The internet has basically become a utility so critical that it's almost impossible to go without, so the ISPs will be able to jack up rates because they know you have no choice but to pay or lose access to a massive variety of services that no longer even have physical equivalents anymore.
And like driver's licenses or travel by means other than walking, it is the perfect target for control by a hydraulic empire. Why wouldn't the government take advantage of this?
Hope that the EFF's and ACLU's inevitable lawsuits are successful. Otherwise, good luck getting people to vote in the right people to enshrine into law some feasible NN protection.
Who is this "EFF" and "ACLU"? I cannot find their online presence.
Then again, we're talking 3D here... maybe they'll figure out how to weave a mesh of tiny heat pipes around the circuits.
Heat pipes are not as useful in this case as one might think. Heat pipes already require heat spreaders because they can only support up to a limited power/area before nucleated and then film boiling prevents the heat pipe from operating. We passed that power/area point with *one* layer of silicon several generations ago.
Human designers simply aren't up to the task of planning that far into the future, hence even the best-designed reactors sometimes fail due to unforeseen circumstances.
Human designers do not have the authority to plan that far into the future. That belongs to management.
The worst thing about the drones is that even if they are only used by state actors with legitimate targets in mind, they still won't be 100% accurate.
Errors in facial recognition will happen, or criteria will be set too broadly to ensure the target gets hit - but that well targeted killbot could just as easily get the wrong guy, which would be chalked up to "acceptable collateral damage".
Targeted assassinations, bombs, and precision guided munitions are not 100% accurate either but governments use them anyway.
The real threat here like mass surveillance and ubiquitous law enforcement is that it makes assassination, terror, and warfare easier. But unlike targeted assassinations via other means, bombs, and precision guided munitions, eases the requirements for non-state actors even more.
They will take it to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that "Cell Phone sellers have to hand over all information after a legal search order." Apple has no game winning move to make here.
What you describe is already the case for search warrants. Apple must turn over that which they posses which is named in the warrant. If they do not possess plaintext, password, or encryption key, then they need not turn them over.
The judge ought to get a good laugh out of it at least. You just can't expect to use a court order to force someone to violate the laws of nature.
Your appraisal of the rationality of the law is grossly optimistic.
(you also can't use a court order to demand that a private citizen go out of their way to DO something for you - you can order them to STOP doing something, but not to assist you with your investigation - sorry officer but you can't make me do your work for you)
Courts can use the All Writs Act to order assistance.
Law enforcement officers can arrest you for obstruction of justice and other things if you refuse to help.
The government has various ways to make companies and individuals obey like what happened with Quest Communications.
I tend to view news of such "wonderful and exciting" advances through the lens of wonderment, tinted with cautious fear. Can you imagine that through an IV, someone change the fundamentals of who you are, perhaps against your will? Someone could kidnap and drug you, and months after you wake up with an IV bag attached to you arm, you literally start becoming someone else.
Are you too rebellious and anti-authoritarian? Here, have a timidity cocktail. Are you too smart and logical, and impervious to manipulation via base desires? Here, have the Trump cocktail.
Unlike in Hollywood, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
I heard of professional shotgun sport competitors having to jump through hoops to get the ammunition they need. I think it was California that wanted to pass a law that a person could not buy more than some stupid low level of ammunition each month unless they were a licensed firearms dealer. We've seen this at the federal level too, firearm collectors were buying "too many" guns so the ATF put some limit on this and required them to get a firearm dealer license. So, people got their license to buy firearms. We've already seen complaints that the ATF does not have the manpower to inspect every licensed gun dealer for compliance. Well, then make only actual gun dealers be licensed. If a person needs a license to sell Grandpa's shotguns then you've now created the problem of people getting a license to sell even a handful of firearms and not being able to manage it, or people just not bothering with the license and selling them anyway.
After enough people had acquired federal firearm licenses for the reasons you identify, California and the ATF together cracked down on people who had them while not having a "place of business" getting rid of "kitchen counter top" firearm dealers who could otherwise perform background checks for third parties wishing to transfer firearms legally. Then of course they complained about the increase in private transfers between people after making transfers through a dealer more difficult.
