Serial sex crimes? Having consensual sex over a few days and staying in the morning to have breakfast together constitutes sex crimes?
It isn't the consensual sex that is the issue, but the nonconsensual sex, i.e. the rape and molestation. I'm not sure how you missed or misunderstood that.
Can you prove the rape and molestation? By other means than "he said, she said"?
Reading the linked document, I don't think charged is a correct term to describe the situation, even if considering the particularities of the Swedish law into account. The prosecutor has the intention to prosecute but can not do so unless the investigation is complete (which is actually the reason for the arrest warrant).
Probably the closest term to use would be potentially accused?
The guy is not a saint, and he is a bit of an ass, but without paper guarantee that he will NOT be extradited out of sweden at any time in the future and will be allowed to leave sweden by whatever means and in whatever direction he chooses once he has faced his charges in swedish court and served any jail time or done whatever service is due because of his crime. Without that he is perfectly legitimate in being fucking terrified of going back there.
There's a number of legitimate reasons preventing the Swedish government from issuing a guarantee like that. For example, Swedish government officials are constitutionally prohibited from commenting on or interfering with individual cases.
From what I read, individual ministers do not have the right to influence or decide the handling of individual cases at government agencies How's this related with Assange's case? Is Assange's case under the authority of a govt agency?
In any case, Swedish govt (not individual ministers) CAN - if they want to - guarantee Assange won't be extradited to US without interfering with the "rape" case (other than breaking the current stand-off and making the case's progress possible).
Do you have any links to back this up? It's obvious that Equador is independent of the US's control, but this is the first time I've heard of long term exclusivity contracts on Equador's oil contracts.
But if you had nothing sitting around gathering dust, how much would it cost you to buy an equivalent amount of hardware? Keeping in mind depreciation, power , network access and infrastructure, and physical space. You also pay per hour, so if you don't need it one week, shut it all down and pay nothing. If you need something done very quick, pay for 100 cores for 1 hour instead of 1 core for 100 hours.
At the personal level (not speaking of businesses here): AMD x8 FX-8150 3.6/4.2 GHz, 32GB RAM, 1TB HDD - DYI from all-new parts, no monitor - approx $750. Let's make it a full $1750 to allow for power delivered by "gilded electrons", "diamond optical fiber" supported internet access and a bouquet of flowers once a month for the "better half" to make it for the physical storage space.
$1750 vs $175/month...10 month worth of VPS in Google's "compute" cloud (with 1 core with 4GB RAM).
What about bandwidth? What about support? What about being able to be up and running on a new box in a few minutes when the old one takes a dump?
You are totally missing the point of cloud services like this.
Read again the thread above. Start with the "I dunno" message on top.
It's not supposed to compete with your desktop machine.
Ah, that is the quux of the matter. Except that, as I suggested, your reply is better directed to the OP.
But if you had nothing sitting around gathering dust, how much would it cost you to buy an equivalent amount of hardware? Keeping in mind depreciation, power , network access and infrastructure, and physical space. You also pay per hour, so if you don't need it one week, shut it all down and pay nothing. If you need something done very quick, pay for 100 cores for 1 hour instead of 1 core for 100 hours.
At the personal level (not speaking of businesses here): AMD x8 FX-8150 3.6/4.2 GHz, 32GB RAM, 1TB HDD - DYI from all-new parts, no monitor - approx $750. Let's make it a full $1750 to allow for power delivered by "gilded electrons", "diamond optical fiber" supported internet access and a bouquet of flowers once a month for the "better half" to make it for the physical storage space. $1750 vs $175/month...10 month worth of VPS in Google's "compute" cloud (with 1 core with 4GB RAM).
I wonder what would happen if we had a band like pussy riot in Australia. I'd imagine probably not the big hoo-haa going on in Russia about it at the moment.
This is serious, Mum... other times, though and no conflict with the power (looking on how the Assange saga evolves, I tend to agree with you).
Brains operate using strings of binary pulses. The frequency is important, yes, but it's still a binary encoding. A neuron fires, or it doesn't.
No it is not a binary encoding. The fact that is using a rectangular wave for the transport carrier is irrelevant - the encoding of the transport/processing is done by frequency encoding. For storage, it is the activation threshold of the synapses that is important, and the threshold is again not binary.
