IDs and passwords, or let them use your workstation while you're logged in. Every access to client information is logged, and information is strictly limited to what is needed by each employee to do their job.
You should contract work for the NSA. Apparently, they need someone with your expertise.
More importantly, where's cold fjord and Dave Schroeder to tell us how this $4 million in tax dollars were spent to save precious American lives?
I'll play devil's advocate if you like.
That 4 million dollars wasn't "lost". I'm sure whoever was on the receiving end, probably Washington lawyers, are very pleased with the way things played out.
I don't know who the AC is but love him. He made my case for me better than I ever could. I didn't respond because I didn't have anything interesting or relevant to share. Also, i don't give a damn about this particular issue.
That being said the AC did a great job expressing what I would had I cared a whit.
Your points are well made and well taken. Rest assured they do not fall on deaf ears. Please allow me to respond.
1). As you seem very knowledgeable about the legal justifications for mass surveillance, you are almost certainly aware that there are opposing legal opinions regarding the constitutionality of these programs. Federal judge Richard Leon, for instance, ruled that mass data collection was "likely unconstitutional" and expressed doubt regarding the central rationale for the program - that it is necessary for preventing terrorist attacks.
2). If my passionate views don't matter in the grand scheme of things, hopefully they will serve to raise public awareness of the issues involved.
I have 4 cards in my wallet. Person debit, personal credit, business debit, business credit. Now I'll need to have 4 pins in addition to the multitude of other passwords that I keep in memory. I'm sure there's plenty of people with more cards than I'm carrying.
A PIN is a Personal Identification Number. It identifies you, not the card. One person? Four cards? One PIN. See how easy that was?
As far as security goes I would not be shocked if more intense spying is not applied to individuals who take precautions against being spied upon.
The solution for that is strong encryption for everyone, transparently, and by default.
The things I most want kept private the governemt already knows about - my identifying information, drivers' license info, social security number, tax records, bank account numbers, etc. The things you can use to steal my identity and/or money. When I use encryption it is to keep that information from criminals, and it is entirely rational to do so.
The day the government decides the use of security tools is only to hide bad behavior would be a very sad day, indeed.
Why is mass government surveillance important or unacceptable? Why should it be important to, say, a 65 year old retiree who uses the internet to see pictures of their grandkids on Facebook, occasional internet research about knitting or woodcrafting, and emailing their other retired friends to meet up?
Why is it so important to the government that they collect all available online and phone information about this 65 year old retiree in the first place?
We disagree about the constitutionality of mass government surveillance. There is no point to collecting the massive amount of data the government is collecting unless they are planning to use it. Right? Otherwise, it's just a big waste of time and money. The only practical way to use such a large amount of data is to perform a search against it, looking for the juicy morsels of intelligence it contains. Searches outside of a specific investigation just in the hopes that something incriminating will come up is specifically against the spirit and the letter of the Fourth Amendment.
I know the government claims it is not going to use the data that way, but I don't believe it for a second. I've designed a lot a databases in my day, I never stored data in a database unless I fully expected to use it. That and the fact that the NSA has repeatedly lied about other aspects of their surveillance activities means they have no credibility with me.
In short, VLC is not the problem here. It is the idiot user expecting to be able to turn everything up to 11 and not damage something on a shitty Dell laptop.
The products I design have to work in the real world, regardless of the actions taken by the "nut behind the wheel". Why is a faulty Dell design the users' fault?
Now that we have documented proof of a rogue government agency that ignores the law and then lies about it, I'm waiting for some enterprising criminal defense attorney to realize they've got the perfect patsy. Regardless of what crime their client is alleged to commit, just deny involvement in the crime and claim that it was committed by the NSA.
I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on Slashdot. But it seems to me that should be sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
Agency officials insist that if Mr. Snowden had been working from N.S.A. headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., which was equipped with monitors designed to detect when a huge volume of data was being accessed and downloaded, he almost certainly would have been caught. But because he worked at an agency outpost that had not yet been upgraded with modern security measures, his copying of what the agency's newly appointed No. 2 officer, Rick Ledgett, recently called "the keys to the kingdom" raised few alarms.
"Some place had to be last" in getting the security upgrade, said one official familiar with Mr. Snowden's activities. But he added that Mr. Snowden's actions had been "challenged a few times".
So they knew he was doing it, even questioned him, and he still got away with the data. To the people who maintain the NSA has the best and brightest security people perhaps they (NSA security) should use that expertise to improve their own security instead of weakening everyone else's.
