The point is keeping data out of reach of warrants.
The legality of the spying is the point now and the warrant requirements are not because the NSA and other intelligence agencies now share data with law enforcement for the purposes of prosecution.
Say instead "people have been clinging onto the idea of being able to predict and know their usage and not be charged unexpectedly".
The ISPs with transfer caps have avoided providing real time and accurate reporting of used and available traffic while simultaneously imposing automatic fines for going over instead of pay as you go billing.
But the "follow the money" trail just peters out when looking at climate scientists. They're funded by a range of government agencies, true, ranging from NASA to NOAA to the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie to the Japanese Meteorological agency, but now you're telling me that they all have the same secret agenda... to do what, exactly? Really, the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie does not have a secret desire to increase the amount of regulations in the world. Even if the German government somehow did have this goal... how do they it tell the Max-Planck Institut? Memos saying "make sure that the scientists you fund are instructed to only give results saying climate change is real?" Do you really think that dozens of scientific agencies in as many countries are all going to be getting this memo (why? From who?) and not a single person is going to leak it?
Do you mean like why the Shuttle might be launched despite protests from the technical people? Real power is having people carry out your wishes without having to order them.
Those where glorious days, where they not? I remember the race to 1 ghz and AMD beat Intel to that mark. AMD didn't just inch ahead there ether, they rode Intel hard and put them away wet. Those where good days.
Then Intel caught up and stayed ahead most of the time but AMD was still able to maintain a competitive edge in price.
Leading to Intel releasing the flawed Coppermine Pentium 3 1.13 GHz which had to be recalled.
I know there are a couple of ways to go about it now. AQM also uses the token bucket ideal.
An ISP could also just provide the bandwidth. Modern telcom grade networking equipment can handle upwards of 500,000 customers in a flat network with fully dedicated bandwidth. Effective a 500,000 port non-blocking switch, except it's a router. An example of equipment. WDM-GPON chassis with 125 ports, each capable of 32 customers and technically 40Gb of full-duplex bandwidth which is 1.25Gb/s per customer. Couple this with 4Tb/s uplinks on the chassis, and you have exactly 1Gb/s per customer the entire way through the chassis.
This was the argument originally made when the internet was designed with simple flow control and without built in metering; it was cheaper to expand the capacity. That argument fails when the ISPs in a monopoly position protect their legacy industries and rents.
X-rays will erase floating gate memory but it would take 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of medical x-rays to do so which is completely feasible with a commercial x-ray generator. The IC however would be damaged requiring high temperature annealing to repair.
It would be awesome to have a small finger sticker and analytics device, like used for diabetes blood sugar testing kits, that, maybe, hooked into a USB port and did the work there and was able to spit the data out.
You do not think such a device would be used by the authorities like in GATTACA?
My point is that you cannot rely on not requesting traffic to prevent incoming unsolicited traffic which counts toward your cap (and the ISP is going to happily count unsolicited traffic even if they generate it). There have already been incidents where someone sends massive amounts of UDP traffic to someone just to make them exceed their cap and pay fines or get kicked off.
There are several ways ISPs could manage traffic to prevent network congestion however the method they are choosing is designed to create excess charges and prevent competition with their own services. If they want to meter traffic and use tiers then there must be a standard way for users to find out how many bytes they have used and how much they have left immediately in real time just like an electric or water meter. The providers deliberately do not do this to make it more likely users will go over their limits and incur extra fees.
A better solution (for the users anyway) is to use traffic shaping on a per stream and per user IP basis. Low bandwidth connections can then be promoted to have low latency. High bandwidth connections can be throttled to a level sufficient to maintain low latency for other traffic. Of course doing this does not allow the provider to make money through penalties.
Will people be just as surprised to discover later that MI5 continued to collect all of this data and more after the law is changed to supposedly stop it?
I love reading old science fiction stories set in the far future, where in the year 3423 or whatever people are still using slide rules. I imagine in the year 3423 people will still be using chairs, and probably spoons won't be too different... and back when those old stories were being written, slide rules seemed like that kind of basic item that wouldn't be going away.
I do not remember which old science fiction book it was but the picture on the cover showed a space pirate climbing up the side of the ship with a slide rule held between his teeth.
You can still buy new vernier calipers. I have one for the same reason that I have an HP-50g which can be summed up with this dialog which has happened more than once:
"Hey, can I borrow your calculator|calipers?" "Sure, here you go." *hands over HP-50g or vernier caliper* *silence while borrower examines HP-50g or vernier caliper* "Um, no thanks."