Your point is valid. Of course the phrasing of the amendment is something like, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In short, the goal of the amendment is to protect the security of a free state. Do we still need a well regulated militia for that part? One could argue that our armed forces are the well regulated militia.
The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were well aware of the differences between regular army, militia, and select militia.
One could also argue that the amendment referred to the types of firearms available at that time in history, or that it did not foresee the changes in technology.
Just like the 1st Amendment only applies to methods of publishing available at the time it was written and the 4th Amendment does not apply to electronic records.
Certainly we agree that there are limits to weapons that can be owned, otherwise anyone could purchase nuclear weapons and fighter jets. What is not agreed is where those limits are.
Nuclear weapons and fighter jets are not "arms" as defined then or now. Further, the arms are limited to those suitable for a militia (U.S versus Miller, 1939) which includes many currently heavily restricted, illegal, or unlawful arms like short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, machine guns, and silencers.
While I agree with what you say, the long-term survival of our personal freedoms and the government's repeated appeals to emotion to erode them are mutually exclusive. Considering the stakes, is there any way at all to stop the cron job once and for all, or do we have to repeatedly quash it?
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." – John Philpot Curran
Maybe it could function like the government, wait 10-20 years or more. Declassify documents when it is safe.
Just have it wait for copyright to expire on all stored documents. According to the US Supreme Court, any finite but unbounded time is limited so that should be soon enough, right?
How can you deliver Intel (and AMD) computers to customers knowing that there is secret control by unknown agencies?
Maybe the NSA was the customer and paid for it like they paid RSA.
If you don't tell the customers, can you be taken to court and sued for damages?
Do you mean like all of those people who took the telecommunication companies to court when it was revealed that they were cooperating with the US Government to conduct warrantless surveillance?
That assumes they can. They may have licensed bits of hardware and/or software from someone else who wouldn't appreciate it being open sourced. Unfortunately, "just open source it" isn't always an option.
That makes a convenient excuse for Logitech. Why should that exonerate them of malice?
I was looking forward to seeing what a continuous plotline would look like in the Star Trek universe, or what happens when the reality of war sets in and the Federation can't hold on to its rules and ideals.
That sounds like... Enterprise, which was cancelled by the person responsible for Discovery.
I think television writing in general has evolved past the trope of the week thing, but I could probably live with it if it wasn't so fucking sloppy.
So what happens with OBEX over TCP/IP? Both devices would need to be on the same subnet, unless you had some sort of evil NAT avoiding technique to punch through to an external server.
Why do they need to be on the same subnet? If IP broadcasts are used for discovery, wouldn't it be sufficient to be in the same IP broadcast domain? I was not able to find anything about how OBEX handles discovery over IP.
I agree with other posters on this subject that file sharing between adjacent devices is much difficult than it should be. The smaller USB connectors found on handheld devices have poor or questionable long term reliability. I would consider IRDA ideal but it is deprecated. Bluetooth is no faster than the fastest IRDA standards and subject to RF interference.
You cannot always count on a lack of open WiFi networks and what if the TV manufacturer makes an agreement with an ISP in your area which provides third party WiFi like the cable ISPs have been doing.
There is a push for newer cell standards to support low cost connectivity for the IoT. Some utility markets already have something like this.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet has basically become a utility so critical that it's almost impossible to go without, so the ISPs will be able to jack up rates because they know you have no choice but to pay or lose access to a massive variety of services that no longer even have physical equivalents anymore.
And like driver's licenses or travel by means other than walking, it is the perfect target for control by a hydraulic empire. Why wouldn't the government take advantage of this?
Hope that the EFF's and ACLU's inevitable lawsuits are successful. Otherwise, good luck getting people to vote in the right people to enshrine into law some feasible NN protection.
Who is this "EFF" and "ACLU"? I cannot find their online presence.
