Yet you keep pretending the "sign this paper" bit isn't there.
No, I’m saying that the “sign this paper” bit is illegal and invalid if it takes away my inalienable rights.
If they give you a choice of methods by which they examine your genitals, well, you don't get to pretend they're violating your rights one way but not the other.
I’m saying they’re violating my rights grossly in either case, and once someone’s in line they can’t change their mind and re-claim their rights. Sorry, too late. We’ll arrest you if you try.
By your logic, a person cannot confess to a crime to police or a judge
No. You can’t get that from anything I said. By my logic a person cannot be compelled to confess to a crime. Ever, no matter what sort of contractual obligations they supposedly were under.
Indeed, just as you may decide to testify against yourself, you may also decide to allow the TSA to search you before you board a plane.
But you can’t not let them search you. Even if you decide not to board the plane. (The guy who tried that was arrested. Didn’t you hear?) Once you enter the line, you are going to be forced to testify against yourself (what’s analogous to it in this situation, anyway).
You don’t even have to agree to it. You just have to show up. That’s akin to telling someone that now that he’s in the witness box, he no longer has his 5th amendment right.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
– Benjamin Franklin
Remarkably fitting in this particular case because you don’t deserve either of them and you’re not getting them either. You get only the impression of security. This is a complete farce. But that’s exactly how the gorillas in charge want it. They just want to create the illusion of security so they can maintain the illusion of control.
Collisions are a problem if they occur frequently, or early in a brute-force. If any relatively short password can collide with another password, collisions are a problem in your cryptographic hash. In a good hash function, no password of <n bits should collide with any other password of <n bits. The higher n is, the better the hash function is.
$8000 would pay for quite a few flights, even international, and that’s before even beginning to pay for the rental, plus fuel, which you admit is “a little expensive”.
No, it’s not “break the bank, sell the house, exorbitantly expensive”, but yes, it’s “really expensive”.
In fact you can’t consent away your right to remain silent either. You can not remain silent if you choose, but you’ll still have the right to remain silent at any time that you choose to exercise it. They can’t say “no, you waived that right, now you have to tell us everything”.
Last EULA I read also had a clause that stated that if any of it would be illegal or unlawful, those parts were inapplicable to me. This is nothing like a EULA.
To continue to use the Miranda example, it’s quite simple. You have the right to remain silent. You also have the right to free speech... and anything you say can be used against you.
What the TSA is doing is the equivalent of “Sign this paper... okay, you no longer have the right to remain silent. You can talk to the camera, or talk to this nice guy in the blue gloves. Take your pick.”
The salt is typically added at the end, and for the MD5 hashing algorithm, two colliding passwords will still collide no matter how much salt is added.
In other words, if MD5(password) == MD5(password), then MD5(password+salt) == MD5(collisionValue+salt).
You cannot consent to an unconstitutional violation of your rights any more than a 3-year-old can consent to a sexual encounter with an adult. All it proves is that you were coerce-able.
In the US, once you enter in an agreement with any corporation you lose some rights. What the TSA is doing now is no worse than what many software companies do with their EULAs, it's just more obvious because it's physical.
No. That’s bullshit.
Certain rights can’t be contracted away. Period.
That’s why almost any contract has a clause in it that says something to the effect that “you may have certain rights that are not listed, or we may not legally be able to indemnify ourselves from certain warranties or liabilities, in which case those claims are held void but the rest of our contract is still actionable”.
Writing a clause into a contract that takes away my inalienable rights just makes the contract illegal.
If you mean that you didn’t have to step into one of them, I might be willing to swallow that tale.
However if you really never saw one of the machines, either you somehow miraculously managed to avoid the airports that have them or you just weren’t paying attention.
By definition any hash function has collisions if the passwords you are storing have more bits than the hash does (more possible passwords exist than possible hash values). The problem is when it collides in fewer bits.
you can eat crap, but a small amount of crap, and still do OK.
The problem with crap isn’t that it’s crap; it’s that it’s also not very filling and you crave more of it. So you end up eating a lot of it, i.e. a lot of calories. Can anyone say weight gain?
Also, how many sugar-addicts are going to bolster their diet with green beans? Most people seem to think vegetables are made of kryptonite unless they’re deep-fried or drenched in butter or high-fructose corn syrup.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet you keep pretending the "sign this paper" bit isn't there.
No, I’m saying that the “sign this paper” bit is illegal and invalid if it takes away my inalienable rights.
If they give you a choice of methods by which they examine your genitals, well, you don't get to pretend they're violating your rights one way but not the other.
I’m saying they’re violating my rights grossly in either case, and once someone’s in line they can’t change their mind and re-claim their rights. Sorry, too late. We’ll arrest you if you try.
By your logic, a person cannot confess to a crime to police or a judge
No. You can’t get that from anything I said. By my logic a person cannot be compelled to confess to a crime. Ever, no matter what sort of contractual obligations they supposedly were under.
