Where my girlfriend works there's no shortage of insults and bullshit. And almost everyone who works there is female. And she already wants to run a mile because the only thing that any of them ever seem to talk about is their children or impending children.
there's a reason americans have to sign an agreement waiving some of their free speach rights before being given access to clasified information. If a journalist who has never signed up for that gets given the information he is not bound as such.
Sharing clasified information with someone after you have agreed to keep it secret is illegal in america. citation: see United States v. The Progressive where the defendents refused to accept security clearances and as such were not able to attend their own in camera trial as it would have put restraints on their right to free speech. That one was dropped partly for fear that the supreme court would rule the act they were being charged under unconstitutional and partly because the cat was already well and truly out of the bag.
"obtaining it without permission " is not illegal assuming you didn't break any real(ie exist outside your delusions) laws in the process like laws against breaking and entering or hacking etc etc. If someone mails you clasified information that's their problem, not yours. Citation: New York Times Co. v. United States The New York Times obtained a massive quantity of clasified information and the government wanted to stop them publishing anything about it. The government got shot down by the supreme court and told that screaming "STATE SECRET!!! STATE SECRET!!!" was not enough to make the first amendment disappear in a puff of smoke. Particularly when the information included governmental misjudgments and misconducts, that being exactly why the First Amendment exists.
Doing some reading your wierd ideas about what constitutes "objects" seems to have little or no relevence in America or most western countries. Funnily enough chinas approach is pretty close though.
you might be making something similar to sense if you claimed the digital documents were objects but the information itself? Fuck no, you'd just be displaying your ignorance some more.
If what you claimed were true you could be charged with theft/possession of stolen property for merely knowing secrets.
Fission is surprisingly easy- just put a large quantity of Uranium-235 in a small space and bathe in the warming glow. Then die. The hard bit is getting the U235.
Fusion requires more equipment but less hard to obtain isotopes.
Not really because flat earthers are such a tiny minority. You'd get a pile of complaints from the sane majority and a few from the flat earthers.
It's main problem is that it tends to reflect the views of the majority more than the real situations. The biases will more closely resemble the biases of the majority.
Not quite but they genuinely do balance based on complaints. In an interview I remember one BBC producer saying they try to end up with piles of complaint letters of similar size for each side of contentious issues. So old nutters who send a lot of complaint letters do get overrepresented but the BBC isn't all that bad overall. It's quite common to get lots of letters from both side complaining that a particular show was biased towards the other side.
"as long as it's a state secret, it belongs to that state."
And it ceases to be a secret the moment a journalist has possession of it. copies of confidential documents are not considered the same as stolen property in most places in the world. the journalist may have a copy but that is his copy now.
Oh ya. I've seen some nasty cases, a funny one was someone really paranoid who had installed multiple AV scanners and was then puzzled why the machine was completely fucked and took forever to boot up.
Some of the stores round here push Bullguard because they get a good commission- a complete piece of crapware, harder to remove than most viruses. Many a machine with that crappy antivirus I've seen.
we're talking here about prosecuting a journalist for publishing stuff someone else passed to him.
Once it reaches the journalist it is no longer a secret.
I'm not sure which country wikileaks is currently nominally based from but I imagine it'll be iceland soon enough. even if it's american secrets and americans can read it does not mean that it's happening in america when the net is involved.
What you fail to understand is that once it reaches the journalists, wikileaks and others in foreign countries it is no longer a secret. The mechanisms to guard the secrets have failed.
"Thus the US being the one in charge and the rule-maker does give it the upper hand, for better or worse. " Really? You guys are in charge of everyone are you now?
Neither invalidates the other. They do however imply any such system should be watched like a hawk by the various branches of government for cases of abuse.
"It only matters that the US government told him not to do it, he agreed not to, then did it anyway knowing he was in violation of the law. "
So if the government of china contact you and tell you not to publish material critical of the chinese government and you do anyway it's ok for them to arrest you if you ever travel to a country with an extradition treaty with china?
He's Australian, not an american. Once american state secrets reach him they are no longer american state secrets.
It's passed on! This state secret is no more! it has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet it's maker! it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If they hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Is informatic processes are now 'istory! it's off the server! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's confidential coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SECRET!!
If copyright is considered an asset can it be confiscated by the government under any circumstances? Say you wrote some disruptive application.
You get arrested for something else, not really important what since just about everyone breaks the law in some way most days.
Could the government make part of the penalty for whatever they've arrested you for confiscation/transference of certain assets you control such as IP rights?
Could the new holders of those IP rights then withdraw all permission to distribute your application? The fact that they can "undo" something passing into the public domain hints that even if you publish your works and release them into the public domain that it could be undone at a later date as well.
In short could this be used as an end run around the first amendment?
Someone says something the government doesn't like, charge them with any crime, confiscate the copyright on whatever they said and then DMCA anyone who tries to re-publish it.
The game I'm thinking of had such wondrously complex things as adding 2 numbers(always 9 or lower so there was only a tiny number of sums) with pictures of balloons under the numbers so a child could count up to the answer. get an answer wrong-> beep get an answer right-> plays a little recording like "well done", "great" etc and increments a little counter in the bottom right of the screen.