Then again, we're talking 3D here... maybe they'll figure out how to weave a mesh of tiny heat pipes around the circuits.
Heat pipes are not as useful in this case as one might think. Heat pipes already require heat spreaders because they can only support up to a limited power/area before nucleated and then film boiling prevents the heat pipe from operating. We passed that power/area point with *one* layer of silicon several generations ago.
Human designers simply aren't up to the task of planning that far into the future, hence even the best-designed reactors sometimes fail due to unforeseen circumstances.
Human designers do not have the authority to plan that far into the future. That belongs to management.
Department of Defense (War)
Department of Justice (Law)
To expound on that last one, we have courts of law and not courts of justice. Law and justice have nothing to do with each other.
The worst thing about the drones is that even if they are only used by state actors with legitimate targets in mind, they still won't be 100% accurate.
Errors in facial recognition will happen, or criteria will be set too broadly to ensure the target gets hit - but that well targeted killbot could just as easily get the wrong guy, which would be chalked up to "acceptable collateral damage".
Targeted assassinations, bombs, and precision guided munitions are not 100% accurate either but governments use them anyway.
The real threat here like mass surveillance and ubiquitous law enforcement is that it makes assassination, terror, and warfare easier. But unlike targeted assassinations via other means, bombs, and precision guided munitions, eases the requirements for non-state actors even more.
As I see it, the move will open the door for government access to encrypted cell phones.
The government already has access to encrypted cell phones. They want access to unencrypted cell phones.
They will take it to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that "Cell Phone sellers have to hand over all information after a legal search order." Apple has no game winning move to make here.
What you describe is already the case for search warrants. Apple must turn over that which they posses which is named in the warrant. If they do not possess plaintext, password, or encryption key, then they need not turn them over.
iOS passcodes can be six digits now, not only four. It will take you longer than you think.
Only six? And only digits? WTF?
The judge ought to get a good laugh out of it at least. You just can't expect to use a court order to force someone to violate the laws of nature.
Your appraisal of the rationality of the law is grossly optimistic.
(you also can't use a court order to demand that a private citizen go out of their way to DO something for you - you can order them to STOP doing something, but not to assist you with your investigation - sorry officer but you can't make me do your work for you)
Courts can use the All Writs Act to order assistance.
Law enforcement officers can arrest you for obstruction of justice and other things if you refuse to help.
The government has various ways to make companies and individuals obey like what happened with Quest Communications.
You miss one part of that quote, if you pluck the goose to much it will die and you get no more.
Grad students are sorta like the goose you cooked. It was great when you got lots of feathers, but then you found out they all died.
Goose feathers now are better than goose feathers later.
I tend to view news of such "wonderful and exciting" advances through the lens of wonderment, tinted with cautious fear. Can you imagine that through an IV, someone change the fundamentals of who you are, perhaps against your will? Someone could kidnap and drug you, and months after you wake up with an IV bag attached to you arm, you literally start becoming someone else.
Are you too rebellious and anti-authoritarian? Here, have a timidity cocktail. Are you too smart and logical, and impervious to manipulation via base desires? Here, have the Trump cocktail.
Unlike in Hollywood, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
I heard of professional shotgun sport competitors having to jump through hoops to get the ammunition they need. I think it was California that wanted to pass a law that a person could not buy more than some stupid low level of ammunition each month unless they were a licensed firearms dealer. We've seen this at the federal level too, firearm collectors were buying "too many" guns so the ATF put some limit on this and required them to get a firearm dealer license. So, people got their license to buy firearms. We've already seen complaints that the ATF does not have the manpower to inspect every licensed gun dealer for compliance. Well, then make only actual gun dealers be licensed. If a person needs a license to sell Grandpa's shotguns then you've now created the problem of people getting a license to sell even a handful of firearms and not being able to manage it, or people just not bothering with the license and selling them anyway.