I still use my slide rules for calculating whole number ratios which is very handy for stoichiometry although my HP-50g does have a function which sort of works for that.
The admin is given a choice, hand over data in secret or go to jail. A company would be on shaky legal ground for firing someone for following a court order.
We are not talking about a court order but something like an administrative subpoena. If a court order included a gag order, then the employee can be fired because they cannot say why they stole data. How can the company be on shaky ground for firing someone following a court order that they cannot be notified about?
What are they going to say? You cannot fire this person because of national security? That right there violates the purpose of the gag order.
For every big business you hear that they handed over data to the government, there are a dozen of small businesses that do so you don't hear about, as they just aren't news worthy. Pretty much every small agency that tried to oppose the government went out of business trying.
Businesses and individuals have to follow court orders and various administrative subpoenas. The discussion here is about *knowing* that the government seized your data and making sure that your data is legally protected as much as possible.
If you use a cloud provider, all of this goes out the window; you have already lost. Under the third party doctrine, the government can just siphon up all of your data with minimal justification and never notify you. If you do your own hosting, then you still have to hand the data over but at least you know about it and can take legal action. If they turn an employee into an agent, at least there is a chance of the agent getting caught.
Except when your admin is issued a court order to turn over the data, and a gag order not to tell anyone. Does your small business have audit logging for read operations? Mandatory shadowing when working with data directly?
How would that work though? If the admin is discovered, fired, and the company asks for criminal charges to be filed (violation of the CFAA?), does the agency issuing the gag order intervene? What happens when the evidence is used in court and the defense asks how it was acquired? Because of the gag order, can the now fired admin even mount a defense in civil and criminal court? Ether would lead to revealing the gag order. Or do they just leave their agent out to dry? Are there any examples of this happening in real life? It strikes me as a good way to get lawsuits, adverse court decisions, and loads of bad public relations.
Big business have a reputation to hold up, and have the deep pockets to eat the court battles and potential fines for non-compliance. A small business has a major risk of going out of business for pulling a stunt like that. Very few will try and take the high ground. Plus, if the government raided a major business for data, it would be all over the news and the media would have a field day. No reasonable government official is going to push the envelope for that, and if they do, they ain't going to be with a job for very long.
Big businesses like Qwest Communications International?
A cloud services company is just going to hand the data over and if they do challenge the order, the customer is not going to know about it for years if ever. You cannot challenge a warrant for instance; the best you can do is get evidence excluded. Apple will also (and has in the past without challenging the order) hand data over to the extent that they can which is why they are pushing for user controlled encryption. They are under no obligation to do the impossible and so far absent statutory law, they are under no requirement to compromise their security.
The really clever bit is the source of the vacuum. When the engine is in the air intake phase, the piston moves downward and creates a vacuum in the cylinder. Air rushes in through an open valve, hence the term "suction engine" (as opposed to turbo charged, which has a compressor like device to push in air). This mean the pipe between the air filter and the valves will contain a vacuum, which is stronger the closer it is to the valves. The door gets the vacuum from a pipe, which is attached to that part of the engine and as close to the valves as possible. This creates a "compressed air" door system without a compressor, which makes it cheap both to build and maintain. It's also fairly lightweight, which is good for the fuel economy.
Manifold vacuum is very commonly used in gasoline engines for operating things like power brakes and the climate control vents.
The court ruled that no evidence was provided by him that the FBI had control.
The court never considered any evidence because it decided that Bivens actions (suing for violation of rights) do not apply abroad. He could have video and sound of FBI agents using pliers and a blowtorch on him while raping his wife and daughter and it would not matter:
But if your data is located on a third party server, the requirements to seize it are less than if it is on your own server and you will not necessarily be notified. At least on your own server, a warrant is required and you will know when they serve you with it.
Slashdot Mirror
The legality of the spying is the point now and the warrant requirements are not because the NSA and other intelligence agencies now share data with law enforcement for the purposes of prosecution.
I do not care how they justify it. If they want to charge using metered access, then they should provide an interface to an accurate meter.
Say instead "people have been clinging onto the idea of being able to predict and know their usage and not be charged unexpectedly".
The ISPs with transfer caps have avoided providing real time and accurate reporting of used and available traffic while simultaneously imposing automatic fines for going over instead of pay as you go billing.
Do you mean like why the Shuttle might be launched despite protests from the technical people? Real power is having people carry out your wishes without having to order them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Leading to Intel releasing the flawed Coppermine Pentium 3 1.13 GHz which had to be recalled.
I know there are a couple of ways to go about it now. AQM also uses the token bucket ideal.
