Why Read Receipt? ICQ didn't have one? Online Status? Do it like Whatsapp "last message from X" (a bit different, but fair enough). Allow to explicitly tell "send i-am-online to X".
Here in germany, the tv companies went another road. Now they use overlays on the movie for advertisment (additional to the breaks). They not only place them above the bottom of the movie (instead of inside the black bars, when there are some), but they even tried to awful extensions - Movie zoomes out. Blue border, to the left a video advertisment, to the right the movie - A Fullscreen Overlay (with some transparent non-square border) over the full movie. In an horror movie in an thrilling scene. Pretty desperate. Or pretty evil. Or both.
1) Disable Google Phishing protection. Because it sends urls to google and because it updates the blocklist using a tracking cookie (google wrkey) 2) Install Adblock and Noscript
... how microsoft installs and uninstalls software on our pcs via updates. You install an update and expect some bugfixes and improvments and end up with a new program installed. You install the next update and the program will be uninstalled. That's not how updates are supposed to work. And it's scary, what ms might install in the future via an update.
You get everything on other ones as well. And it even lasts longer, as a private tracker just disappears, while a magnet link keeps working (and brings several opentrackers in its meta informations).
Evidence is something, which cannot be proven wrong. A witness' statement is no real evidence, but a (strong) indication, if you're not the witness yourself. This means, when i am not guilty, there cannot be *evidence*, which does not mean i cannot be sentenced. But this is then based on weaker indications. And some real evidence, that you're not guilty can of course beat this and safe your ass.
Maybe i am wrong with the word "evidence" as non-native speaker. I see it like a proof in the sense of a mathematical proof. Something, which is correct without any doubt and cannot be proven wrong. So like a broken glass is an evidence for the claim "someone broke the glass", but not for the claim "the only person in the room broke the glass". There is a strong indication, that the only person in the room did it, but you cannot finally be sure, because nobody saw him doing it. When there is a witness, that the glass was broken before he entered the room, it would of course help to prove him innocent, so he cannot be sentenced because of the fact that he most probably was the one, who broke the glass.
The point is, you do not need to claim you have forgotten it. You can keep silent and it should not speak against you. Then having forgotten the password needs to be considered as an option as well. You do not need to possibly incriminate yourself and this has nothing to do with being guilty or not. Just think about it, you are in court, nervous and axieous and really cannot remember the password exactly. You state this under oath and when you finally get your hardware back and start using it and remember the password again, they sentence you for perjury, because they assume you lied before.
If it's a dead man switch you set up in advance, you cannot. Using such a thing isn't illegal and when it's too late to use it when you're for some time in jail... not your fault.
being paranoid this isn't required to be true. Change your password to something new hard to remember, write it down. Police knocks? Destroy the piece of paper.
IIRC there is a paper about choosing passwords (or other means by authentication? Would need to search it) you cannot disclose. They introduce some scheme, which you cannot reproduce when you feel pressed to do it.
When i am innocent and accused of anything, nothing should happen when i stay silent all the way. If anything happens without any evidence (which cannot be there, because i am innocent) and they require me to prove my innocence, we've lost our liberty.
> They would not have been able to get a warrant without having probable cause search his home. Most likely there is evidence on those hard drives. Ouch! If this would be enough reason to say "there is something on the drive", you could sentence him on the spot. Never never never assume someone is guilty, just because he's accused of something.
So, when does it exist? I can produce some file, which gives any content i want, when i xor it with the crypto container. Its all about 0 and 1 and what you want is to feed additional data into an algorithm to produce something from existing data. The algorithm is AES and what you want is a password. But that's only one interpretation of the data. Another may be to display it as an image, taking the bytes as pixel data. So you always use the file to produce something, if you use it on your computer.
Another point against the cause. If the files are the only real evidence, then there cannot be that much harm. If he molested a child, there is other evidence than encrypted files. The whole possession of childporn, pirated music, warez... are kind of thought crimes. Yeah, it's forbidden and they can prevent you, but going so far to jail you because there may be hidden files is too much. When there is a real crime, there is for example a victim, there are money flows to follow (banking fraud, or even sale of these immaterial goods they are looking for). The rest is 1 and 0 and trying to regulate it is like trying to keep the AACS key out of the net... pretty pointless.