Yeah it's a shitty life. What I was referring to is metaphorically walking in a crowd wearing a stocking over your head so people can't see your face and you can be anonymous. People won't recognise you, but you will sure stand out. That's what using Tor does - makes you stand out.
The defence against that is "to make from wearing a stocking a fashion statement", so that a majority of people will start using Tor/VPN/encryption. In my opinion: it is needed. If the liberties are slowly eroded and one reaches all the way down to the rock-bottom of civil rights loss, one will need to use all sorts of obfuscation just to survive.
This is why I say the OP's "Ask slashdot" is relevant, the matter should not be treated lightly (like "what do you have to hide") and sharing the information on how to technically do it is beneficial.
Unfortunately, I believe that "secret police" is EXACTLY the path we are on. I hope it never becomes like what you had to endure.
Fortunately, Australia have quite a huge outback. If they needed the govt to build the copper phone network first and the NBN now, I guess it won't be too soon to have CCTV cameras in every pub with no beer. Besides, the women glow to much for the CCTV, the men will plunder them and Vegemite either will make your face unrecognisable (disgust grimace) or can be used in small enough quantities (less than for a sandwich) to smear the lenses of CCTV-es. Anyway, cover or not, she'll be apples for a while.
There is already a western routine domestic surveillance culture.
This is why I think using encryption as one way to maintain privacy is not paranoia, but the first line of defence against power grabs and nanny states. I wrote the above not to gain sympathy but to show that no matter what the govt would be doing, a population can - and will - get around any type of surveillance once it gets too intrusive.
Personally, I'm convinced it's not only moral to do it, but almost an obligation to do it. I mean: if you can't defend your very own privacy (a thing that involves/pertains to yourself only), how can you expect to be able to defend even a small group - like your family?
Go right ahead and use Tor and VPN's and anything else that will protect you. The secret police won't know what you are doing, but the fact that you are using Tor and VPN's to hide what you are doing will indicate that you are up to something and you'll be deleted.
Do the Western countries already run "secret police"? If not, do you want to reach that point?
Because, let me share you from my experience... if you reach that point, the everyday languages that you'll be using will be derivatives of the Tamarian culture. Yes, that's right, languages at plural: with every person that you trust enough to exchange information, you'll use a different set of metaphors.
I won't tell you how painful is to reach a point in which you trust enough a person (one will never trust a person entirely without having a positive affection for that person but and having some knowledge to act as defensive blackmail... you know, for just in case) and what are the consequences of picking a single wrong person to trust.
Do you think it the above were related with subversive political activities? Heck... the necessities of the everyday life... at a certain point, the meat/butter/sugar and some other items were rationed (you see, our "comrades" the communist Russians, needed them in larger amounts. Started to happen in early/mid '80-ies). Of course there was a black market (harshly punishable by law)... of course you needed a to speak a sort of "steganographic Tamarian code" with your black market supplier and agree to the price, quantity, delivery place, etc diluted in "a friend-to-friend chat over a glass of beer" half an hour long - even if recorded, that conversation would seem innocuous to any uninformed eavesdropper. And, for the sake of God... we were taking about 5 kg of beef, not overthrowing the government!!
But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack.
This is exactly one reason NOT to save any traffic for any of the citizens unless you have very good reasons to and you are made responsible of what happens with the recorded data. Take for instance the old copper phone lines wiretapping: it was the police that acquired, stored, handled and were responsible for recordings (letting aside the need of a warrant). Because they needed to support the cost for doing all these operations, the police have a good incentive to do it only when necessary.
Now, with the Internet traffic: it is the ISP to take care of "Internet tapping" (at the police request). Since the data is of no use to ISP (actually a burden to store and secure) - is it likely that the collected data will be equally secure? As the police "externalized" the cost of tapping and there is no legal need of a warrant for collection, is it likely that the process will be handled with the same care and not abused as for phone wire-tapping case?
But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack.
As long as there's nobody but me to take care about my privacy, I can sleep soundly on this account. Afterall, if my privacy is breached, it will be only myself to blame. But... this changes the moment a law says my privacy can be breached without a judicial oversight! I'll continue to do whatever I consider necessary on my personal computers and other computers I communicate with, but now I may need to change my communication strategy... what if a police person asks without a warrant for my traffic to be recorded and the anonymous "legions" decides to break into the ISP and the data I exchanged (and which I did not mean to store on any computer I don't trust trust) is made public?
