You mean people actually still think that web-based, free emails are secure?
But of course they are, they have the big pictures of padlocks on the front page... and you even get that certificate popup thing, that means it's SUPER secure!
This would be more exciting if it wasn't for the fact that the majority of people outside Slashdot think a kernel release is when you can see corn in your poop.
You could just use a card reader, but the camera craps the pictures into 234897234 different folders -- and he's nowhere near good enough with computers to be able to deal with that.
One would assume the camera generates unique (or at least very seldom-repeated) filenames for each photo... I don't see what is difficult about a recursive 'move' command? I'm a complete noob @ programming but it only takes a one-line batch file..
<20 minutes later>
Okay, damn you for making me work it out, here you go:P
File: dumpdir.bat
@echo off set listfile=c:\temp\list.txt if "%1"=="." (echo %cd%>%listfile%) else (echo %1>%listfile%) dir %1/b/s/a:d>>%listfile% for/f "tokens=*" %%s in (%listfile%) do (xcopy "%%s"%4 %2 %3/v/f/z)
And this can be called with:
Normal usage:dumpdir path1 path2
Test mode (lists files only): dumpdir path1 path2/L
Restrict to matching string: dumpdir path1 path2/R \*.ext (backslash required)
Note that path1 and path2 must be enclosed in quotes if they include spaces - and if you are running the batch from the directory you are wanting to consolidate, you can use a period instead of typing out the path (e.g, dumpdir . c:\pics).
Case 1: Cop plants real meth (not bicarb) in your car. You have to explain it (i.e. prove the cop committed a crime), or go to prison for a while.
Parallel to this law: Cop doesn't plant anything, points at the empty boot of your car, says "that's an invisible, odourless, dimension-shifted bag of contraband we can't touch, see or otherwise detect, but I think it's there and you've just hidden it beyond the ability of our tools to reach! Get 'im, boys!"
Case 2: Cop plants data file filled with random data on your laptop. You have to explain it (i.e. prove the cop committed a crime, or prove it isn't an encrypted file (impossible)), or go to prison for a while.
In both cases the assertion of a crime is not enough (in case 1 he has to plant real meth in your car, in case 2 he has to plant a random file on your hdd), and in both cases the cop has to commit a crime (tampering with evidence, or whatever) in order to put you away.
I still don't understand what powers this new law gives to a corrupt cop that don't already exist.
And now after this law:
Case 1: Cop doesn't have to plant anything, just points at random block of free space "That's an encrypted hidden partition, get 'im boys!"
Case 2: Cop doesn't have to plant anything, points at that test container file from an encryption program you ran a trial of a year ago and forgot about, it might contain a text document with your CC# or something and that's all, but Mr. Poh-leece-man can up and assert "Omg, encrypted kiddie porn! And encrypted nuke schematics! And encrypted blueprints for the White House with drawings that say 'execute tha prezadent here'! Get 'im, boys!"
Because you can demonstrate that the bag of bicarb in your boot is not meth, but you can't demonstrate that the random block of free space on your computer is not an encrypted video tutorial on how to build a nuke, delivered by a masturbating 14yo al-Qaeda operative.
Nothing has to be planted. Assertion that a crime has taken place is all that is required. In an extreme case, accusation=conviction (if the law is applied to the letter)... not good.
Perhaps the corrupt cop "found" a stash of meth in your car. Perhaps they "found" kiddie porn on your laptop. You're just as much in trouble as you would be if the "found" an encrypted file.
What abuse does this law allow that isn't already possible using other laws (and please don't flame me for going against the flow here) ?
Except in this situation he doesn't have to actually plant anything, he can just imagine it's there. The officer doesn't have to commit a crime (case tampering or whatever you'd call planting evidence) to throw you in the slammer *without* evidence.
Well no, you could have your truecrypt install on a usb key, on a chain around the neck of that pink unicorn in your secret basement they also never found. (But it MIGHT be there!!)
I found this system to work well.
For any non-critical passwords (mainly websites/forums), I have a specific string I base my passes on (let's say it's "passwordssuck"), and each site has a slightly different permutation on this. If I'm making a password for 'website.com', it might be passwssuck or, if caps/nums/symbols are needed, something like p4ssW$suck... I would try to make any required permutations apply first to the website-specific additions, then to the leftmost possible other characters (no number equivalent for W or P so use the A).
To make it less obvious to an unscrupulous forum/site operator that you are using such a system, it can be better to use something that doesn't look like words, such as the first letters of words in a memorable passphrase (e.g, "strong passwords protect your account from being compromised" = sppyafbc = (in the website.com example) 5ppyaW$fbc.... Looks completely random but it's memorable if you use this same system everywhere, and there aren't many things to try if you forget the exact symbol substitution etc for a given site.
So slashdot pass could become 5ppya$Dfbc, midgetpron.com you use $ppy4Mpfbc, and so on - so long as you follow the same ruleset each time you'll never forget them.
I haven't seen any forum sites that enforce password expiry, obviously that'd screw you over.
I'll post again about those changing passes, but need to post this now before my flaky mobile safari crashes again.:p
Slashdot Mirror
You mean people actually still think that web-based, free emails are secure?