And yes, this is precisely why they must not be trusted with the data they are gathering due to mass surveillance.
Why is Slashdot not making money? Ad based revenue or lack thereof - and all of us with AdBlock.
I'd consider turning off AdBlock to support Slashdot if the ads were unobtrusive static text. I can't abide flashing, animated ads. They're distracting and they annoy me, so I don't allow them.
Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law.
If the goal is to increase public safety, then yes, police should want people to drive the speed limit and reward the good citizens that warn other drivers of a speed trap. However, if the real goal is revenue generation, then the police would be upset by this behavior.
Please note that this article is about police issuing tickets to motorists who warn oncoming cars about speed traps. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Also understand that he spoke in Japanese. The quote in TFS is a translation of what he said. I noticed when looking at the various media accounts of this story (NPR, New York Times, Reuters, etc.) that they all had slightly different wordings.
Not sure if matters, just pointing out that part of his meaning could have been lost in translation.
Citation needed.
https://www.google.com/#q=legal+definition+of+occupant
Google isn't all that hard to use.
If anyone in the residence, say someone you just met and have known for all of 2 minutes, says yes if the cops ask to search while you vehemently deny them entry, they can still search. You don't see a problem with this?
The ruling clearly states the police may enter home as long as one occupant consents. Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in".
And if you think you see a rational reason why DARPA should be involved you would be further misled:
They have an interest in keeping soldiers in good working order and that includes mental health. Whether dream reasearch can further that goal is an open question, but as long as they are willing to fund the research, I don't see a problem with it. Who knows? Maybe it will help, maybe it will be a dead end. Let's do the science and find out.
The NRC regulates commercial applications. It has no authority over the military, and it would require congressional action to allocate funds and authority to scratch the fleas on this sleeping dog.
This isn't about assigning blame; everyone knows that you can't hold the US military accountable for anything. it's about finding out if the site is safe to build on before it is developed commericially. From TFS "Treasure Island is being transferred into civilian hands, and the city of San Francisco has plans to turn it into a 'second downtown.'
That's why I said the NRC should be involved. I don't really care if they do it or some other entity. I was just questioning why anyone thought it would be a good idea to let the Navy handle the investigation.
Why would you even want the Navy investigating nuclear contamination if they are the ones who are responsible for it in the first place? Honestly, what do you expect them to find?
That's a bit like asking BP to determine if there is any oil contaminating the Gulf of Mexico or asking Union Carbide if there happens to be any toxic chemical pollution in Bhupal.
The Nuclear Regulation Commision is the agency that oversees radioactive material safety, have them do it.
Off the top of my head I can think of more than a dozen excellent engineering managers. I know a lot of lousy ones, too. But to say that there are no good engineering managers is just plain stupid.
Those who can't do, teach, but those who can't teach manage.
Well, that's better that keeping them doing actual engineering work where they can actively fuck things up. Someone has to attend meetings, let those who can't design worth a shit do it.
I can tell you right now that we regularly drum into everyone's heads the level of confidentiality we require, that under no circumstances are you to give someone your IDs and passwords, or let them use your workstation while you're logged in. Every access to client information is logged, and information is strictly limited to what is needed by each employee to do their job.
You should contract work for the NSA. Apparently, they need someone with your expertise.
More importantly, where's cold fjord and Dave Schroeder to tell us how this $4 million in tax dollars were spent to save precious American lives?
I'll play devil's advocate if you like.
That 4 million dollars wasn't "lost". I'm sure whoever was on the receiving end, probably Washington lawyers, are very pleased with the way things played out.
I don't know who the AC is but love him. He made my case for me better than I ever could. I didn't respond because I didn't have anything interesting or relevant to share. Also, i don't give a damn about this particular issue.
That being said the AC did a great job expressing what I would had I cared a whit.
Yeah sure I'll fix it on my own time. And by "my own time" I mean if and when i feel like it. Otherwise, I'm getting paid.
Your points are well made and well taken. Rest assured they do not fall on deaf ears. Please allow me to respond.
1). As you seem very knowledgeable about the legal justifications for mass surveillance, you are almost certainly aware that there are opposing legal opinions regarding the constitutionality of these programs. Federal judge Richard Leon, for instance, ruled that mass data collection was "likely unconstitutional" and expressed doubt regarding the central rationale for the program - that it is necessary for preventing terrorist attacks.
2). If my passionate views don't matter in the grand scheme of things, hopefully they will serve to raise public awareness of the issues involved.
