I was exposed to computers from the age or 2 or 3 onwards.
I was way ahead in math starting school(and because of that ever onwards right through university) because of a simple little math game my dad installed which someday I'd like to track down or re-create since it was fantastic for teaching basic math and holding the attention of a 3 year old.
I'm also well aware of the time that can be eaten up by flash games and more conplex games with almost no benefit. wiki trawling isn't going to do much for test scores but it's great for getting a little bit of rounded knowledge on random subjects.
except that is IS. Passwords? so? everything. hello.
You might catch someone saying their ATM pin as you walk along with a video camera. if someone BROADCASTS THINGS AT YOU OPENLY that is nothing at all like breaking into their house and stealing their purse unless you're too stupid to see the difference.
"The argument that they were broadcasting makes it all a little more interesting, mostly because the laws were written before WiFi came around, but you are still listening into what is clearly a private conversation because even though it was technically broadcasted, it was not broadcasted to you. " In other words the data interception and telecommunications laws of most countries are NOT very clear on this but you WANT THEM TO BE. It was not broadcast to you, it was broadcast to EVERYONE.
Just because someone wasn't looking at the camera while talking does not make it wrong if they happen to be stupid enough to be saying to their friend "an my atm pin is.. " in a public place as you walk past.
It DOES automatically mean it's ok if you have no intention to steal their passwords or embarasing info, you're just recording publicly in a public place openly and they throw the info at you as you pass.
Mapping wifi locations to physical locations of course. It has a pretty straightforward use: If I'm in a strange town and lost I'd probably have my netbook with me so I just wander around until I find an open Wifi, connect to google maps and sweet now it can tell me where I am based on the local wifi networks.
the easiest way i can think of to create such a mapping given that they've already got a bunch of vans rolling around recording location data would be to take my laptop, install something like cain or kismet and just have it listen in promiscuous mode as I drove down the street.
now when I want to build my map I know where my van was at what time, I know what packets I revieced when, crossreference and I have a nice clean map.
Now it just so happens that the simplest solution I can think of would also record the whole packets and not just the headders. Of course I don't actually give a fuck about the contents but KISS is a good guiding principle.
"the right equipment" is ANY WIFI CAPABLE DEVICE. My fucking cell phone can pick up open wifi networks.
No need for high gain antennas at all.
Another vastly better analogy: is it the a random passer by with normal glasses on the street out on the public road who sees you walking past your window naked who is at fault? or is it you for walking around where you can be seen from the public street with no special equipment at all?
The intent of the "victim" is generally irrelevant.
If someone intended to video their dog doing a trick but caught me walking out my front door naked when I intended to walk into my shower my intent is irrelevent, theirs however is relevent.
What about two neighbors talking about their house alarm security passcodes on the phone while standing in the mall and you're walking past with your camcorder recording video and audio? You're not snooping, you're fucking overhearing.
my bog standard laptop running free software can capture everything they captured.
They have to take deliberate action to record the traffic if they want to build up a map of networks in different places. They absolutely can walk down the street and just "listen to it".Anyone can. They do not have to have a special application and computer system setup and running to record it.
You absolutely can go to BestBuy, buy a laptop, turn it on, download a free app and walk down the street and record what google did.
There is nothing accidental about it at all. they had perfectly good reason to record data on when and where packets from different networks was picked up, their only screwup was to retain the whole logged packets rather than discarding them later and keeping only the headders.
And you yourself would do the exact same if you walked through a crowded public place with your camcorder running. You'd pick up random tiny snatches of the conversations people were having. Of course you don't care about that, you're videoing for something else entirely.
You'd be explicitly saving and storing the data you "overheard" with your camera. would that be a "sloppy attitude with respect to other people's data"? or does it only count when it's not you?
or perhaps should the people there not talk loudly in a public place about things they don't want you to catch on your audio track.
and you're going way too far in the other direction. Broadcast it over an open unsecured network to everyone within 100 metres and you're making it public.
van eck phreaking equipment is rare and specialized. On the other hand my cellphone can connect to any open wifi and will pick up traffic on it.
You try to compare this to wiretapping but this is no more wiretapping than walking through a mall with your camcorder on videotaping your friends/child/dog/whatever. You will pick up snatches of private conversation on your audio track but just because you picked up the words "...and pick up the hemaroid cream fro...." and "...have to put her into a hom..." from converasations you passed that is not the same as putting a tap on the phones of the people you passed or bugging their homes.
