If you bought a physical disc of a completely offline game, and that disc contained an update that removed OtherOS, you could not play that game unless you installed the update.
one can have a viable rationale for why Old Testament rules are no longer followed
True. But that isn't what Sycraft-fu was talking about. It isn't about not following the rules, it's about technically following them in such a convoluted manner that outsiders just look at it and go "really? You really think that counts as following your rules?"
For a car analogy, lets take two people exceeding the speed limit. The one explains that he thinks the speed limit is too low in that area, so he ignores the limit and goes with what he thinks is a safe speed. The other, goes into a convoluted explanation about how he wasn't actually speeding. In fact, he was actually going under the limit.
I think that an encrypted drive should be treated like a locked safe.
No, it shouldn't. Because then you get people claiming that encrypted HDDs need "special" laws because they are effectively unbreakable safes.
Call them notebooks, because that is what they are. Notebooks, made out of metal, written to using magnets. I don't actually know what the law has to say about notebooks written in a language the cops cannot understand, but bottom line is that surely trying to force the decryption of a notebook is already well established as acceptable/unacceptable, right?
I am not sure about the issue with backwards compatibility. Could you play a NES game on SNES? genisis game on saturn?
The difference is that neither Nintendo nor Sega made any promise of backwards compatibility (though I've heard rumors that Nintendo had wanted to make the SNES backwards compatible with the NES). Now I don't know what kinds of promises MS made with regard to backwards compatibility, but AC claims that MS promised 100% backwards compatibility would eventually be reached, and is upset with MS for failing to deliver.
I'm sure if MS had never made such a promise, AC wouldn't care about backwards compatibility (except maybe from a "but Sony/Nintendo manages it!" perspective).
While I disagree with the idea of comparing an encrypted hard drive to a locked door, I must admit I'd never even considered the idea of trying to make a person reveal a hidden room in a house.
Perhaps a little off topic, but I am surprised that they cannot do that. I am glad they cannot, but it still surprises me.
Decrypting a hard drive is no different from letting the police into your house for a search
Actually, the two are quite different. A better comparison would be decrypting the contents of a physical, paper notebook. Because that is what a hard drive is, a notebook, made out of metal, and written to using magnets.
I honestly do not know how the law treats physical, paper notebooks that cops cannot read (though I know my own feelings on the subject), but we really need to stop comparing encrypted data to locked doors, locked safes, and other such objects.
Calling them an extension of the brain may confuse some people, make them think it's something "new" that needs "special laws". Just call them very dense notebooks.
Now if it turns out that someone can be punished for not teaching the government the secret language the notebook is written in, then I may change my mind. But it would be to eliminate that action when it comes to both hard drives and notebooks, not to treat hard drives differently from notebooks.
Care to provide a citation then? While I have heard that divorce rate within the first X years is significantly higher than after, I thought it was somewhere around 3-5, not 10.
IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?
Huh, I also thought the Wii's backwards compatibility was done in the hardware. At any rate, you needed a GCN controller for GCN games on the Wii, which the Wii U lacks the slots for.
To convict someone of purgery, obstruction, or as an accessory to the crime, the prosecutor would, of course, have to prove that they willfully lied under oath, obstructed an investigation, or assisted the criminal. It has been done before.
Sorry, I'm not doubting that such charges have been filed before, nor am I doubting the ability of the prosecutor to convince a judge. It was simply a way of pointing out that, in a perfect world, it'd never happen, because the only evidence exists in the head of the accused.
Have you ever forgotten what your name is, where you work, or what your friend's names are? For weeks or months at a time? Without suffering from an indentifiable medical condition, injury or trauma?
Trauma? Like the trauma you might experience from being strung through our justice system? And who said I use it every day? Full Disk Encryption, I only need to enter the password when I turn the machine on, and it may be months before I turn it off / reboot.
My point isn't that you can't get away with lieing, my point is that the situation could get worse because if you lied about it. That's why you're allowed to plead the fifth instead of making up lies in the first place.
Ok, it wasn't clear that you found remaining silent to be permitted. It seems that most of the time, people think it reasonable to punish the accused for remaining silent when it comes to encryption.