As an adult I often play games which have a similar theme to "Hot Dog Stand" but in most cases they require no real math, random trial and error until you find a winning strategy is often faster.
don't worry. You'll be obliged by law to buy their antivirus but they'll make sure the only contract available stipulates that you cannot hold them accountable for anything whatsoever.
I like linux but neither my linux nor my windows desktop has become infected in the last couple of years since I exercise reasonable paranoia and am familiar with the common channels of infection.
zero day worms which can get in through a firewall without any user participation are rare. Shovelware-malware which infects you with a fake "update" screen or with an email attachment is so so much more common.
Disconnecting infected machines? maybe, it would force virus writers to be a little more stealthy at the very least.
My problem is with:
"require all subscribers to install anti-virus software and firewalls before the Internet connection is activated"
I don't use an antivirus scanner. I haven't for over 2 years yet when I have done the occasional scan(online scanner etc, just as a metric) to check every now and then. I believe I haven't caught any viruses in that time.
AV scanners are an example of Enumerating Badness, detecting modern polymorphic viruses is NP-Hard and in short is a losing game. I protect myself by having an ounce of sense and avoiding common routes of infection and keeping my software up to date. This appears to work much better.
They're mandating people use an ineffective form of security.
sure but the problem is that once you establish a system for "information that doesn't belong in the public domain" suddenly everything embarrassing or unpopular starts to get marked with the appropriate stamp with no regard whatsoever to whether or not it's in the best interest of the country to keep it secured.
Get off my lawn! In my day we didn't have any of those newfangled letters! If we wanted to tell someone something we engraved it on a slab of granite and waited for them to come round and see it! It taught patience! And proper chisel control!
Legally? A garbage truck can pick up tons of documents containing potentially sensitive info but they're still distinct from the person who goes digging through your bins looking for blackmail material. Do you think google had any intent to snatch passwords or personal info for nefarious purposes? if so what for?
if you openly record everything everyone transmits at you in the clear while you're in the middle of a public street without focusing on any one person/network or specifically trying to collect private info it should be perfectly legal.
Different countries will have different laws on the matter of course. let the lawyers argue it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Where my girlfriend works there's no shortage of insults and bullshit.
And almost everyone who works there is female.
And she already wants to run a mile because the only thing that any of them ever seem to talk about is their children or impending children.
Bullshit's the same everywhere.
there's a reason americans have to sign an agreement waiving some of their free speach rights before being given access to clasified information.
If a journalist who has never signed up for that gets given the information he is not bound as such.
Sharing clasified information with someone after you have agreed to keep it secret is illegal in america.
citation: see United States v. The Progressive where the defendents refused to accept security clearances and as such were not able to attend their own in camera trial as it would have put restraints on their right to free speech.
That one was dropped partly for fear that the supreme court would rule the act they were being charged under unconstitutional and partly because the cat was already well and truly out of the bag.
"obtaining it without permission " is not illegal assuming you didn't break any real(ie exist outside your delusions) laws in the process like laws against breaking and entering or hacking etc etc.
If someone mails you clasified information that's their problem, not yours.
Citation:
New York Times Co. v. United States
The New York Times obtained a massive quantity of clasified information and the government wanted to stop them publishing anything about it.
The government got shot down by the supreme court and told that screaming "STATE SECRET!!! STATE SECRET!!!" was not enough to make the first amendment disappear in a puff of smoke. Particularly when the information included governmental misjudgments and misconducts, that being exactly why the First Amendment exists.
Doing some reading your wierd ideas about what constitutes "objects" seems to have little or no relevence in America or most western countries.
Funnily enough chinas approach is pretty close though.
you might be making something similar to sense if you claimed the digital documents were objects but the information itself?
Fuck no, you'd just be displaying your ignorance some more.
If what you claimed were true you could be charged with theft/possession of stolen property for merely knowing secrets.
no they meant fussion.
Fission is surprisingly easy- just put a large quantity of Uranium-235 in a small space and bathe in the warming glow.
Then die.
The hard bit is getting the U235.
Fusion requires more equipment but less hard to obtain isotopes.
"the information is still an object"
Congratulation.
You've just lived up to your name.
Not really because flat earthers are such a tiny minority.
You'd get a pile of complaints from the sane majority and a few from the flat earthers.
It's main problem is that it tends to reflect the views of the majority more than the real situations.
The biases will more closely resemble the biases of the majority.
Not quite but they genuinely do balance based on complaints.
In an interview I remember one BBC producer saying they try to end up with piles of complaint letters of similar size for each side of contentious issues.
So old nutters who send a lot of complaint letters do get overrepresented but the BBC isn't all that bad overall.
It's quite common to get lots of letters from both side complaining that a particular show was biased towards the other side.
"as long as it's a state secret, it belongs to that state."
And it ceases to be a secret the moment a journalist has possession of it.
copies of confidential documents are not considered the same as stolen property in most places in the world.
the journalist may have a copy but that is his copy now.
Oh ya.