Can we have a bit of sanity here? The laws are pretty clear that your online activity can only be recorded if the police specifically ask your ISP.
Yes, can we? Why should the police be able to ask the ISP to start recording without a warrant?
Since most Australians are not under investigation by the police, a VPN is hardly a "a necessity".
Without being required warrant, the police can ask the ISP to start recording persons that are not under any investigation. I don't know... say a policeman with a personal vendetta against a neighbour? A corrupt policeman on the payroll on NewsCorp or the like? Yes, I know...once the data is recorded, theoretically it requires a warrant to be legally accessed. But I think the anonymous stunt demonstrated that, once the data is recorded, it can be made accessible by illegal means.
Method 1:...
Method 2: Information seized from Tor nodes is anonymised but may not be encrypted.
Method 3: (partly uses method 2)
Thanks. Now, a personal answer your original question...
What illegal activities are you so desperate to hide?
Nothing illegal. But I was born and then grew up for 22 years in one of the Eastern European block under a communist regime. Unless you experience this on your own skin, I reckon you simply cannot understant how profound the everyday life is altered by knowing that a secret police has a file on every citizen and may be tracking what you do at any moment. In the present, I can't get rid of the distrust in regards with any king of power, political power especially... So, as long as it is not illegal (is it already?) I will tend to "stick it to the Man" even if I'm not doing anything illegal. I do hope to be dead by natural causes if/when anywhere on this world it will be illegal to have a private life without being asked "what do you have to hide".
Using a VPN has the disadvantage of being a single exit point, thus possibly subject to an international warrant to record the traffic (remember? - we are discussing this in relation to a law allowing Australia access to the "Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime", thus the more countries do the same, the less chances to find a VPN service that you can trust to anonymize you).
So, instead of paying a VPN service, why not running a Tor node or bridge? If you are willing to pay a VPN service, then paying for a "cloud" hosted Tor node/bridge should not be a problem to you (the prices are pretty much comparable, I guess). The more people would do this, the less capable would be anyone to track the data traffic of a certain person (unless they control a good majority of the exit nodes and are willing to spend time/effort/money to reconstitute a traffic that may exit randomly thought different nodes).
I've read some of the oddest, whackiest things about how subtly related information has resulted in law enforcement successfully prosecuting people who think VPN and other obfuscating services will hide their activities on the net.
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power.
They seemed to be against some previous bill, but approve this one. Am I reading it right? If so, then screw them.
Mate, I don't think you are reading right.
The current legislation allow the police wiretap phone calls with a valid warrant. Extra police power may be needed in regards with Internet traffic - because, even with a valid warrant, they can't "wiretap" the internet traffic without the ISP collaboration. To bring back the balance, there is a need of a law requiring the ISP to "wiretap". And, this would be this reform to police power the Ludlam may be thinking is necessary.
Now, for phone tapping, the pre-existence of a valid warrant is necessary. Why Internet should be different? Why the police should be able require an ISP to "retain traffic" even without a warrant - as required by this law opposed by Ludlam? Letting aside the matter of the "wiretapped person rights", why should the ISP pay for the storage and the cost of securing that storage (as one of the latest anonymous stunts was to show that any captured data by an ISP isn't that easy to secure?).
If I repeat my response I made to to someone else, it will be modded redundant. Read the linked article.... Oh what the hell, here:
I wouldn't worry too much.
"Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power."
It appears to me he's approving this so called "lite" version.
From It appears to me... to The bastards still approved of it is a bit of a distance (this 2nd citation is to show you I read your other reply). What if you are reading wrong?
E.g. what if "this law" != "this reform"? I.e. what if the greens think that:
- something supplementary needs to be legislated to enable the police work better in regards with Internet - this being the reform - but still oppose the retention of data by the ISP without a prior warrant - meaning they still don't support this law which allows data retention without a warrant.
I've been saying that these people are no different from the rest of the pack. Let's hope they get bumped out of office during their next election.
Unless you show that the greens vote for it, I would consider this a trolling post (factually incorrect and inflammatory). So... [citation needed] please.
Don't worry, as one of the original investors (probably one of the largest) they will probably end up with the largest slice of the recovered funds (ie the money they paid in to OnLive2 goes right back to them as a proportion of their original investment in OnLive1)
So if they are 50% of the debtors, they get 50% of their money back that they just paid for OnLive1.