Ordering someone to decrypt a hard drive is more akin to ordering someone to "We have a warrent! Open up, in the name of the law!", which, if you don't do so, you will find your front door in splinters and yourself on your stomach with cuffs behind your back.
I agree that ordering someone to decrypt a hard drive is akin to ordering someone to grant access to a house, though not in the "you inside, them outside" scenario that you are describing. More like both you and the cops are outside, and they want you to unlock the front door.
In neither situation should you be punished for not giving them the key.
I'm also curious. If we replace "hard drive" with "notebook", do you still feel the same way? Because I certainly don't see why I have an obligation to teach the cops the totally made-up language I used in the notebook.
Being required to open your front door and allow your house to be searched, provided a warrant is served, is not a violation of your 5th amendment rights, and neither is being required to decrypt your drive.
But punishing someone because they aren't giving up the key is. It doesn't matter that you think they should be able to give up the key.
if you claim to have forgotten something that you haven't really forgotten, you can be charged with purgery, obstruction, contempt of court, or even as an acessory to the crime, depening on the circumstances
Prove it. Prove I did not really forget my password. Note, later remembering said password does not prove anything. People forget and later remember shit all the time. Haven't you ever, for example, gone into the kitchen, forgotten why you went in there, left, and some time later, remembered why you'd gone in there?
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
If that is really how your email provider operates, I think you need to find a new provider. Because you are telling us that once you've read it, if you keep it on their server, you no longer need a username/password to access it.
I'm just trying to get you to not change your story in two consecutive posts. Since that seems impossible, you are intellectually dishonest.
I don't know if this is what you mean, but, I still have no idea how you took my original post to mean "guns should be handed out like candy". Nothing I said should have indicated a position of "driver's licenses should be abolished because there should be no regulations on dangerous things, and hope people do the right thing", to quote one of your replies.
So your issue is that you mistakenly assumed my position, without ever trying to figure it out, and have been trying to cut me down, rather than discussing the issue.
Um, no. That's not what's been going on at all. Yes, I did say that in the beginning, it sounded like you wanted 100% restriction. But I've not been trying to "cut you down". I've been doing nothing but trying to figure you out, to "discuss the issue" as you put it.
Your first post made it sound like you did not bother to read my explanation about why the phrase was not nonsense, because you used an example of a gun killing to prove the phrase nonsense, despite the fact that I explicitly state the phrase isn't trying to hide that. Hence my asking the question.
In retrospect, I should have worded that post differently. But all I was hoping for was that it would lead to a better understanding. Instead, your reply just raised further questions. "What? He thinks I want to do away with licenses?" Like I said earlier, I have no idea how you arrived at that. Which is why I said so in my next reply.
Your reply kinda cleared that up (oh, so because I called a gun a tool, I must think that guns should be as freely available as hammers? Not sure how the one leads to the other, but whatever), but I felt at this point we'd gotten off track. So I went into what I thought was enough detail to explain that, no, that's not how I think, before trying to start over, to re-explain my original post. I never imagined that you'd take that as me trying to change my story.
Meanwhile, every single one of your replies (including this one) relies on the assumption that I am a gun nut who wants guns to be handed out like candy. Something that is flat-out wrong, and has not been true in any of my posts.
Then say it and shut up. Because instead, you worked hard to prove everyone wrong, without even figuring out what they were saying.
The only person I was "proving wrong" was dan_in_dublin, regarding their interpretation of the phrase "guns don't kill, people do". Everything after my first post, yes, I have been working hard. Not to prove you wrong, but to figure out where you were coming from. However, I think I will take your advice. I feel I've said all I can to try and understand you, so I will be shutting up now.
There are more to tools than what you can find in the Sears hardware department. And even within the Sears hardware department, not all tools are created equal. You bring up hammers now, but previously you'd mentioned table saws. Now I'm sure you would agree that table saws and hammers should be treated differently from each other, but the way you swapped tools, makes it sound like you think I would disagree.
