Um, what do you think drives the legal system? The law is pure politics. It doesn't matter. The cat and mouse will just have to run its course until people get tired of the war.
Easy. Create propaganda on the 'evils' of encryption and the public itself will demand the back doors to let the authorities in. Old trick, still works. It's a Pavlov thing.
Cops won't get any sympathy from me on that one. Ah well, the good thing is when the big chat companies fall down on privacy, any developer can fill in with their own. I don't see a problem in that regard. Of course that only means anything if the encryption is truly effective.
Or maybe he dumped it on a couple of suckers, and the new version is better. Being end-to-end is an improvement for what it's worth. It would be silly not to take the deal when you're giving up something already obsolete. Damn thing could be a honeypot, who knows? I wouldn't use a damn computer if I wanted privacy anyway. Please, save save the righteous indignation for the big screen. It's so overdone.
12 hours max, if the airport is closed. It only requires a lot of people, airplanes, and trucks to deliver. And we got plenty, all over the country. It's a simple question how much you want to spend and how fast.
And I can predict hurricane damage without Twitter. If you build your house out of concrete, above sea level, I'll bet odds it will stay intact. The biggest problem is frailty of the infrastructure, shoddy construction, etc. You got insurance, right?:-)
The people chose between Obama and McCain. I don't play the lesser evil game, but for the sake of argument, strictly between these two, which do you think is the better choice in regards to encryption? You will not find what you're looking for with a republican or a democrat, and since most voters do play the lesser evil game, don't expect any improvement.
Well, yeah! And it's working. Public opinion is turning against privacy, free speech, and other rights. There's a whole bunch of people who want to gut the entire bill of rights and beyond, like the 13th and 14th amendments.
The police can bash down your door and invade your house with drawn weapons -- but only if they have a warrant. Now you may argue that even with warrants they're often abusing their power, and I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean I don't think they should ever be able to do that.
Are you really ready to deny me the right to build my impenetrable fortress? Let's all remember, 'legitimate' 'reasonable' and 'probable' is determined by consensus, very expensive lawyers, a coin toss, and the majority of people who vote (implied consent, which applies to the 49% also), not necessarily objective irrefutable fact. It's a slippery fish.
Oh please! Tell me you won't take a billion or two. And so what? They're making another service. If they sell it, they might make another after that, turtles all the way down. Just move to the next service they create. If I remember right, Skype encryption was difficult to break. So call this one version 2, and ignore Microsoft's version.
Holding housing off the market is age old stuff. Real estate enjoys price supports as much as agriculture, oil, insurance, and banking. Speculation works in strange ways. Yes, it can be more profitable to keep an empty unused lot.
And you too, can stop waving your hands about 'conspiracy'. It is merely people serving a common cause. Prices are determined at the top.
I read your position. If I am to believe the quote I grabbed, you seem to believe it's hopeless, that only revolt will change anything. It won't. It is merely a reset button to start the cycle over. And all I'm saying is that revolt can easily be avoided by voting for somebody else, otherwise you are only revolting to.. I mean, against each other.
Actually, after living in the city for many years, very pleasantly, I might add, I now live in my very own bought and paid for house, but thanks for playing.
If you believe that your vote for a 3rd party will make your 3rd party candidate the winner, I can say with certainty that you are delusional.
Again. the point is being missed. The voters have nobody to blame but themselves on who wins. That's it, nothing else.
Are you signed up for the revolt? That is the only way you are going to get someone in charge who is not an authoritarian, wanting the FBI to get their way.
That's complete nonsense. Should people revolt against the politicians they just voted for, or worse, reelected? Don't be silly. They would be revolting against their own stupidity, and making a big mess. Right now the monolith (R/D) party gets 98.4% percent of the vote and a ~95% reelection rate. Work on that before bleating about 'revolt', please, for the children.
If you want to look a little deeper, you will find that the average voter is quite conservative/authoritarian. That is why authoritarians are in charge. There is no other reason.
"Conspiracy"... Always with the hand waving. Rental prices are set by the real estate industry, just like the price of oil is set by the producers, and lending rates are fraudulently decided by Libor. If we're going to evict anybody, start with the slumlords, condemn and seize the property, the tenants can pay their rent to the city until it finds a buyer/manager that will do the job. Of course that requires that the voters vote out the corrupt politicians that are responsible, which means they have to be more active in the process, especially the renters, which outnumber the owners by a long shot. Don't sweat it, ain't gonna happen. Sorry, your grade school social studies don't apply.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the political system not the legal system.
Um, what do you think drives the legal system? The law is pure politics. It doesn't matter. The cat and mouse will just have to run its course until people get tired of the war.
How can the legal system push on this[?]
Easy. Create propaganda on the 'evils' of encryption and the public itself will demand the back doors to let the authorities in. Old trick, still works. It's a Pavlov thing.