Sounds like a great deal if you can get it.
Only if the "Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors" specifies the funds recovered from the liquidation is to be paid in the descending order of the credited amount (like in "pay the biggest creditors first, bad luck for smaller creditors if there are insufficient funds") and not proportional with the original credit/investment. Which would be very unusual.
the new conservative-liberal German Government that was elected in late 2009 declared: “Press Publishers shall not be discriminated against other disseminators of copyright protected works [e.g. film or music producers]. Therefore we aim for the introduction of a neighbouring right for press publishers to increase the protection of press publications on the Internet.”
First... a weird thing: are the press publishers in the same league as the copyright protected works? I know that an US court allowed FauxNews the right to serve "creative fiction" as news, but I thought this should be rather an exception than the norm.
Second... now, I know that's a fool hope, but I cannot stop myself wishing that the discrimination (... which is a wrong thing, right?...) would have been resolved by lowering the rights of the film or music producers instead of increasing the rights of the news publishers.
BTW guys, the page that I linked on the EFF site has a take action link down the page... (looks like it's a page for US citizens - asks for a simple ZIP code).
Now, in case you don't live in US (or don't like Greens but you may like some others)... OpenMedia.ca and a good bunch of many others run an international site which sends the message to some of the ministers in govts of all the countries involved in the TPP negotiations (I've done it and received some auto-confirmation emails from the.gov type of domains)
Com'on guys, doesn't ask for that much of an effort, don't wait for a "Wikipedia blackout day" to take a minimal action.
Slashdot Mirror
Serial sex crimes? Having consensual sex over a few days and staying in the morning to have breakfast together constitutes sex crimes?
It isn't the consensual sex that is the issue, but the nonconsensual sex, i.e. the rape and molestation. I'm not sure how you missed or misunderstood that.
Can you prove the rape and molestation? By other means than "he said, she said"?
Speech *and* actions have consequences.
Unless you speak as AC, it seems - then suddenly the speech becomes inconsequential.
The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf
Reading the linked document, I don't think charged is a correct term to describe the situation, even if considering the particularities of the Swedish law into account. The prosecutor has the intention to prosecute but can not do so unless the investigation is complete (which is actually the reason for the arrest warrant).
Probably the closest term to use would be potentially accused?
The guy is not a saint, and he is a bit of an ass, but without paper guarantee that he will NOT be extradited out of sweden at any time in the future and will be allowed to leave sweden by whatever means and in whatever direction he chooses once he has faced his charges in swedish court and served any jail time or done whatever service is due because of his crime. Without that he is perfectly legitimate in being fucking terrified of going back there.
There's a number of legitimate reasons preventing the Swedish government from issuing a guarantee like that. For example, Swedish government officials are constitutionally prohibited from commenting on or interfering with individual cases.
From what I read, individual ministers do not have the right to influence or decide the handling of individual cases at government agencies How's this related with Assange's case? Is Assange's case under the authority of a govt agency?
In any case, Swedish govt (not individual ministers) CAN - if they want to - guarantee Assange won't be extradited to US without interfering with the "rape" case (other than breaking the current stand-off and making the case's progress possible).
Do you have any links to back this up? It's obvious that Equador is independent of the US's control, but this is the first time I've heard of long term exclusivity contracts on Equador's oil contracts.
Maybe not exclusivity... but consider:
Petroecuador was to hold a 60 percent stake in the joint venture, and Sinopec the remaining 40 percent
China hands over $1bn for Ecuador oil
China's CNPC in talks with Ecuador over $12.5 bln refinery
Ecuador’s Rating Raised By S&P On China Loans, Oil Proceeds
But if you had nothing sitting around gathering dust, how much would it cost you to buy an equivalent amount of hardware? Keeping in mind depreciation, power , network access and infrastructure, and physical space. You also pay per hour, so if you don't need it one week, shut it all down and pay nothing. If you need something done very quick, pay for 100 cores for 1 hour instead of 1 core for 100 hours.