However, this is beside the point I was originally going for. Someone arguing that "guns don't kill, people do" is nonsense generally doesn't care about responsible gun owners, and wants all guns banned, period, for 100% restriction. OP sounded like this, and in the beginning, you did too. But that would be like banning table saws for everyone because of the actions of some, or banning hammers for everyone because of the actions of some. Or perhaps even worse, banning free speech for everyone because of the actions of some.
All I was doing was pointing out that "guns don't kill, people do" is not just a rallying cry that people use when they believe in 100% free access to guns for everyone, while attempting to explain how a responsible gun owner views that phrase. Go after the people who cannot use guns/tablesaws/hammers responsibly. Don't go after my gun/tablesaw/hammer.
I.. have no idea how you managed to take what I said and turn it into "I think guns should be handed out to everyone like candy". At least that is how it sounds to me like you interpreted my post. But maybe my interpretation of your interpretation is wrong.
It's also incomplete. "Guns don't kill people, people do" is the complete saying.
And it isn't nonsense. It isn't supposed to ignore the fact that a gun is a tool that can be used for that purpose, as you appear to be implying. It is intended to make you realize that, like all tools, any problems that come up lie with the wielder of the tool, not the tool itself.
anyone who believes it is a victim of gun lobby PR
Interesting. And why exactly do you believe that yours is the "natural" position to gravitate towards? With such a bold accusation that I'm a victim of gun lobby PR, surely you have proof that my opinion is somehow not my own?
I also dare you to tell that to my grandmother, who would likely not be with us today were it not for her gun.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't what UltraZelda64 meant.
If you bought a physical disc of a completely offline game, and that disc contained an update that removed OtherOS, you could not play that game unless you installed the update.
one can have a viable rationale for why Old Testament rules are no longer followed
True. But that isn't what Sycraft-fu was talking about. It isn't about not following the rules, it's about technically following them in such a convoluted manner that outsiders just look at it and go "really? You really think that counts as following your rules?"
For a car analogy, lets take two people exceeding the speed limit. The one explains that he thinks the speed limit is too low in that area, so he ignores the limit and goes with what he thinks is a safe speed. The other, goes into a convoluted explanation about how he wasn't actually speeding. In fact, he was actually going under the limit.
"They don't meet any of the traditional requirements. They're prideful, spiteful, hateful, etc... all the classic deadly sins."
I suppose it could be argued that one can be Christian yet also be some/all of those things.
I think that an encrypted drive should be treated like a locked safe.
No, it shouldn't. Because then you get people claiming that encrypted HDDs need "special" laws because they are effectively unbreakable safes.
Call them notebooks, because that is what they are. Notebooks, made out of metal, written to using magnets. I don't actually know what the law has to say about notebooks written in a language the cops cannot understand, but bottom line is that surely trying to force the decryption of a notebook is already well established as acceptable/unacceptable, right?
I am not sure about the issue with backwards compatibility. Could you play a NES game on SNES? genisis game on saturn?
The difference is that neither Nintendo nor Sega made any promise of backwards compatibility (though I've heard rumors that Nintendo had wanted to make the SNES backwards compatible with the NES). Now I don't know what kinds of promises MS made with regard to backwards compatibility, but AC claims that MS promised 100% backwards compatibility would eventually be reached, and is upset with MS for failing to deliver.
I'm sure if MS had never made such a promise, AC wouldn't care about backwards compatibility (except maybe from a "but Sony/Nintendo manages it!" perspective).
While I disagree with the idea of comparing an encrypted hard drive to a locked door, I must admit I'd never even considered the idea of trying to make a person reveal a hidden room in a house.
Perhaps a little off topic, but I am surprised that they cannot do that. I am glad they cannot, but it still surprises me.
Is it analogous to requiring him to tell where the body is buried, or analogous to requiring him to let them enter his house with a search warrant?
Neither. It is exactly like requiring him to tell them what is written in this physical, paper notebook that the cops cannot read.
Decrypting a hard drive is no different from letting the police into your house for a search
Actually, the two are quite different. A better comparison would be decrypting the contents of a physical, paper notebook. Because that is what a hard drive is, a notebook, made out of metal, and written to using magnets.