Cops won't get any sympathy from me on that one. Ah well, the good thing is when the big chat companies fall down on privacy, any developer can fill in with their own. I don't see a problem in that regard. Of course that only means anything if the encryption is truly effective.
If you die, you'd better give two week's notice
But don't post them. Use them for blackmail when they don't do their homework or clean their room.
That's what I used to say about Cheney and Lieberman way back when. It's a tough choice.
Or maybe he dumped it on a couple of suckers, and the new version is better. Being end-to-end is an improvement for what it's worth. It would be silly not to take the deal when you're giving up something already obsolete. Damn thing could be a honeypot, who knows? I wouldn't use a damn computer if I wanted privacy anyway. Please, save save the righteous indignation for the big screen. It's so overdone.
Constantly hopping from one provider to another is a massive PITA,
Gee, I'm sorry. Maybe a more comfortable chair is in order?
Oh no! I misplaced my post!
Hey, I was convinced. I asked the teacher how much they wanted for one of the desks.
12 hours max, if the airport is closed. It only requires a lot of people, airplanes, and trucks to deliver. And we got plenty, all over the country. It's a simple question how much you want to spend and how fast.
And I can predict hurricane damage without Twitter. If you build your house out of concrete, above sea level, I'll bet odds it will stay intact. The biggest problem is frailty of the infrastructure, shoddy construction, etc. You got insurance, right? :-)
They are using the bank's encryption, not their own. That's an important difference.
"Reasonable" and "probable" are hardly absolute! The door is pretty wide open.
The people chose between Obama and McCain. I don't play the lesser evil game, but for the sake of argument, strictly between these two, which do you think is the better choice in regards to encryption? You will not find what you're looking for with a republican or a democrat, and since most voters do play the lesser evil game, don't expect any improvement.
Well, yeah! And it's working. Public opinion is turning against privacy, free speech, and other rights. There's a whole bunch of people who want to gut the entire bill of rights and beyond, like the 13th and 14th amendments.
The police can bash down your door and invade your house with drawn weapons -- but only if they have a warrant. Now you may argue that even with warrants they're often abusing their power, and I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean I don't think they should ever be able to do that.
Are you really ready to deny me the right to build my impenetrable fortress? Let's all remember, 'legitimate' 'reasonable' and 'probable' is determined by consensus, very expensive lawyers, a coin toss, and the majority of people who vote (implied consent, which applies to the 49% also), not necessarily objective irrefutable fact. It's a slippery fish.
Oh please! Tell me you won't take a billion or two. And so what? They're making another service. If they sell it, they might make another after that, turtles all the way down. Just move to the next service they create. If I remember right, Skype encryption was difficult to break. So call this one version 2, and ignore Microsoft's version.
Well, it was successful. Nobody died from nuclear attack during that time.
Holding housing off the market is age old stuff. Real estate enjoys price supports as much as agriculture, oil, insurance, and banking. Speculation works in strange ways. Yes, it can be more profitable to keep an empty unused lot.
And you too, can stop waving your hands about 'conspiracy'. It is merely people serving a common cause. Prices are determined at the top.
I read your position. If I am to believe the quote I grabbed, you seem to believe it's hopeless, that only revolt will change anything. It won't. It is merely a reset button to start the cycle over. And all I'm saying is that revolt can easily be avoided by voting for somebody else, otherwise you are only revolting to.. I mean, against each other.
Yep, everybody's a statistic....
Actually, after living in the city for many years, very pleasantly, I might add, I now live in my very own bought and paid for house, but thanks for playing.
The city (via the voters) has the right to decide how the land is used.
If you believe that your vote for a 3rd party will make your 3rd party candidate the winner, I can say with certainty that you are delusional.
Again. the point is being missed. The voters have nobody to blame but themselves on who wins. That's it, nothing else.
Are you signed up for the revolt? That is the only way you are going to get someone in charge who is not an authoritarian, wanting the FBI to get their way.
That's complete nonsense. Should people revolt against the politicians they just voted for, or worse, reelected? Don't be silly. They would be revolting against their own stupidity, and making a big mess. Right now the monolith (R/D) party gets 98.4% percent of the vote and a ~95% reelection rate. Work on that before bleating about 'revolt', please, for the children.
If you want to look a little deeper, you will find that the average voter is quite conservative/authoritarian. That is why authoritarians are in charge. There is no other reason.
"Conspiracy"... Always with the hand waving. Rental prices are set by the real estate industry, just like the price of oil is set by the producers, and lending rates are fraudulently decided by Libor. If we're going to evict anybody, start with the slumlords, condemn and seize the property, the tenants can pay their rent to the city until it finds a buyer/manager that will do the job. Of course that requires that the voters vote out the corrupt politicians that are responsible, which means they have to be more active in the process, especially the renters, which outnumber the owners by a long shot. Don't sweat it, ain't gonna happen. Sorry, your grade school social studies don't apply.