That would depend on which chunk and which measures of civilized we were comparing, but for the purposes of lazy generalization? Yes, I don't think it is.
However I was actually speaking in a global sense rather than singling out any one country (or collection thereof), and if at least one part of the world is opt-out and handling it well, that pleases me and I hope others can follow that lead.
It's not that you need your organs when you're dead, it's that other people want your organs and you becoming dead would be awfully convenient to that end.
I'm on the voluntary donor registry myself, but my "whacko belief" is that our civilization isn't yet civilized enough to handle an opt-out scheme, let alone a mandatory one - and if it were we wouldn't need to!
Not all that long ago, you couldn't have bought a synthetic ruby, sapphire or diamond for all the money in the world. Synthetics is still a rapidly advancing field, too, with plenty of development left in it; expect them to get a lot cheaper.
You where not broadcasting plaintext traffic to Google
everyone within range of your radio signal. It does not stop at your property boundary just because you wish it so, nor does it carry any indication that it should not be read (with the possible exception of an appropriately worded SSID). The response is not, "do I listen to this broadcast", but rather, "is it ethical for me to relay, profit from, or continue listening to, this broadcast"?
they have, and you may also note that the post you reply to refers to a parody case in which the parody was done in the style of the parodied trademark, just as (in my not-a-lawyer opinion) "the new white meat" is being in the style of "the other white meat". That said, in my same non-lawyer opinion, parody should be a defence against trademark infringement just as it is copyright infringement.
There's a very sensitive infrared camera and microphone outside your house right now, and we're disturbed by your interactions with your plushie. In the spirit of blind justice, I'm going to upload to/b/ and let the People decide.
And that part in bold, "I'm going to upload", is where that argument completely crashes. Totally aside from the public technology involved, so far as I've read so it appears Google did not upload.
Well, at least not until the various governments clamoring about "privacy laws" forced Google to upload the data to them...
If I believe the second way is better, why should I move, rather than stay and attempt to change things here? (besides the ludicrous odds of succeeding, of course)
Which way do you believe is better? Why? I'm genuinely curious.
The judge isn't allowed to take sides or consider evidence that wasn't presented
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."
And a judicial system that does not investigate for itself the facts of a plaintiff's case, especially when it is obvious that the defendant is inadequate to the task, is at best a situation of good people doing nothing.
You should still be expected to prove your case, not simply have your word taken as gospel. If the latter is how US courts operate, no wonder the country's going to hell. (no pun intended)
A proxy for what? Other people's Skype comms, or do you mean an actual piggyback exploit? And please provide some references for the claim - like they say, (dis)trust, but verify...
Heh, point taken. Though I find I can't really blame Windows - well, not totally - for the stupid decisions made by installer developers. You CAN write good installers for Windows software, I've seen it done.
The trouble with giving developers the freedom (and that's ironic on so many levels, I know) to implement their software however they want, is that some of them (ok, lots) will do it stupid.
Though if you're looking for software to make installing Windows software simpler, I'm liking ninite.com at the moment - I choose the programs I want to install, I save the installer it generates, and then I can just launch that installer on each machine and it does the rest.
Because they want tools that work, not tools where you have to work so they get the fuck out of your way and let you get something done. Seriously, by the time I'm done installing some software on W7, I'm already done installing, launching and have started working on a document on OS X.
Really? These days I find the slowest part of installing software is by far the transfer rate off the disc or network - and whether you're Mac or PC, that 52x optical drive ain't going to spin any faster.
I think every country should start doing exactly the same things to all US citizens.
I propose the opposite. I propose we make it as nice as possible for US citizens to enter other countries, so they can see just how ugly the US border policies are by comparison.
US tourist #1: "Yeah, it was cool! We arrived in Australia and the border guards gave us barbecued prawns!"
US tourist #2: "And then we got back to the US and all we got was fingerprinted and a cavity search..."
First up, the wind is blowing in the wrong direction for you to be spitting so much hyperbole. I'm not UK. I am Australian, in Australia, on the other side of the bloody planet, and I think both sides of the Atlantic are full of crap (my own government too, just to pre-empt anything there).
By your own admittance, until the US actually ratifies a treaty, the original signing is SYMBOLIC.
What part of "you should not have to obey a contract that the other guy doesn't have to obey" do you not understand?
It's like making a promise with your fingers crossed behind your back, yet expecting the other guy to uphold his side of the deal and put down the money - while you go argue with your mum and dad for the next 3+ years as to whether you really can go halves in that new go-kart with Timmy.