The relative ease or difficulty of eavesdropping technology can and absolutely should be used as a defense of the practice of eavesdropping random tiny snatches of publicly broadcast information.
the fact that the people who's conversations you picked up snatches of were talking loudly where everyone could hear should absolutely be a defence even if they thought nobody else was listening or were too ignorant to care. The relative ease of picking up their conversation - indeed as a secondary effect of doing another perfectly legitimate task should absolutely be a defence.
If you want privacy you have to at least use symbolic security or people will breach your "privacy" without noticing it: WEP, a sealed envelope etc
It's more like walking through a crowded mall with your camcorder running to video something. As you pass people you pick up random snatches a second or 2 long from their conversations as well You don't give a shit about what they're saying, why should you? but you still pick up tiny selections of private conversation.
now all the nutjobs decide that you've violated the privacy of all the people talking loudly in a public place just like if you'd tapped their phones and try to get criminal charges pressed against you.
Or do something perfectly fine and if enough people have hysterics over nothing it will become legally wrong, perhaps retroactively. That how communities work.
If enough people freak out at soemthing trivial then you will be run out of town on a rail.
It is true that people often don't understand the issues involved but I'd prefer some system where the jury gets their own experts to help them interpret the technical details(rather than all experts being either for the prosecution or the defence)
I could easily see a situation where some small profession becomes utterly immune to prosecution otherwise.
Does someone get to decide who they consider their peers? Or is it based on the jobs they do?their class? their origin? etc
the idea of switching to judges only is probably more workable but then you need expert judges for each field. And if cases are to move up to higher level courts are the judges there also to be experts? the judges of the supreme court would have to be experts in every field.
and doctors face similar rules in most places, police face similar rules in some countries as well and yet both professions have a reputation for closing ranks and protecting their own whenever possible. Those sort of rules get put in place when there's a problem with that kind of behaviour.
the downside of this is that people tend to look extremely favourably upon their own groups.
For example: If a police officer is being charged with a serious crime on the job should the jury be made up entirely of other police officers?
Doctors tend to protect doctors, engineers tend to protect engineers etc etc it's human nature. The smaller the profession the more incestuous and the more back scratching.
well I'm living in a european city and the only crazy religious nuts in this one are the catholics. I don't want my daughters to be sent to the magdaline laundries or to get raped by some priest yet that was the reality in this city only a few decades ago.
There are always hundreds of millions of people, who are actively, willfully supporting people who intend to kill you if you don't do something or other. How many americans would like nothing more than to spread their own little nutjob faiths to all the muslims out there?
muslims are a tiny minority in pretty much every european country, less than 5% in most of europe.
Yet there's no shortage of biggoted arseholes who want to ram their own creed down your throat and most of them aren't muslims. see parent for an example.
And if you don't want to be charged with chinese laws against whatever you have on your website you should block all chinese IP's from accessing it.
So I take it that if any US antispam companies want to avoid getting charged by the russian courts they should delete all russian spammers from their database then?
Sure private clubs should be able to set their own rules but that's seperate to the actual effect seperating the genders has on kids.
I went right through scouts in the mixed organization in my country there were also a few other scouting organizations including the girl guides and boy scouts. Overwhelmingly I found the girls who had gone through the purely female system to be whimps. Absolute whimps, wet hens, theoretically capable but, with very few exceptions,inclined to go to pieces at a moment notice under any kind of pressure.
The guys in the all boys organizations were if anything more annoying, very much like certain students in the local all boys school they were loutish, devoid of charm and filled with a medieval attitude towards women, convinced that women were stupid and inept.
Only in the mixed organization did people seem to have realistic attitudes about the other gender and they acted as moderators on each other.
There's nothing wrong with single gender clubs for adults but exposing kids to only one gender most of the time leaves them mildly screwed up later.
Only if they charge money to straight people and don't charge gay people.
What's next? They going to rule that "White night", where they let all the white people in for free and charge the black people, is discriminatory next?
Slashdot Mirror
all it takes is one thumbnail in one popup ad to make you a criminal.
it all depends how they're used of course.
I was exposed to computers from the age or 2 or 3 onwards.
I was way ahead in math starting school(and because of that ever onwards right through university) because of a simple little math game my dad installed which someday I'd like to track down or re-create since it was fantastic for teaching basic math and holding the attention of a 3 year old.