I still have a container here, waiting for my mind to remember the password. I kind of lost the hope, but who knows. (When i finally open it, i will notice that i will need none of the files in there anymore:D)
By not relying on making money via ads. That's a business model which was ruined by publishers / ad companies. It's dead, there are only a few people, who didn't notice, yet. Still they are whining and insulting their own users. If it doesn't pay to do something online, don't. For example a newspaper can have online news for marketing reasons of the PAPER version, they can try a paywall, they can try to give free access only to people buying the paper version. Or they can just have a homepage about the paper without (expensive) news there. Of course they can try ads, but currently everybody is telling us that it doesn't work in the end of the day. And now big news: If you force ads on people by anti-adblock techniques... they are not clicking! Ohh... Maybe we need to change the ads, so the close button opens a popup with the site. Then they are at least clicking. I bet once the window is open, they will be happy to buy... oh!
just because it's a "dead language" it doesn not mean there is a gap when everything was lost. The clerical people have quite a tradition. And it's at least way easier than french.
erm, because using an program err app err web app totally needs an account! And you need the account even before the app launched, because well.. just create it, okay?
That's the proble for the publishers to solve. They do not solve the adblocking problem, seems like detecting adblock may even be illegal (i read an article lately from one european country which ruled you may not detect the users settings by european law and the court ruled an adblock detector illegal there), then they should solve the problem how to get money from people, who want to give them money. I will not pay 10 subscriptions, but maybe ten sites can work together on something. If not... their problem, they want my money not the other way round.
Slashdot Mirror
Why Read Receipt? ICQ didn't have one?
Online Status? Do it like Whatsapp "last message from X" (a bit different, but fair enough). Allow to explicitly tell "send i-am-online to X".
Here in germany, the tv companies went another road. Now they use overlays on the movie for advertisment (additional to the breaks).
They not only place them above the bottom of the movie (instead of inside the black bars, when there are some), but they even tried to awful extensions
- Movie zoomes out. Blue border, to the left a video advertisment, to the right the movie
- A Fullscreen Overlay (with some transparent non-square border) over the full movie. In an horror movie in an thrilling scene.
Pretty desperate. Or pretty evil. Or both.
It uses tracking technology.
and DRM. But that's what you bought when you registered, the tracking is not.
1) Disable Google Phishing protection. Because it sends urls to google and because it updates the blocklist using a tracking cookie (google wrkey)
2) Install Adblock and Noscript
Then enjoy TPB
... how microsoft installs and uninstalls software on our pcs via updates. You install an update and expect some bugfixes and improvments and end up with a new program installed. You install the next update and the program will be uninstalled. That's not how updates are supposed to work.
And it's scary, what ms might install in the future via an update.
Allow using tor. Get users to connect via tor. Good luck blocking this. the tor project is expert in being unblockable.
You get everything on other ones as well. And it even lasts longer, as a private tracker just disappears, while a magnet link keeps working (and brings several opentrackers in its meta informations).
Indeed, the book has quite some reasonable stuff in it, but every other sentence is "especially for women, which are often a target ...".
Evidence is something, which cannot be proven wrong. A witness' statement is no real evidence, but a (strong) indication, if you're not the witness yourself. This means, when i am not guilty, there cannot be *evidence*, which does not mean i cannot be sentenced. But this is then based on weaker indications. And some real evidence, that you're not guilty can of course beat this and safe your ass.
Maybe i am wrong with the word "evidence" as non-native speaker. I see it like a proof in the sense of a mathematical proof. Something, which is correct without any doubt and cannot be proven wrong.
So like a broken glass is an evidence for the claim "someone broke the glass", but not for the claim "the only person in the room broke the glass". There is a strong indication, that the only person in the room did it, but you cannot finally be sure, because nobody saw him doing it.
When there is a witness, that the glass was broken before he entered the room, it would of course help to prove him innocent, so he cannot be sentenced because of the fact that he most probably was the one, who broke the glass.