Oh, except that people's lives are on the line. Case in point, the Act has already been used to extradite a man later found innocent - and such is the stupidity of this treaty, he had to plead guilty to a fictional offence to get back home! http://www.noliberties.com/stories_as.htm
Next, due process and cruel punishment. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a police officer having only reasonable suspicion may only briefly detain a person. And yet the US government apparently finds it acceptable to extradite foreign citizens - depriving them of their liberty far, far longer than a mere frisking by an officer - on the same level of evidence.
(and to pre-empt again, the UK government was also a bunch of asshats to agree to this)
"Due process" means, in part, applying the law equally to all. Male and female, black and white, citizen and alien. Including that of the constitutional right to liberty and due process... and both the Fourth and the Fifth (and the Fourteenth) use "person", not "citizen".
Aside, I was under the impression that the United States was opposed to making people into criminals retroactively? The extradition act was ratified in 2006, but even if we were to accept your idea that the President's symbolic signature in 2003 was good enough to make it legal, McKinnon's hacking took place in 2001 and 2002...
And your final suggestion is that because the Victim was lax in security that until the Victim is punished the criminal should not be punished.
Re-read that suggestion. I said no such thing. I said those responsible should be held to account. McKinnon has been facing extradition for over four years now, and yet to the best of my knowledge the US military has not indicated that it is even pursuing anyone for the lax security that allowed McKinnon to gain access.
We have here the online equivalent of leaving your post unattended, allowing what a US prosecutor called "the biggest military computer hack of all time" and yet there is no news of any moves to investigate, discipline, let alone court martial, any of the military's IT personnel (ir)responsible? If you can find links to the contrary, please cite them!
Finally, I'm well aware that the only reason I'm alive and speaking English is because of the contributions of the United States in various wars. But if anyone, especially an American, thinks that gives the US government some special right to throw its weight around, then I consider such a person to be a disgrace to the ideals invested in the US Bill of Rights, which I pretty much wish we had down here.
Being the biggest and the best means showing restraint, and sometimes being the biggest and the best means taking one on the chin, because to do anything else is a fall from grace.
From 2003 to 2006 the US demanded the UK abide by the treaty despite not having ratified it itself and refusing to abide by it. Tell me, which country acted dishonorably?
The treaty also allows the extradition to the US solely on "reasonable suspicion". The US Supreme Court ruled in Terry vs Ohio that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. But apparently the US government thinks that brevity shouldn't apply if you're in another country, and sees no problem with depriving you of your liberty, transporting you across seas and trying you in a foreign land based merely on that same level of reasonable suspicion?
(note: I am not saying McKinnon was extradited merely on suspicion - I am however pointing out the emperor's disturbing lack of clothes)
The new UK government should tell the US to go away until it remembers the ideals it was founded on. You know, things like due process, trial by a jury of your peers, no cruel and unusual punishments, that sort of thing.
Given all that I've read so far, the US DoD failed abysmally in its duty to maintain an appropriate level of security. Until the DoD is also held to account, the continued pursuit of McKinnon will remain a horrible farce.
Wrong. It's more like telling someone whose house was robbed, and guns taken from their glass cabinet, that they are going to be charged with negligence because they did not secure their guns in a steel cabinet as required by law.
Furthermore, the DoD are not ordinary civilians, they are the militaristic arm of a representative government and entrusted with keeping safe the nation's secrets; they must be held to a higher standard.
Until the idiots responsible for leaving the gun safe unlocked are likewise charged, this isn't justice, it's just another naked emperor taking revenge.
So because the copper's fine in your area, it's magically alright throughout the rest of Australia? Whenever it rains heavily around here we get the usual spike of complaints of faulty lines. It's not just restricted to rural areas either. Back in 2008 parts of Sydney were so bad they were resorting to plastic baggies to (try to) stop the water getting into the wiring in the pits, so much so the Telstra techs nicknamed the city "Baghdad".
Likewise, you don't expect people to be arbitrarily scanning for wireless data.
Actually, I do expect people to be arbitrarily scanning for wireless data. ECHELON aside, radio scanners have been publicly available for many years in Australia.
When something as simple as fillings in teeth (and various other items) can pick up radio signals, I'd say "a lot more effort" is - taking the big picture view - in fact not so. Another example: human retinas are very sensitive to UV, but the cornea blocks it; early cornea replacements were UV-transparent and allowed sight into the UV spectrum. One wrong mutation and you'd be born with UV vision (of course you'd also suffer early blindness, as UV damages the retina, but I digress).
Consider too that various animals exist which sense (even generate!) electric fields and use them to forage/hunt/navigate. As advances in genetic engineering continue, we will be able to add these features to our own genomes, and it's entirely possible that our (distant?) descendants will be able to communicate with radio frequencies as easily as we do with audio frequencies today.