At the personal level (not speaking of businesses here): AMD x8 FX-8150 3.6/4.2 GHz, 32GB RAM, 1TB HDD - DYI from all-new parts, no monitor - approx $750. Let's make it a full $1750 to allow for power delivered by "gilded electrons", "diamond optical fiber" supported internet access and a bouquet of flowers once a month for the "better half" to make it for the physical storage space. $1750 vs $175/month...10 month worth of VPS in Google's "compute" cloud (with 1 core with 4GB RAM).
What about bandwidth? What about support? What about being able to be up and running on a new box in a few minutes when the old one takes a dump? You are totally missing the point of cloud services like this.
Read again the thread above. Start with the "I dunno" message on top.
It's not supposed to compete with your desktop machine.
Ah, that is the quux of the matter. Except that, as I suggested, your reply is better directed to the OP.
But if you had nothing sitting around gathering dust, how much would it cost you to buy an equivalent amount of hardware? Keeping in mind depreciation, power , network access and infrastructure, and physical space. You also pay per hour, so if you don't need it one week, shut it all down and pay nothing. If you need something done very quick, pay for 100 cores for 1 hour instead of 1 core for 100 hours.
At the personal level (not speaking of businesses here): AMD x8 FX-8150 3.6/4.2 GHz, 32GB RAM, 1TB HDD - DYI from all-new parts, no monitor - approx $750. Let's make it a full $1750 to allow for power delivered by "gilded electrons", "diamond optical fiber" supported internet access and a bouquet of flowers once a month for the "better half" to make it for the physical storage space.
$1750 vs $175/month...10 month worth of VPS in Google's "compute" cloud (with 1 core with 4GB RAM).
I wonder what would happen if we had a band like pussy riot in Australia. I'd imagine probably not the big hoo-haa going on in Russia about it at the moment.
This is serious, Mum... other times, though and no conflict with the power (looking on how the Assange saga evolves, I tend to agree with you).
Brains operate using strings of binary pulses. The frequency is important, yes, but it's still a binary encoding. A neuron fires, or it doesn't.
No it is not a binary encoding.
The fact that is using a rectangular wave for the transport carrier is irrelevant - the encoding of the transport/processing is done by frequency encoding.
For storage, it is the activation threshold of the synapses that is important, and the threshold is again not binary.
Yeah it's a shitty life. What I was referring to is metaphorically walking in a crowd wearing a stocking over your head so people can't see your face and you can be anonymous. People won't recognise you, but you will sure stand out. That's what using Tor does - makes you stand out.
The defence against that is "to make from wearing a stocking a fashion statement", so that a majority of people will start using Tor/VPN/encryption. In my opinion: it is needed. If the liberties are slowly eroded and one reaches all the way down to the rock-bottom of civil rights loss, one will need to use all sorts of obfuscation just to survive.
This is why I say the OP's "Ask slashdot" is relevant, the matter should not be treated lightly (like "what do you have to hide") and sharing the information on how to technically do it is beneficial.
Unfortunately, I believe that "secret police" is EXACTLY the path we are on. I hope it never becomes like what you had to endure.
Fortunately, Australia have quite a huge outback. If they needed the govt to build the copper phone network first and the NBN now, I guess it won't be too soon to have CCTV cameras in every pub with no beer. Besides, the women glow to much for the CCTV, the men will plunder them and Vegemite either will make your face unrecognisable (disgust grimace) or can be used in small enough quantities (less than for a sandwich) to smear the lenses of CCTV-es. Anyway, cover or not, she'll be apples for a while.
There is already a western routine domestic surveillance culture.
This is why I think using encryption as one way to maintain privacy is not paranoia, but the first line of defence against power grabs and nanny states. I wrote the above not to gain sympathy but to show that no matter what the govt would be doing, a population can - and will - get around any type of surveillance once it gets too intrusive.
Personally, I'm convinced it's not only moral to do it, but almost an obligation to do it. I mean: if you can't defend your very own privacy (a thing that involves/pertains to yourself only), how can you expect to be able to defend even a small group - like your family?
Go right ahead and use Tor and VPN's and anything else that will protect you. The secret police won't know what you are doing, but the fact that you are using Tor and VPN's to hide what you are doing will indicate that you are up to something and you'll be deleted.
Do the Western countries already run "secret police"? If not, do you want to reach that point?
Because, let me share you from my experience... if you reach that point, the everyday languages that you'll be using will be derivatives of the Tamarian culture. Yes, that's right, languages at plural: with every person that you trust enough to exchange information, you'll use a different set of metaphors.