I'm also well aware of the time that can be eaten up by flash games and more conplex games with almost no benefit.
wiki trawling isn't going to do much for test scores but it's great for getting a little bit of rounded knowledge on random subjects.
"their 802.11* traffic is invisible to people in the street."
I see you've never walked down the street with a netbook open.
And while my cell phone has to connect first my even cheaper netbook can absolutely go into monitor mode and record every packet it sees.
except that is IS.
Passwords? so?
everything. hello.
You might catch someone saying their ATM pin as you walk along with a video camera.
if someone BROADCASTS THINGS AT YOU OPENLY that is nothing at all like breaking into their house and stealing their purse unless you're too stupid to see the difference.
"The argument that they were broadcasting makes it all a little more interesting, mostly because the laws were written before WiFi came around, but you are still listening into what is clearly a private conversation because even though it was technically broadcasted, it was not broadcasted to you. "
In other words the data interception and telecommunications laws of most countries are NOT very clear on this but you WANT THEM TO BE.
It was not broadcast to you, it was broadcast to EVERYONE.
Just because someone wasn't looking at the camera while talking does not make it wrong if they happen to be stupid enough to be saying to their friend "an my atm pin is.. " in a public place as you walk past.
It DOES automatically mean it's ok if you have no intention to steal their passwords or embarasing info, you're just recording publicly in a public place openly and they throw the info at you as you pass.
Mapping wifi locations to physical locations of course.
It has a pretty straightforward use: If I'm in a strange town and lost I'd probably have my netbook with me so I just wander around until I find an open Wifi, connect to google maps and sweet now it can tell me where I am based on the local wifi networks.
the easiest way i can think of to create such a mapping given that they've already got a bunch of vans rolling around recording location data would be to take my laptop, install something like cain or kismet and just have it listen in promiscuous mode as I drove down the street.
now when I want to build my map I know where my van was at what time, I know what packets I revieced when, crossreference and I have a nice clean map.
Now it just so happens that the simplest solution I can think of would also record the whole packets and not just the headders.
Of course I don't actually give a fuck about the contents but KISS is a good guiding principle.
"the right equipment" is ANY WIFI CAPABLE DEVICE.
My fucking cell phone can pick up open wifi networks.
No need for high gain antennas at all.
Another vastly better analogy: is it the a random passer by with normal glasses on the street out on the public road who sees you walking past your window naked who is at fault? or is it you for walking around where you can be seen from the public street with no special equipment at all?
The intent of the "victim" is generally irrelevant.
If someone intended to video their dog doing a trick but caught me walking out my front door naked when I intended to walk into my shower my intent is irrelevent, theirs however is relevent.
I assume you've reposted this in the thread about the draw mohammed death penalty thing.
just to be fair of course since the same argument applies.
What about two neighbors talking about their house alarm security passcodes on the phone while standing in the mall and you're walking past with your camcorder recording video and audio?
You're not snooping, you're fucking overhearing.
BULLSHIT
my bog standard laptop running free software can capture everything they captured.
They have to take deliberate action to record the traffic if they want to build up a map of networks in different places.
They absolutely can walk down the street and just "listen to it".Anyone can.
They do not have to have a special application and computer system setup and running to record it.
You absolutely can go to BestBuy, buy a laptop, turn it on, download a free app and walk down the street and record what google did.
There is nothing accidental about it at all.
they had perfectly good reason to record data on when and where packets from different networks was picked up, their only screwup was to retain the whole logged packets rather than discarding them later and keeping only the headders.
And you yourself would do the exact same if you walked through a crowded public place with your camcorder running.
You'd pick up random tiny snatches of the conversations people were having.
Of course you don't care about that, you're videoing for something else entirely.
You'd be explicitly saving and storing the data you "overheard" with your camera.
would that be a "sloppy attitude with respect to other people's data"?
or does it only count when it's not you?
or perhaps should the people there not talk loudly in a public place about things they don't want you to catch on your audio track.
and you're going way too far in the other direction.
Broadcast it over an open unsecured network to everyone within 100 metres and you're making it public.
van eck phreaking equipment is rare and specialized.
On the other hand my cellphone can connect to any open wifi and will pick up traffic on it.
You try to compare this to wiretapping but this is no more wiretapping than walking through a mall with your camcorder on videotaping your friends/child/dog/whatever.
You will pick up snatches of private conversation on your audio track but just because you picked up the words "...and pick up the hemaroid cream fro...." and "...have to put her into a hom..." from converasations you passed that is not the same as putting a tap on the phones of the people you passed or bugging their homes.