I read the GP not as meaning you can reverse the hash to get the print, but rather that if someone else gets a copy of your print, they can hash it using the same algorithm and then compare the result against the school's database to see what books you've been reading - thus, privacy issue.
Slashdot Mirror
That would depend on which chunk and which measures of civilized we were comparing, but for the purposes of lazy generalization? Yes, I don't think it is.
However I was actually speaking in a global sense rather than singling out any one country (or collection thereof), and if at least one part of the world is opt-out and handling it well, that pleases me and I hope others can follow that lead.
(fwiw: I'm Australian, not American or European)
It's not that you need your organs when you're dead, it's that other people want your organs and you becoming dead would be awfully convenient to that end.
I'm on the voluntary donor registry myself, but my "whacko belief" is that our civilization isn't yet civilized enough to handle an opt-out scheme, let alone a mandatory one - and if it were we wouldn't need to!
Oblig response: Australia currently does not have a web filter.
The filter has been - at best - shelved. Not scrapped: a different beast entirely.
Most? Yeah. But some? Like hell they don't.
Not all that long ago, you couldn't have bought a synthetic ruby, sapphire or diamond for all the money in the world.
Synthetics is still a rapidly advancing field, too, with plenty of development left in it; expect them to get a lot cheaper.
everyone within range of your radio signal. It does not stop at your property boundary just because you wish it so, nor does it carry any indication that it should not be read (with the possible exception of an appropriately worded SSID). The response is not, "do I listen to this broadcast", but rather, "is it ethical for me to relay, profit from, or continue listening to, this broadcast"?
they have, and you may also note that the post you reply to refers to a parody case in which the parody was done in the style of the parodied trademark, just as (in my not-a-lawyer opinion) "the new white meat" is being in the style of "the other white meat". That said, in my same non-lawyer opinion, parody should be a defence against trademark infringement just as it is copyright infringement.
And that part in bold, "I'm going to upload", is where that argument completely crashes. Totally aside from the public technology involved, so far as I've read so it appears Google did not upload.
Well, at least not until the various governments clamoring about "privacy laws" forced Google to upload the data to them...
If I believe the second way is better, why should I move, rather than stay and attempt to change things here? (besides the ludicrous odds of succeeding, of course)
Which way do you believe is better? Why? I'm genuinely curious.
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."
And a judicial system that does not investigate for itself the facts of a plaintiff's case, especially when it is obvious that the defendant is inadequate to the task, is at best a situation of good people doing nothing.
You should still be expected to prove your case, not simply have your word taken as gospel. If the latter is how US courts operate, no wonder the country's going to hell. (no pun intended)
A proxy for what? Other people's Skype comms, or do you mean an actual piggyback exploit? And please provide some references for the claim - like they say, (dis)trust, but verify...
Heh, point taken. Though I find I can't really blame Windows - well, not totally - for the stupid decisions made by installer developers. You CAN write good installers for Windows software, I've seen it done.
The trouble with giving developers the freedom (and that's ironic on so many levels, I know) to implement their software however they want, is that some of them (ok, lots) will do it stupid.
Though if you're looking for software to make installing Windows software simpler, I'm liking ninite.com at the moment - I choose the programs I want to install, I save the installer it generates, and then I can just launch that installer on each machine and it does the rest.
dayalsoap, are you sure you provided the correct link? Because I just spent the time to watch it, and Obama doesn't make any such threats.
Really? These days I find the slowest part of installing software is by far the transfer rate off the disc or network - and whether you're Mac or PC, that 52x optical drive ain't going to spin any faster.
I propose the opposite. I propose we make it as nice as possible for US citizens to enter other countries, so they can see just how ugly the US border policies are by comparison.
US tourist #1: "Yeah, it was cool! We arrived in Australia and the border guards gave us barbecued prawns!"
US tourist #2: "And then we got back to the US and all we got was fingerprinted and a cavity search..."
"Øbama"? Did MCP digitize the president or something?
I must correct myself in that second-last paragraph. It's a major reason, but not the only reason.
First up, the wind is blowing in the wrong direction for you to be spitting so much hyperbole. I'm not UK. I am Australian, in Australia, on the other side of the bloody planet, and I think both sides of the Atlantic are full of crap (my own government too, just to pre-empt anything there).
By your own admittance, until the US actually ratifies a treaty, the original signing is SYMBOLIC.
What part of "you should not have to obey a contract that the other guy doesn't have to obey" do you not understand?
It's like making a promise with your fingers crossed behind your back, yet expecting the other guy to uphold his side of the deal and put down the money - while you go argue with your mum and dad for the next 3+ years as to whether you really can go halves in that new go-kart with Timmy.