I won't tell you how painful is to reach a point in which you trust enough a person (one will never trust a person entirely without having a positive affection for that person but and having some knowledge to act as defensive blackmail... you know, for just in case) and what are the consequences of picking a single wrong person to trust.
Do you think it the above were related with subversive political activities? Heck... the necessities of the everyday life... at a certain point, the meat/butter/sugar and some other items were rationed (you see, our "comrades" the communist Russians, needed them in larger amounts. Started to happen in early/mid '80-ies). Of course there was a black market (harshly punishable by law)... of course you needed a to speak a sort of "steganographic Tamarian code" with your black market supplier and agree to the price, quantity, delivery place, etc diluted in "a friend-to-friend chat over a glass of beer" half an hour long - even if recorded, that conversation would seem innocuous to any uninformed eavesdropper.
And, for the sake of God... we were taking about 5 kg of beef, not overthrowing the government!!
But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack.
This is exactly one reason NOT to save any traffic for any of the citizens unless you have very good reasons to and you are made responsible of what happens with the recorded data. Take for instance the old copper phone lines wiretapping: it was the police that acquired, stored, handled and were responsible for recordings (letting aside the need of a warrant). Because they needed to support the cost for doing all these operations, the police have a good incentive to do it only when necessary.
Now, with the Internet traffic: it is the ISP to take care of "Internet tapping" (at the police request). Since the data is of no use to ISP (actually a burden to store and secure) - is it likely that the collected data will be equally secure?
As the police "externalized" the cost of tapping and there is no legal need of a warrant for collection, is it likely that the process will be handled with the same care and not abused as for phone wire-tapping case?
But I don't think that anyone putting data on any computer should have the expectation of privacy simply because there are too many avenues of attack.
As long as there's nobody but me to take care about my privacy, I can sleep soundly on this account. Afterall, if my privacy is breached, it will be only myself to blame.
But... this changes the moment a law says my privacy can be breached without a judicial oversight! I'll continue to do whatever I consider necessary on my personal computers and other computers I communicate with, but now I may need to change my communication strategy... what if a police person asks without a warrant for my traffic to be recorded and the anonymous "legions" decides to break into the ISP and the data I exchanged (and which I did not mean to store on any computer I don't trust trust) is made public?
Can we have a bit of sanity here? The laws are pretty clear that your online activity can only be recorded if the police specifically ask your ISP.
Yes, can we? Why should the police be able to ask the ISP to start recording without a warrant?
Since most Australians are not under investigation by the police, a VPN is hardly a "a necessity".
Without being required warrant, the police can ask the ISP to start recording persons that are not under any investigation. I don't know... say a policeman with a personal vendetta against a neighbour? A corrupt policeman on the payroll on NewsCorp or the like? Yes, I know...once the data is recorded, theoretically it requires a warrant to be legally accessed. But I think the anonymous stunt demonstrated that, once the data is recorded, it can be made accessible by illegal means.
Method 1:...
Method 2: Information seized from Tor nodes is anonymised but may not be encrypted.
Method 3: (partly uses method 2)
Thanks. Now, a personal answer your original question...
What illegal activities are you so desperate to hide?
Nothing illegal. But I was born and then grew up for 22 years in one of the Eastern European block under a communist regime. Unless you experience this on your own skin, I reckon you simply cannot understant how profound the everyday life is altered by knowing that a secret police has a file on every citizen and may be tracking what you do at any moment.
In the present, I can't get rid of the distrust in regards with any king of power, political power especially... So, as long as it is not illegal (is it already?) I will tend to "stick it to the Man" even if I'm not doing anything illegal. I do hope to be dead by natural causes if/when anywhere on this world it will be illegal to have a private life without being asked "what do you have to hide".
Using a VPN has the disadvantage of being a single exit point, thus possibly subject to an international warrant to record the traffic (remember? - we are discussing this in relation to a law allowing Australia access to the "Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime", thus the more countries do the same, the less chances to find a VPN service that you can trust to anonymize you).
So, instead of paying a VPN service, why not running a Tor node or bridge? If you are willing to pay a VPN service, then paying for a "cloud" hosted Tor node/bridge should not be a problem to you (the prices are pretty much comparable, I guess).