I honestly do not know how the law treats physical, paper notebooks that cops cannot read (though I know my own feelings on the subject), but we really need to stop comparing encrypted data to locked doors, locked safes, and other such objects.
Calling them an extension of the brain may confuse some people, make them think it's something "new" that needs "special laws". Just call them very dense notebooks.
Now if it turns out that someone can be punished for not teaching the government the secret language the notebook is written in, then I may change my mind. But it would be to eliminate that action when it comes to both hard drives and notebooks, not to treat hard drives differently from notebooks.
Care to provide a citation then? While I have heard that divorce rate within the first X years is significantly higher than after, I thought it was somewhere around 3-5, not 10.
IANAL, but is there any reason the officer cannot decide to turn it into a full-blown arrest? After all, you are being charged with having committed a crime, right?
Huh, I also thought the Wii's backwards compatibility was done in the hardware. At any rate, you needed a GCN controller for GCN games on the Wii, which the Wii U lacks the slots for.
I was under the impression that the Wii U does not have the hardware for GCN games.
XBox one is the Flareon of game consoles.
So you're saying they'll at least get Pokémon. ;)
To convict someone of purgery, obstruction, or as an accessory to the crime, the prosecutor would, of course, have to prove that they willfully lied under oath, obstructed an investigation, or assisted the criminal. It has been done before.
Sorry, I'm not doubting that such charges have been filed before, nor am I doubting the ability of the prosecutor to convince a judge. It was simply a way of pointing out that, in a perfect world, it'd never happen, because the only evidence exists in the head of the accused.
Have you ever forgotten what your name is, where you work, or what your friend's names are? For weeks or months at a time? Without suffering from an indentifiable medical condition, injury or trauma?
Trauma? Like the trauma you might experience from being strung through our justice system? And who said I use it every day? Full Disk Encryption, I only need to enter the password when I turn the machine on, and it may be months before I turn it off / reboot.
My point isn't that you can't get away with lieing, my point is that the situation could get worse because if you lied about it. That's why you're allowed to plead the fifth instead of making up lies in the first place.
Ok, it wasn't clear that you found remaining silent to be permitted. It seems that most of the time, people think it reasonable to punish the accused for remaining silent when it comes to encryption.
Ordering someone to decrypt a hard drive is more akin to ordering someone to "We have a warrent! Open up, in the name of the law!", which, if you don't do so, you will find your front door in splinters and yourself on your stomach with cuffs behind your back.
I agree that ordering someone to decrypt a hard drive is akin to ordering someone to grant access to a house, though not in the "you inside, them outside" scenario that you are describing. More like both you and the cops are outside, and they want you to unlock the front door.
In neither situation should you be punished for not giving them the key.
I'm also curious. If we replace "hard drive" with "notebook", do you still feel the same way? Because I certainly don't see why I have an obligation to teach the cops the totally made-up language I used in the notebook.
Being required to open your front door and allow your house to be searched, provided a warrant is served, is not a violation of your 5th amendment rights, and neither is being required to decrypt your drive.
But punishing someone because they aren't giving up the key is. It doesn't matter that you think they should be able to give up the key.
if you claim to have forgotten something that you haven't really forgotten, you can be charged with purgery, obstruction, contempt of court, or even as an acessory to the crime, depening on the circumstances
Prove it. Prove I did not really forget my password. Note, later remembering said password does not prove anything. People forget and later remember shit all the time. Haven't you ever, for example, gone into the kitchen, forgotten why you went in there, left, and some time later, remembered why you'd gone in there?
Opening an email and then leaving it on the server (as most people do) is like opening a letter and then leaving it open, taped to your mailbox outside. Anyone walking down the street can then read it, including the government.
If that is really how your email provider operates, I think you need to find a new provider. Because you are telling us that once you've read it, if you keep it on their server, you no longer need a username/password to access it.
I'm just trying to get you to not change your story in two consecutive posts. Since that seems impossible, you are intellectually dishonest.