Oh, except that people's lives are on the line. Case in point, the Act has already been used to extradite a man later found innocent - and such is the stupidity of this treaty, he had to plead guilty to a fictional offence to get back home! http://www.noliberties.com/stories_as.htm
Next, due process and cruel punishment. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a police officer having only reasonable suspicion may only briefly detain a person. And yet the US government apparently finds it acceptable to extradite foreign citizens - depriving them of their liberty far, far longer than a mere frisking by an officer - on the same level of evidence.
(and to pre-empt again, the UK government was also a bunch of asshats to agree to this)
"Due process" means, in part, applying the law equally to all. Male and female, black and white, citizen and alien. Including that of the constitutional right to liberty and due process... and both the Fourth and the Fifth (and the Fourteenth) use "person", not "citizen".
Aside, I was under the impression that the United States was opposed to making people into criminals retroactively? The extradition act was ratified in 2006, but even if we were to accept your idea that the President's symbolic signature in 2003 was good enough to make it legal, McKinnon's hacking took place in 2001 and 2002...
Re-read that suggestion. I said no such thing. I said those responsible should be held to account. McKinnon has been facing extradition for over four years now, and yet to the best of my knowledge the US military has not indicated that it is even pursuing anyone for the lax security that allowed McKinnon to gain access.
We have here the online equivalent of leaving your post unattended, allowing what a US prosecutor called "the biggest military computer hack of all time" and yet there is no news of any moves to investigate, discipline, let alone court martial, any of the military's IT personnel (ir)responsible? If you can find links to the contrary, please cite them!
Finally, I'm well aware that the only reason I'm alive and speaking English is because of the contributions of the United States in various wars. But if anyone, especially an American, thinks that gives the US government some special right to throw its weight around, then I consider such a person to be a disgrace to the ideals invested in the US Bill of Rights, which I pretty much wish we had down here.
Being the biggest and the best means showing restraint, and sometimes being the biggest and the best means taking one on the chin, because to do anything else is a fall from grace.
From 2003 to 2006 the US demanded the UK abide by the treaty despite not having ratified it itself and refusing to abide by it. Tell me, which country acted dishonorably?
The treaty also allows the extradition to the US solely on "reasonable suspicion". The US Supreme Court ruled in Terry vs Ohio that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. But apparently the US government thinks that brevity shouldn't apply if you're in another country, and sees no problem with depriving you of your liberty, transporting you across seas and trying you in a foreign land based merely on that same level of reasonable suspicion?
(note: I am not saying McKinnon was extradited merely on suspicion - I am however pointing out the emperor's disturbing lack of clothes)
The new UK government should tell the US to go away until it remembers the ideals it was founded on. You know, things like due process, trial by a jury of your peers, no cruel and unusual punishments, that sort of thing.
Given all that I've read so far, the US DoD failed abysmally in its duty to maintain an appropriate level of security. Until the DoD is also held to account, the continued pursuit of McKinnon will remain a horrible farce.
Wrong. It's more like telling someone whose house was robbed, and guns taken from their glass cabinet, that they are going to be charged with negligence because they did not secure their guns in a steel cabinet as required by law.
Furthermore, the DoD are not ordinary civilians, they are the militaristic arm of a representative government and entrusted with keeping safe the nation's secrets; they must be held to a higher standard.
Until the idiots responsible for leaving the gun safe unlocked are likewise charged, this isn't justice, it's just another naked emperor taking revenge.
So because the copper's fine in your area, it's magically alright throughout the rest of Australia? Whenever it rains heavily around here we get the usual spike of complaints of faulty lines. It's not just restricted to rural areas either. Back in 2008 parts of Sydney were so bad they were resorting to plastic baggies to (try to) stop the water getting into the wiring in the pits, so much so the Telstra techs nicknamed the city "Baghdad".
When something as simple as fillings in teeth (and various other items) can pick up radio signals, I'd say "a lot more effort" is - taking the big picture view - in fact not so. Another example: human retinas are very sensitive to UV, but the cornea blocks it; early cornea replacements were UV-transparent and allowed sight into the UV spectrum. One wrong mutation and you'd be born with UV vision (of course you'd also suffer early blindness, as UV damages the retina, but I digress).
Consider too that various animals exist which sense (even generate!) electric fields and use them to forage/hunt/navigate. As advances in genetic engineering continue, we will be able to add these features to our own genomes, and it's entirely possible that our (distant?) descendants will be able to communicate with radio frequencies as easily as we do with audio frequencies today.
In the end it's all spectrum.
Governments all over seem intent on breaking windows to make money...
I read the GP not as meaning you can reverse the hash to get the print, but rather that if someone else gets a copy of your print, they can hash it using the same algorithm and then compare the result against the school's database to see what books you've been reading - thus, privacy issue.