This was the argument originally made when the internet was designed with simple flow control and without built in metering; it was cheaper to expand the capacity. That argument fails when the ISPs in a monopoly position protect their legacy industries and rents.
X-rays will erase floating gate memory but it would take 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of medical x-rays to do so which is completely feasible with a commercial x-ray generator. The IC however would be damaged requiring high temperature annealing to repair.
Flash based ROM uses floating gate technology and can be erased just like an EPROM.
You do not think such a device would be used by the authorities like in GATTACA?
General welfare is not a power. It is a justification which an enumerated power must be used for.
My point is that you cannot rely on not requesting traffic to prevent incoming unsolicited traffic which counts toward your cap (and the ISP is going to happily count unsolicited traffic even if they generate it). There have already been incidents where someone sends massive amounts of UDP traffic to someone just to make them exceed their cap and pay fines or get kicked off.
There are several ways ISPs could manage traffic to prevent network congestion however the method they are choosing is designed to create excess charges and prevent competition with their own services. If they want to meter traffic and use tiers then there must be a standard way for users to find out how many bytes they have used and how much they have left immediately in real time just like an electric or water meter. The providers deliberately do not do this to make it more likely users will go over their limits and incur extra fees.
A better solution (for the users anyway) is to use traffic shaping on a per stream and per user IP basis. Low bandwidth connections can then be promoted to have low latency. High bandwidth connections can be throttled to a level sufficient to maintain low latency for other traffic. Of course doing this does not allow the provider to make money through penalties.
Blocking various elements hardly helps. Stateless traffic like UDP will ignore anything you do on your side.
Make sure your traffic goes over their transit links as well, just because.
Will people be just as surprised to discover later that MI5 continued to collect all of this data and more after the law is changed to supposedly stop it?
I do not remember which old science fiction book it was but the picture on the cover showed a space pirate climbing up the side of the ship with a slide rule held between his teeth.
They make solar powered digital calipers which operate on ambient room lighting.
Also, you can use them as clamps when the supervisor is not watching.
You can still buy new vernier calipers. I have one for the same reason that I have an HP-50g which can be summed up with this dialog which has happened more than once:
"Hey, can I borrow your calculator|calipers?"
"Sure, here you go."
*hands over HP-50g or vernier caliper*
*silence while borrower examines HP-50g or vernier caliper*
"Um, no thanks."
I still use my slide rules for calculating whole number ratios which is very handy for stoichiometry although my HP-50g does have a function which sort of works for that.
We are not talking about a court order but something like an administrative subpoena. If a court order included a gag order, then the employee can be fired because they cannot say why they stole data. How can the company be on shaky ground for firing someone following a court order that they cannot be notified about?
What are they going to say? You cannot fire this person because of national security? That right there violates the purpose of the gag order.
Businesses and individuals have to follow court orders and various administrative subpoenas. The discussion here is about *knowing* that the government seized your data and making sure that your data is legally protected as much as possible.
If you use a cloud provider, all of this goes out the window; you have already lost. Under the third party doctrine, the government can just siphon up all of your data with minimal justification and never notify you. If you do your own hosting, then you still have to hand the data over but at least you know about it and can take legal action. If they turn an employee into an agent, at least there is a chance of the agent getting caught.
How would that work though? If the admin is discovered, fired, and the company asks for criminal charges to be filed (violation of the CFAA?), does the agency issuing the gag order intervene? What happens when the evidence is used in court and the defense asks how it was acquired? Because of the gag order, can the now fired admin even mount a defense in civil and criminal court? Ether would lead to revealing the gag order. Or do they just leave their agent out to dry? Are there any examples of this happening in real life? It strikes me as a good way to get lawsuits, adverse court decisions, and loads of bad public relations.
Big businesses like Qwest Communications International?
A cloud services company is just going to hand the data over and if they do challenge the order, the customer is not going to know about it for years if ever. You cannot challenge a warrant for instance; the best you can do is get evidence excluded. Apple will also (and has in the past without challenging the order) hand data over to the extent that they can which is why they are pushing for user controlled encryption. They are under no obligation to do the impossible and so far absent statutory law, they are under no requirement to compromise their security.
Manifold vacuum is very commonly used in gasoline engines for operating things like power brakes and the climate control vents.
The court never considered any evidence because it decided that Bivens actions (suing for violation of rights) do not apply abroad. He could have video and sound of FBI agents using pliers and a blowtorch on him while raping his wife and daughter and it would not matter:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
But if your data is located on a third party server, the requirements to seize it are less than if it is on your own server and you will not necessarily be notified. At least on your own server, a warrant is required and you will know when they serve you with it.