After enough people had acquired federal firearm licenses for the reasons you identify, California and the ATF together cracked down on people who had them while not having a "place of business" getting rid of "kitchen counter top" firearm dealers who could otherwise perform background checks for third parties wishing to transfer firearms legally. Then of course they complained about the increase in private transfers between people after making transfers through a dealer more difficult.
Your point is valid. Of course the phrasing of the amendment is something like, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In short, the goal of the amendment is to protect the security of a free state. Do we still need a well regulated militia for that part? One could argue that our armed forces are the well regulated militia.
The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were well aware of the differences between regular army, militia, and select militia.
One could also argue that the amendment referred to the types of firearms available at that time in history, or that it did not foresee the changes in technology.
Just like the 1st Amendment only applies to methods of publishing available at the time it was written and the 4th Amendment does not apply to electronic records.
Certainly we agree that there are limits to weapons that can be owned, otherwise anyone could purchase nuclear weapons and fighter jets. What is not agreed is where those limits are.
Nuclear weapons and fighter jets are not "arms" as defined then or now. Further, the arms are limited to those suitable for a militia (U.S versus Miller, 1939) which includes many currently heavily restricted, illegal, or unlawful arms like short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, machine guns, and silencers.
While I agree with what you say, the long-term survival of our personal freedoms and the government's repeated appeals to emotion to erode them are mutually exclusive. Considering the stakes, is there any way at all to stop the cron job once and for all, or do we have to repeatedly quash it?
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." – John Philpot Curran
Maybe it could function like the government, wait 10-20 years or more. Declassify documents when it is safe.
Just have it wait for copyright to expire on all stored documents. According to the US Supreme Court, any finite but unbounded time is limited so that should be soon enough, right?
How can you deliver Intel (and AMD) computers to customers knowing that there is secret control by unknown agencies?
Maybe the NSA was the customer and paid for it like they paid RSA.
If you don't tell the customers, can you be taken to court and sued for damages?
Do you mean like all of those people who took the telecommunication companies to court when it was revealed that they were cooperating with the US Government to conduct warrantless surveillance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That assumes they can. They may have licensed bits of hardware and/or software from someone else who wouldn't appreciate it being open sourced. Unfortunately, "just open source it" isn't always an option.
That makes a convenient excuse for Logitech. Why should that exonerate them of malice?
I was looking forward to seeing what a continuous plotline would look like in the Star Trek universe, or what happens when the reality of war sets in and the Federation can't hold on to its rules and ideals.
That sounds like ... Enterprise, which was cancelled by the person responsible for Discovery.
I think television writing in general has evolved past the trope of the week thing, but I could probably live with it if it wasn't so fucking sloppy.
That would be an improvement at this point.
The idea is that suitably strong encryption cannot be broken at all.
Any encryption may be broken by exhaustive search in a "limited" amount of time as defined by the US Supreme Court. So what is their problem?
Use a USB Stick.
I will get right on that with the current courage for removing full sized USB ports in favor of USB-C, dongles, or nothing.
So what happens with OBEX over TCP/IP? Both devices would need to be on the same subnet, unless you had some sort of evil NAT avoiding technique to punch through to an external server.
Why do they need to be on the same subnet? If IP broadcasts are used for discovery, wouldn't it be sufficient to be in the same IP broadcast domain? I was not able to find anything about how OBEX handles discovery over IP.
I agree with other posters on this subject that file sharing between adjacent devices is much difficult than it should be. The smaller USB connectors found on handheld devices have poor or questionable long term reliability. I would consider IRDA ideal but it is deprecated. Bluetooth is no faster than the fastest IRDA standards and subject to RF interference.
I've heard good things about Chlorine Triflouride.
If you see me running, try to keep up.
Eventually, we will have to leave this planet if we are to survive as a species.
We would have to do more than that whether we leave or not. We would have to stop evolution.
You cannot always count on a lack of open WiFi networks and what if the TV manufacturer makes an agreement with an ISP in your area which provides third party WiFi like the cable ISPs have been doing.
There is a push for newer cell standards to support low cost connectivity for the IoT. Some utility markets already have something like this.