Indeed, just as you may decide to testify against yourself, you may also decide to allow the TSA to search you before you board a plane.
But you can’t not let them search you. Even if you decide not to board the plane. (The guy who tried that was arrested. Didn’t you hear?) Once you enter the line, you are going to be forced to testify against yourself (what’s analogous to it in this situation, anyway).
You don’t even have to agree to it. You just have to show up. That’s akin to telling someone that now that he’s in the witness box, he no longer has his 5th amendment right.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
– Benjamin Franklin
Remarkably fitting in this particular case because you don’t deserve either of them and you’re not getting them either. You get only the impression of security. This is a complete farce. But that’s exactly how the gorillas in charge want it. They just want to create the illusion of security so they can maintain the illusion of control.
Ok. I must have misremembered something related to cryptographic signing and thought it applied to password hashing.
Its JPEG form wasn’t its source form.
Are there other errors?
Well, the very first word is wrong. It should be They.
Collisions are a problem if they occur frequently, or early in a brute-force. If any relatively short password can collide with another password, collisions are a problem in your cryptographic hash. In a good hash function, no password of <n bits should collide with any other password of <n bits. The higher n is, the better the hash function is.
Predictability is a separate problem entirely.
The jury box would be a lot more useful if the right criminals were the defendants in the witness box.
$8000 would pay for quite a few flights, even international, and that’s before even beginning to pay for the rental, plus fuel, which you admit is “a little expensive”.
No, it’s not “break the bank, sell the house, exorbitantly expensive”, but yes, it’s “really expensive”.
Yes, that was my point.
In fact you can’t consent away your right to remain silent either. You can not remain silent if you choose, but you’ll still have the right to remain silent at any time that you choose to exercise it. They can’t say “no, you waived that right, now you have to tell us everything”.
Last EULA I read also had a clause that stated that if any of it would be illegal or unlawful, those parts were inapplicable to me. This is nothing like a EULA.
Not all rights are inalienable.
To continue to use the Miranda example, it’s quite simple. You have the right to remain silent. You also have the right to free speech... and anything you say can be used against you.
What the TSA is doing is the equivalent of “Sign this paper... okay, you no longer have the right to remain silent. You can talk to the camera, or talk to this nice guy in the blue gloves. Take your pick.”
By definition, consenting to a search makes that search constitutional.
Wrong. That’s the whole reason why they have to read you your Miranda rights. Look it up.
That’s the combination to my luggage!
The salt is typically added at the end, and for the MD5 hashing algorithm, two colliding passwords will still collide no matter how much salt is added.
In other words,
if MD5(password) == MD5(password),
then MD5(password+salt) == MD5(collisionValue+salt).
Anybody know if all the TSA passenger regs apply to pilots of small aircraft?
No, but it’s really expensive to get a pilot’s license and rent or buy a small aircraft and pay for the fuel.
Don't be silly, Hell has all the bureaucrats.
No. Unfortunately some of them are still living.
You cannot consent to an unconstitutional violation of your rights any more than a 3-year-old can consent to a sexual encounter with an adult. All it proves is that you were coerce-able.
Is that a joke? I was under the impression that in Europe, you can’t even opt out of the virtual strip-search and request the grope instead.
In the US, once you enter in an agreement with any corporation you lose some rights. What the TSA is doing now is no worse than what many software companies do with their EULAs, it's just more obvious because it's physical.
No. That’s bullshit.
Certain rights can’t be contracted away. Period.
That’s why almost any contract has a clause in it that says something to the effect that “you may have certain rights that are not listed, or we may not legally be able to indemnify ourselves from certain warranties or liabilities, in which case those claims are held void but the rest of our contract is still actionable”.
Writing a clause into a contract that takes away my inalienable rights just makes the contract illegal.
If you mean that you didn’t have to step into one of them, I might be willing to swallow that tale.
However if you really never saw one of the machines, either you somehow miraculously managed to avoid the airports that have them or you just weren’t paying attention.
Are you so sure of that?
(it is actually replaced by a unicode character – ☺ to be exact.)
By definition any hash function has collisions if the passwords you are storing have more bits than the hash does (more possible passwords exist than possible hash values). The problem is when it collides in fewer bits.
you can eat crap, but a small amount of crap, and still do OK.
The problem with crap isn’t that it’s crap; it’s that it’s also not very filling and you crave more of it. So you end up eating a lot of it, i.e. a lot of calories. Can anyone say weight gain?
Also, how many sugar-addicts are going to bolster their diet with green beans? Most people seem to think vegetables are made of kryptonite unless they’re deep-fried or drenched in butter or high-fructose corn syrup.
It is possible to opt out of this in your settings. However, that information will be stored in a cookie.
How else would the site remember that you’d asked to opt-out of its tracking cookies upon your next visit?
The important question is... is the flash cookie user-unique?
and trying our luck with the bill acceptor
I can’t even remember the last time I had a bill rejected by one of those. It must have been at least several years ago.