The more people would do this, the less capable would be anyone to track the data traffic of a certain person (unless they control a good majority of the exit nodes and are willing to spend time/effort/money to reconstitute a traffic that may exit randomly thought different nodes).
I've read some of the oddest, whackiest things about how subtly related information has resulted in law enforcement successfully prosecuting people who think VPN and other obfuscating services will hide their activities on the net.
Can you please share?
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power.
They seemed to be against some previous bill, but approve this one. Am I reading it right? If so, then screw them.
Mate, I don't think you are reading right.
The current legislation allow the police wiretap phone calls with a valid warrant. Extra police power may be needed in regards with Internet traffic - because, even with a valid warrant, they can't "wiretap" the internet traffic without the ISP collaboration. To bring back the balance, there is a need of a law requiring the ISP to "wiretap". And, this would be this reform to police power the Ludlam may be thinking is necessary.
Now, for phone tapping, the pre-existence of a valid warrant is necessary. Why Internet should be different? Why the police should be able require an ISP to "retain traffic" even without a warrant - as required by this law opposed by Ludlam?
Letting aside the matter of the "wiretapped person rights", why should the ISP pay for the storage and the cost of securing that storage (as one of the latest anonymous stunts was to show that any captured data by an ISP isn't that easy to secure?).
If I repeat my response I made to to someone else, it will be modded redundant. Read the linked article.... Oh what the hell, here:
I wouldn't worry too much.
"Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power."
It appears to me he's approving this so called "lite" version.
From It appears to me... to The bastards still approved of it is a bit of a distance (this 2nd citation is to show you I read your other reply). What if you are reading wrong?
E.g. what if "this law" != "this reform"? I.e. what if the greens think that:
- something supplementary needs to be legislated to enable the police work better in regards with Internet - this being the reform
- but still oppose the retention of data by the ISP without a prior warrant - meaning they still don't support this law which allows data retention without a warrant.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
I've been saying that these people are no different from the rest of the pack. Let's hope they get bumped out of office during their next election.
Unless you show that the greens vote for it, I would consider this a trolling post (factually incorrect and inflammatory). So... [citation needed] please.
Fuel economy issues aside, how do they plan to find these islands of plastic if they're in the middle of the ocean?
Why, that's not hard. They wait for the guys in the first TFS link to finish building their plastic island, then go there and do their chairs from it.
...as it is not widely known.
Actually - if there would be a real (non-phony) system that is mimed by this one...
Posting it on Slashdot sounds like a great idea. :)
I wonder how many (would be or accomplished) burglars read /.? Should one start a "/. poll"?
Don't worry, as one of the original investors (probably one of the largest) they will probably end up with the largest slice of the recovered funds (ie the money they paid in to OnLive2 goes right back to them as a proportion of their original investment in OnLive1)
So if they are 50% of the debtors, they get 50% of their money back that they just paid for OnLive1.
Sounds like a great deal if you can get it.
Only if the "Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors" specifies the funds recovered from the liquidation is to be paid in the descending order of the credited amount (like in "pay the biggest creditors first, bad luck for smaller creditors if there are insufficient funds") and not proportional with the original credit/investment. Which would be very unusual.
the new conservative-liberal German Government that was elected in late 2009 declared: “Press Publishers shall not be discriminated against other disseminators of copyright protected works [e.g. film or music producers]. Therefore we aim for the introduction of a neighbouring right for press publishers to increase the protection of press publications on the Internet.”
First... a weird thing: are the press publishers in the same league as the copyright protected works? I know that an US court allowed FauxNews the right to serve "creative fiction" as news, but I thought this should be rather an exception than the norm.
Second... now, I know that's a fool hope, but I cannot stop myself wishing that the discrimination (... which is a wrong thing, right?...) would have been resolved by lowering the rights of the film or music producers instead of increasing the rights of the news publishers.
BTW guys, the page that I linked on the EFF site has a take action link down the page... (looks like it's a page for US citizens - asks for a simple ZIP code).
Now, in case you don't live in US (or don't like Greens but you may like some others)... .gov type of domains)
OpenMedia.ca and a good bunch of many others run an international site which sends the message to some of the ministers in govts of all the countries involved in the TPP negotiations (I've done it and received some auto-confirmation emails from the
Com'on guys, doesn't ask for that much of an effort, don't wait for a "Wikipedia blackout day" to take a minimal action.