The relative ease or difficulty of eavesdropping technology can and absolutely should be used as a defense of the practice of eavesdropping random tiny snatches of publicly broadcast information.
the fact that the people who's conversations you picked up snatches of were talking loudly where everyone could hear should absolutely be a defence even if they thought nobody else was listening or were too ignorant to care.
The relative ease of picking up their conversation - indeed as a secondary effect of doing another perfectly legitimate task should absolutely be a defence.
If you want privacy you have to at least use symbolic security or people will breach your "privacy" without noticing it:
WEP, a sealed envelope etc
yes because the cries of the mob are always such a good way to decide wise social policy.
It's more like walking through a crowded mall with your camcorder running to video something.
As you pass people you pick up random snatches a second or 2 long from their conversations as well
You don't give a shit about what they're saying, why should you?
but you still pick up tiny selections of private conversation.
now all the nutjobs decide that you've violated the privacy of all the people talking loudly in a public place just like if you'd tapped their phones and try to get criminal charges pressed against you.
Or do something perfectly fine and if enough people have hysterics over nothing it will become legally wrong, perhaps retroactively. That how communities work.
If enough people freak out at soemthing trivial then you will be run out of town on a rail.
walk though a public area with your camcorder running and you'll catch a second or 2 of random conversations on the audio track as you pass people.
congratulations.
You're now as bad as google.
It is true that people often don't understand the issues involved but I'd prefer some system where the jury gets their own experts to help them interpret the technical details(rather than all experts being either for the prosecution or the defence)
I could easily see a situation where some small profession becomes utterly immune to prosecution otherwise.
Does someone get to decide who they consider their peers?
Or is it based on the jobs they do?their class? their origin? etc
the idea of switching to judges only is probably more workable but then you need expert judges for each field.
And if cases are to move up to higher level courts are the judges there also to be experts?
the judges of the supreme court would have to be experts in every field.
and doctors face similar rules in most places, police face similar rules in some countries as well and yet both professions have a reputation for closing ranks and protecting their own whenever possible.
Those sort of rules get put in place when there's a problem with that kind of behaviour.
the downside of this is that people tend to look extremely favourably upon their own groups.
For example:
If a police officer is being charged with a serious crime on the job should the jury be made up entirely of other police officers?
Doctors tend to protect doctors, engineers tend to protect engineers etc etc
it's human nature.
The smaller the profession the more incestuous and the more back scratching.
well I'm living in a european city and the only crazy religious nuts in this one are the catholics.
I don't want my daughters to be sent to the magdaline laundries or to get raped by some priest yet that was the reality in this city only a few decades ago.
There are always hundreds of millions of people, who are actively, willfully supporting people who intend to kill you if you don't do something or other.
How many americans would like nothing more than to spread their own little nutjob faiths to all the muslims out there?
muslims are a tiny minority in pretty much every european country, less than 5% in most of europe.
Yet there's no shortage of biggoted arseholes who want to ram their own creed down your throat and most of them aren't muslims.
see parent for an example.
And if you don't want to be charged with chinese laws against whatever you have on your website you should block all chinese IP's from accessing it.
So I take it that if any US antispam companies want to avoid getting charged by the russian courts they should delete all russian spammers from their database then?
of course then a 9.9 Earthquake hit and there were executions for all who failed to predict it.
You know that history where those women started working in "mens jobs"?
Its a bit more like that.
Sure private clubs should be able to set their own rules but that's seperate to the actual effect seperating the genders has on kids.
I went right through scouts in the mixed organization in my country there were also a few other scouting organizations including the girl guides and boy scouts. ,inclined to go to pieces at a moment notice under any kind of pressure.
Overwhelmingly I found the girls who had gone through the purely female system to be whimps. Absolute whimps, wet hens, theoretically capable but, with very few exceptions
The guys in the all boys organizations were if anything more annoying, very much like certain students in the local all boys school they were loutish, devoid of charm and filled with a medieval attitude towards women, convinced that women were stupid and inept.
Only in the mixed organization did people seem to have realistic attitudes about the other gender and they acted as moderators on each other.
There's nothing wrong with single gender clubs for adults but exposing kids to only one gender most of the time leaves them mildly screwed up later.
Only if they charge money to straight people and don't charge gay people.
What's next?
They going to rule that "White night", where they let all the white people in for free and charge the black people, is discriminatory next?