But of course they are, they have the big pictures of padlocks on the front page... and you even get that certificate popup thing, that means it's SUPER secure!
This would be more exciting if it wasn't for the fact that the majority of people outside Slashdot think a kernel release is when you can see corn in your poop.
You could just use a card reader, but the camera craps the pictures into 234897234 different folders -- and he's nowhere near good enough with computers to be able to deal with that.
One would assume the camera generates unique (or at least very seldom-repeated) filenames for each photo... I don't see what is difficult about a recursive 'move' command? I'm a complete noob @ programming but it only takes a one-line batch file..
<20 minutes later>
Okay, damn you for making me work it out, here you go :P
File: dumpdir.bat
And this can be called with:
Normal usage:dumpdir path1 path2
Test mode (lists files only): dumpdir path1 path2 /L
Restrict to matching string: dumpdir path1 path2 /R \*.ext (backslash required)
Note that path1 and path2 must be enclosed in quotes if they include spaces - and if you are running the batch from the directory you are wanting to consolidate, you can use a period instead of typing out the path (e.g, dumpdir . c:\pics).
Hope that helps someone ;)
Its overkill until you want to take a decent picture in really bad lighting without a flash.
Stop peeping in her window bro, that's not cool.
I think you misunderstood me.
Nope, I'll demonstrate:
Case 1: Cop plants real meth (not bicarb) in your car. You have to explain it (i.e. prove the cop committed a crime), or go to prison for a while.
Parallel to this law: Cop doesn't plant anything, points at the empty boot of your car, says "that's an invisible, odourless, dimension-shifted bag of contraband we can't touch, see or otherwise detect, but I think it's there and you've just hidden it beyond the ability of our tools to reach! Get 'im, boys!"
Case 2: Cop plants data file filled with random data on your laptop. You have to explain it (i.e. prove the cop committed a crime, or prove it isn't an encrypted file (impossible)), or go to prison for a while.
In both cases the assertion of a crime is not enough (in case 1 he has to plant real meth in your car, in case 2 he has to plant a random file on your hdd), and in both cases the cop has to commit a crime (tampering with evidence, or whatever) in order to put you away.
I still don't understand what powers this new law gives to a corrupt cop that don't already exist.
And now after this law:
Case 1: Cop doesn't have to plant anything, just points at random block of free space "That's an encrypted hidden partition, get 'im boys!"
Case 2: Cop doesn't have to plant anything, points at that test container file from an encryption program you ran a trial of a year ago and forgot about, it might contain a text document with your CC# or something and that's all, but Mr. Poh-leece-man can up and assert "Omg, encrypted kiddie porn! And encrypted nuke schematics! And encrypted blueprints for the White House with drawings that say 'execute tha prezadent here'! Get 'im, boys!"
I thought it was Carmen Sandiego's hat, because using that tricky hackery Linux stuff makes you a sneaky bugger!
Because you can demonstrate that the bag of bicarb in your boot is not meth, but you can't demonstrate that the random block of free space on your computer is not an encrypted video tutorial on how to build a nuke, delivered by a masturbating 14yo al-Qaeda operative.
Nothing has to be planted. Assertion that a crime has taken place is all that is required. In an extreme case, accusation=conviction (if the law is applied to the letter)... not good.
There's an easy way to avoid this legislation: don't store your valuable data in the UK.
Or your free space blocks that could be mistaken for encrypted terrorist blueprints. Oh no, you still go to jail!
Perhaps the corrupt cop "found" a stash of meth in your car. Perhaps they "found" kiddie porn on your laptop. You're just as much in trouble as you would be if the "found" an encrypted file.
What abuse does this law allow that isn't already possible using other laws (and please don't flame me for going against the flow here) ?
Except in this situation he doesn't have to actually plant anything, he can just imagine it's there. The officer doesn't have to commit a crime (case tampering or whatever you'd call planting evidence) to throw you in the slammer *without* evidence.
Well no, you could have your truecrypt install on a usb key, on a chain around the neck of that pink unicorn in your secret basement they also never found. (But it MIGHT be there!!)
I found this system to work well. For any non-critical passwords (mainly websites/forums), I have a specific string I base my passes on (let's say it's "passwordssuck"), and each site has a slightly different permutation on this. If I'm making a password for 'website.com', it might be passwssuck or, if caps/nums/symbols are needed, something like p4ssW$suck... I would try to make any required permutations apply first to the website-specific additions, then to the leftmost possible other characters (no number equivalent for W or P so use the A). To make it less obvious to an unscrupulous forum/site operator that you are using such a system, it can be better to use something that doesn't look like words, such as the first letters of words in a memorable passphrase (e.g, "strong passwords protect your account from being compromised" = sppyafbc = (in the website.com example) 5ppyaW$fbc .... Looks completely random but it's memorable if you use this same system everywhere, and there aren't many things to try if you forget the exact symbol substitution etc for a given site.
So slashdot pass could become 5ppya$Dfbc, midgetpron.com you use $ppy4Mpfbc, and so on - so long as you follow the same ruleset each time you'll never forget them.
I haven't seen any forum sites that enforce password expiry, obviously that'd screw you over.
I'll post again about those changing passes, but need to post this now before my flaky mobile safari crashes again. :p