I've seen some nasty cases, a funny one was someone really paranoid who had installed multiple AV scanners and was then puzzled why the machine was completely fucked and took forever to boot up.
Some of the stores round here push Bullguard because they get a good commission- a complete piece of crapware, harder to remove than most viruses.
Many a machine with that crappy antivirus I've seen.
we're talking here about prosecuting a journalist for publishing stuff someone else passed to him.
Once it reaches the journalist it is no longer a secret.
I'm not sure which country wikileaks is currently nominally based from but I imagine it'll be iceland soon enough.
even if it's american secrets and americans can read it does not mean that it's happening in america when the net is involved.
in that case show me the australian law against publishing american secrets.
this sounds interesting.
tell me more.
What you fail to understand is that once it reaches the journalists, wikileaks and others in foreign countries it is no longer a secret.
The mechanisms to guard the secrets have failed.
"Thus the US being the one in charge and the rule-maker does give it the upper hand, for better or worse. "
Really?
You guys are in charge of everyone are you now?
Neither invalidates the other.
They do however imply any such system should be watched like a hawk by the various branches of government for cases of abuse.
"It only matters that the US government told him not to do it, he agreed not to, then did it anyway knowing he was in violation of the law. "
So if the government of china contact you and tell you not to publish material critical of the chinese government and you do anyway it's ok for them to arrest you if you ever travel to a country with an extradition treaty with china?
He's Australian, not an american.
Once american state secrets reach him they are no longer american state secrets.
It's passed on! This state secret is no more! it has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet it's maker! it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If they hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Is informatic processes are now 'istory! it's off the server! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's confidential coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SECRET!!
All I know is that games of monopoly are going to be pretty in china.
Are barter systems still ok?
Interesting dystopian thought experiment:
If copyright is considered an asset can it be confiscated by the government under any circumstances?
Say you wrote some disruptive application.
You get arrested for something else, not really important what since just about everyone breaks the law in some way most days.
Could the government make part of the penalty for whatever they've arrested you for confiscation/transference of certain assets you control such as IP rights?
Could the new holders of those IP rights then withdraw all permission to distribute your application?
The fact that they can "undo" something passing into the public domain hints that even if you publish your works and release them into the public domain that it could be undone at a later date as well.
In short could this be used as an end run around the first amendment?
Someone says something the government doesn't like, charge them with any crime, confiscate the copyright on whatever they said and then DMCA anyone who tries to re-publish it.
That's not much use for a 3 year old.
The game I'm thinking of had such wondrously complex things as adding 2 numbers(always 9 or lower so there was only a tiny number of sums) with pictures of balloons under the numbers so a child could count up to the answer.
get an answer wrong-> beep
get an answer right-> plays a little recording like "well done", "great" etc and increments a little counter in the bottom right of the screen.
As an adult I often play games which have a similar theme to "Hot Dog Stand" but in most cases they require no real math, random trial and error until you find a winning strategy is often faster.
don't worry.
You'll be obliged by law to buy their antivirus but they'll make sure the only contract available stipulates that you cannot hold them accountable for anything whatsoever.
Parent is wise.
I like linux but neither my linux nor my windows desktop has become infected in the last couple of years since I exercise reasonable paranoia and am familiar with the common channels of infection.
zero day worms which can get in through a firewall without any user participation are rare.
Shovelware-malware which infects you with a fake "update" screen or with an email attachment is so so much more common.
Disconnecting infected machines? maybe, it would force virus writers to be a little more stealthy at the very least.
My problem is with:
"require all subscribers to install anti-virus software and firewalls before the Internet connection is activated"
I don't use an antivirus scanner.
I haven't for over 2 years yet when I have done the occasional scan(online scanner etc, just as a metric) to check every now and then.
I believe I haven't caught any viruses in that time.
AV scanners are an example of Enumerating Badness, detecting modern polymorphic viruses is NP-Hard and in short is a losing game.
I protect myself by having an ounce of sense and avoiding common routes of infection and keeping my software up to date.
This appears to work much better.
They're mandating people use an ineffective form of security.
sure but the problem is that once you establish a system for "information that doesn't belong in the public domain" suddenly everything embarrassing or unpopular starts to get marked with the appropriate stamp with no regard whatsoever to whether or not it's in the best interest of the country to keep it secured.
Get off my lawn!
In my day we didn't have any of those newfangled letters!
If we wanted to tell someone something we engraved it on a slab of granite and waited for them to come round and see it!
It taught patience!
And proper chisel control!
Legally?
A garbage truck can pick up tons of documents containing potentially sensitive info but they're still distinct from the person who goes digging through your bins looking for blackmail material.
Do you think google had any intent to snatch passwords or personal info for nefarious purposes? if so what for?
if you openly record everything everyone transmits at you in the clear while you're in the middle of a public street without focusing on any one person/network or specifically trying to collect private info it should be perfectly legal.
Different countries will have different laws on the matter of course.
let the lawyers argue it out.
Morally? absolutely.
Geeky? even more so.
cain neatly picks up any packets transmitted openly within quite a respectable distance.
I see you don't actually have a point.