I don't know if this is what you mean, but, I still have no idea how you took my original post to mean "guns should be handed out like candy". Nothing I said should have indicated a position of "driver's licenses should be abolished because there should be no regulations on dangerous things, and hope people do the right thing", to quote one of your replies.
So your issue is that you mistakenly assumed my position, without ever trying to figure it out, and have been trying to cut me down, rather than discussing the issue.
Um, no. That's not what's been going on at all. Yes, I did say that in the beginning, it sounded like you wanted 100% restriction. But I've not been trying to "cut you down". I've been doing nothing but trying to figure you out, to "discuss the issue" as you put it.
Your first post made it sound like you did not bother to read my explanation about why the phrase was not nonsense, because you used an example of a gun killing to prove the phrase nonsense, despite the fact that I explicitly state the phrase isn't trying to hide that. Hence my asking the question.
In retrospect, I should have worded that post differently. But all I was hoping for was that it would lead to a better understanding. Instead, your reply just raised further questions. "What? He thinks I want to do away with licenses?" Like I said earlier, I have no idea how you arrived at that. Which is why I said so in my next reply.
Your reply kinda cleared that up (oh, so because I called a gun a tool, I must think that guns should be as freely available as hammers? Not sure how the one leads to the other, but whatever), but I felt at this point we'd gotten off track. So I went into what I thought was enough detail to explain that, no, that's not how I think, before trying to start over, to re-explain my original post. I never imagined that you'd take that as me trying to change my story.
Meanwhile, every single one of your replies (including this one) relies on the assumption that I am a gun nut who wants guns to be handed out like candy. Something that is flat-out wrong, and has not been true in any of my posts.
Then say it and shut up. Because instead, you worked hard to prove everyone wrong, without even figuring out what they were saying.
The only person I was "proving wrong" was dan_in_dublin, regarding their interpretation of the phrase "guns don't kill, people do". Everything after my first post, yes, I have been working hard. Not to prove you wrong, but to figure out where you were coming from. However, I think I will take your advice. I feel I've said all I can to try and understand you, so I will be shutting up now.
At one point in time or another, I'm sure we've all had the wrong idea of what PETA is actually about.
There are more to tools than what you can find in the Sears hardware department. And even within the Sears hardware department, not all tools are created equal. You bring up hammers now, but previously you'd mentioned table saws. Now I'm sure you would agree that table saws and hammers should be treated differently from each other, but the way you swapped tools, makes it sound like you think I would disagree.
However, this is beside the point I was originally going for. Someone arguing that "guns don't kill, people do" is nonsense generally doesn't care about responsible gun owners, and wants all guns banned, period, for 100% restriction. OP sounded like this, and in the beginning, you did too. But that would be like banning table saws for everyone because of the actions of some, or banning hammers for everyone because of the actions of some. Or perhaps even worse, banning free speech for everyone because of the actions of some.
All I was doing was pointing out that "guns don't kill, people do" is not just a rallying cry that people use when they believe in 100% free access to guns for everyone, while attempting to explain how a responsible gun owner views that phrase. Go after the people who cannot use guns/tablesaws/hammers responsibly. Don't go after my gun/tablesaw/hammer.
I.. have no idea how you managed to take what I said and turn it into "I think guns should be handed out to everyone like candy". At least that is how it sounds to me like you interpreted my post. But maybe my interpretation of your interpretation is wrong.
Question, did you even read my second paragraph, or just the part you quoted?
guns dont kill pepole is nonsense
It's also incomplete. "Guns don't kill people, people do" is the complete saying.
And it isn't nonsense. It isn't supposed to ignore the fact that a gun is a tool that can be used for that purpose, as you appear to be implying. It is intended to make you realize that, like all tools, any problems that come up lie with the wielder of the tool, not the tool itself.
anyone who believes it is a victim of gun lobby PR
Interesting. And why exactly do you believe that yours is the "natural" position to gravitate towards? With such a bold accusation that I'm a victim of gun lobby PR, surely you have proof that my opinion is somehow not my own?
I also dare you to tell that to my grandmother, who would likely not be with us today were it not for her gun.
I.. what?
Are you trying to convert from an "AGW is real" position to an "AGW is false" position, or what?