I have 4 cards in my wallet. Person debit, personal credit, business debit, business credit. Now I'll need to have 4 pins in addition to the multitude of other passwords that I keep in memory. I'm sure there's plenty of people with more cards than I'm carrying.
A PIN is a Personal Identification Number. It identifies you, not the card. One person? Four cards? One PIN. See how easy that was?
As far as security goes I would not be shocked if more intense spying is not applied to individuals who take precautions against being spied upon.
The solution for that is strong encryption for everyone, transparently, and by default.
The things I most want kept private the governemt already knows about - my identifying information, drivers' license info, social security number, tax records, bank account numbers, etc. The things you can use to steal my identity and/or money. When I use encryption it is to keep that information from criminals, and it is entirely rational to do so.
The day the government decides the use of security tools is only to hide bad behavior would be a very sad day, indeed.
Care to educate me on the benefit I have from mass surveillance?
It's easier than ever to frame people you don't like.
Why is mass government surveillance important or unacceptable? Why should it be important to, say, a 65 year old retiree who uses the internet to see pictures of their grandkids on Facebook, occasional internet research about knitting or woodcrafting, and emailing their other retired friends to meet up?
Why is it so important to the government that they collect all available online and phone information about this 65 year old retiree in the first place?
We disagree about the constitutionality of mass government surveillance. There is no point to collecting the massive amount of data the government is collecting unless they are planning to use it. Right? Otherwise, it's just a big waste of time and money. The only practical way to use such a large amount of data is to perform a search against it, looking for the juicy morsels of intelligence it contains. Searches outside of a specific investigation just in the hopes that something incriminating will come up is specifically against the spirit and the letter of the Fourth Amendment.
I know the government claims it is not going to use the data that way, but I don't believe it for a second. I've designed a lot a databases in my day, I never stored data in a database unless I fully expected to use it. That and the fact that the NSA has repeatedly lied about other aspects of their surveillance activities means they have no credibility with me.
In short, VLC is not the problem here. It is the idiot user expecting to be able to turn everything up to 11 and not damage something on a shitty Dell laptop.
The products I design have to work in the real world, regardless of the actions taken by the "nut behind the wheel". Why is a faulty Dell design the users' fault?
Snowden clearly broke the law. NSA, not so clear.
Why NSA phone-records spying is totally, utterly illegal
http://boingboing.net/2014/01/29/nsa-phone-records-spying-is-to.html/
Now that we have documented proof of a rogue government agency that ignores the law and then lies about it, I'm waiting for some enterprising criminal defense attorney to realize they've got the perfect patsy. Regardless of what crime their client is alleged to commit, just deny involvement in the crime and claim that it was committed by the NSA.
I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on Slashdot. But it seems to me that should be sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
From TFA:
Agency officials insist that if Mr. Snowden had been working from N.S.A. headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., which was equipped with monitors designed to detect when a huge volume of data was being accessed and downloaded, he almost certainly would have been caught. But because he worked at an agency outpost that had not yet been upgraded with modern security measures, his copying of what the agency's newly appointed No. 2 officer, Rick Ledgett, recently called "the keys to the kingdom" raised few alarms. "Some place had to be last" in getting the security upgrade, said one official familiar with Mr. Snowden's activities. But he added that Mr. Snowden's actions had been "challenged a few times".
So they knew he was doing it, even questioned him, and he still got away with the data. To the people who maintain the NSA has the best and brightest security people perhaps they (NSA security) should use that expertise to improve their own security instead of weakening everyone else's.
And yes, this is precisely why they must not be trusted with the data they are gathering due to mass surveillance.
Every time I try to cancel my cable tv they tell me that it is cheaper to keep it.
Well what did you expect them to say. Tell them you are cancelling both services and you'll find that suddenly the price becomes more flexible.
Because there's no such thing as a "digital antenna"?
Mayhaps, but I have a binary antenna. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Why is Slashdot not making money? Ad based revenue or lack thereof - and all of us with AdBlock.
I'd consider turning off AdBlock to support Slashdot if the ads were unobtrusive static text. I can't abide flashing, animated ads. They're distracting and they annoy me, so I don't allow them.
Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law.
If the goal is to increase public safety, then yes, police should want people to drive the speed limit and reward the good citizens that warn other drivers of a speed trap. However, if the real goal is revenue generation, then the police would be upset by this behavior.
Please note that this article is about police issuing tickets to motorists who warn oncoming cars about speed traps. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.