Nope, there cannot be evidence, if you're innocent. There may be big indications, but evidence is a proof you're not innocent.
The point is, you do not need to claim you have forgotten it. You can keep silent and it should not speak against you. Then having forgotten the password needs to be considered as an option as well. You do not need to possibly incriminate yourself and this has nothing to do with being guilty or not. Just think about it, you are in court, nervous and axieous and really cannot remember the password exactly. You state this under oath and when you finally get your hardware back and start using it and remember the password again, they sentence you for perjury, because they assume you lied before.
If it's a dead man switch you set up in advance, you cannot. Using such a thing isn't illegal and when it's too late to use it when you're for some time in jail ... not your fault.
being paranoid this isn't required to be true. Change your password to something new hard to remember, write it down. Police knocks? Destroy the piece of paper.
IIRC there is a paper about choosing passwords (or other means by authentication? Would need to search it) you cannot disclose. They introduce some scheme, which you cannot reproduce when you feel pressed to do it.
Your point of view is strange.
When i am innocent and accused of anything, nothing should happen when i stay silent all the way. If anything happens without any evidence (which cannot be there, because i am innocent) and they require me to prove my innocence, we've lost our liberty.
> They would not have been able to get a warrant without having probable cause search his home. Most likely there is evidence on those hard drives.
Ouch!
If this would be enough reason to say "there is something on the drive", you could sentence him on the spot. Never never never assume someone is guilty, just because he's accused of something.
So, when does it exist? I can produce some file, which gives any content i want, when i xor it with the crypto container. Its all about 0 and 1 and what you want is to feed additional data into an algorithm to produce something from existing data. The algorithm is AES and what you want is a password. But that's only one interpretation of the data. Another may be to display it as an image, taking the bytes as pixel data. So you always use the file to produce something, if you use it on your computer.
Another point against the cause. If the files are the only real evidence, then there cannot be that much harm. If he molested a child, there is other evidence than encrypted files. The whole possession of childporn, pirated music, warez ... are kind of thought crimes. Yeah, it's forbidden and they can prevent you, but going so far to jail you because there may be hidden files is too much. ... pretty pointless.
When there is a real crime, there is for example a victim, there are money flows to follow (banking fraud, or even sale of these immaterial goods they are looking for). The rest is 1 and 0 and trying to regulate it is like trying to keep the AACS key out of the net
Now prove, that you forgot your password.
I still have a container here, waiting for my mind to remember the password. I kind of lost the hope, but who knows. :D)
(When i finally open it, i will notice that i will need none of the files in there anymore
May keep you in jail. Forever.
By not relying on making money via ads. That's a business model which was ruined by publishers / ad companies. It's dead, there are only a few people, who didn't notice, yet. Still they are whining and insulting their own users. ... they are not clicking! Ohh ... ... oh!
If it doesn't pay to do something online, don't. For example a newspaper can have online news for marketing reasons of the PAPER version, they can try a paywall, they can try to give free access only to people buying the paper version. Or they can just have a homepage about the paper without (expensive) news there. Of course they can try ads, but currently everybody is telling us that it doesn't work in the end of the day.
And now big news: If you force ads on people by anti-adblock techniques
Maybe we need to change the ads, so the close button opens a popup with the site. Then they are at least clicking. I bet once the window is open, they will be happy to buy
just because it's a "dead language" it doesn not mean there is a gap when everything was lost. The clerical people have quite a tradition. And it's at least way easier than french.
erm, because using an program err app err web app totally needs an account! And you need the account even before the app launched, because well .. just create it, okay?
What does it help, when i do not use them, when everybody else uses these sets? It's not that easy to escape the darkness, as you phrase it.
That's the proble for the publishers to solve. They do not solve the adblocking problem, seems like detecting adblock may even be illegal (i read an article lately from one european country which ruled you may not detect the users settings by european law and the court ruled an adblock detector illegal there), then they should solve the problem how to get money from people, who want to give them money. I will not pay 10 subscriptions, but maybe ten sites can work together on something. If not ... their problem, they want my money not the other way round.