You clearly don't know what "public domain" means. Quite a bit of classical music is in the public domain. Your orchestra friend can play this music in a public performance and not pay licensing fees to anyone (since there isn't anyone to pay fees to) however, if your orchestra friend records her performance and makes a CD of it, your dance instructor friend would have to pay a royalty if she wanted to dance to it in public.
The licenses for public performance are in fact based on audience size and particualr use, if you get permission in advance it can actually be quite cheap. It is only if you are caught not paying that they try to ream you. Even restaurants and stores are supposed to be paying these fees, that's why services like DMX, Musak, etc are popular with these groups, the licensing fees for public performance are built in.
OK guys, privacy is not the right to break the law and not be caught. Law enforcement is entitled to colect evidence against you without your consent if they already have probable cause, or if the evidence is out in the open.
Courts have already ruled that who you call and who calls you is not private and that information can be collected without a warrant. The police can also follow you and film you in a public place without a warrant to see who you meet with
Everyone who reads slashdot is smart enough to know that Hatch is right on this one. THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE ABOUT EMAIL HEADERS. It's like the address on a letter, it has to be public or it wouldn't work.
Do you believe that the FROM: field on that email you just sent is private? Even when it passes through 20 routers and 5 servers? Of course not. Since you don't resonably expect it to be private, hence you have no "expectation of privacy" and no warrant is needed to gather that information.
Did any of you moderators even read the article? It says:
The executive envisioned protection software that placed no restrictions on conventional cassette copies of CDs and some restrictions on digital copies. The executive also held open the possibility of the software including interactive features for consumers.
"We're not trying to create a quid pro quo situation," the executive said. "But at the same time, if you're going to place restrictions on your customers, you have to offer them something of value that will make the product attractive."
Obviously they are not trying to conceal this new "feature" and are going to somehow "enhance" the CD in some way to make up for it. Seems quite sporting of them if you ask me.
How can this be insightful if he didn't even read the article?
The protected CDs can be played on conventional CD players and CD-ROMs, Bronfman said, but safeguards will be in place to prevent copying the music onto computers or "burning" them onto recordable CDs.
You seem to be under the impression that your right to privacy is absolute. The 4th ammendment to the US Consitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Pay attention to the part that says, "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched." The FBI may indeed listen in on my pillow talk if they have probable cause and obtain a warrant. The 4th ammendment applies to your data if it is encrypted or not, Law Enforcement still can't evesdrop without a warrant.
Once the FBI legally obtains a warrant you do not have the right to keep that evidence secret anymore, you can't flush the drugs, burn the documents, or "lose" your encryption keys.
You've completely missed it. My tiger pits don't hurt anybody unless they fall in. I can't even build a tiger pit and put up a big sign that says "danger, tiger pit."
Encryption doesn't hurt anybody unless it is used to conspire to commit a crime, in which case, with a lawfully obtained warrant law enforcement personnel should be able to seize and decrypt encrypted evidence.
Encryption is a passive method of defensively guarding personal property from offensive prying-eye forces
So is the 4th Ammendment.
Most cities regulate and require license fees for burglar alarms, some cities ban certain types of locks. I can't put spikes and tiger pits in my front yard, or electrify my doorknob. All of these are "passive" ways of protecting myself and yet they are all regulated or banned by the government.
Even the most "sacred" of all rights is regulated; slander and libel, copyright law, allowable forms of a priori censorship are permissable government intrusions to your freedom of speech.
Sorry, but living in an organized society is a trade off, it has to be or we have anarchy. That is reality.
The Bill of Rights only protects you against "unreasonable" searches, not all evidence gathering, and while you are gauranteed due process of law and the freedom from self incrimination, witness tampering for example is illegal.
Both can be used in self-protection from the oppressive government.
And that is that exact purpose of the Bill of Rights. If you have the recipe for C-4, have at it. Even if it is illegal, the 4th, 5th, and 6th ammendments will give you some protection until you do "bad things" with it. As for guns, there is no bigger support of the 2nd ammendment than I, but even I don't believe that it means they should sell ak-47's at 7-11. There are good laws and bad laws.
In Texas, it is legal to use deadly force against a Police officer if you feel that he is unreasonable threatening your life, but you cannot legaly own a gun if you have been convicted of assault on your wife.
One law protecting freedom, one law limiting, but in my opinion, both good laws.
You make a very intersting point that will no doubt be lost on most of the Slashdot audience (as well as yourself I suppose)
Airplanes;
Dynamite;
Plastic Explosives;
Fertilizer chemicals;
Telephones and other communication equipment;
Knives; and
Boxcutters
Are all heavily regulated already. Some directly like explosives and airplanes, and others indirectly like phones and knives.
Why should strong encryption be different? Just about any tool you can think of has good uses and bad uses. That doesn't mean we should ban the tools, but we should try to minimize their use for purposes contrary to the common good.
Does it violate some inalienable right that you cannot walk into walmart and by C-4 off the shelf? Certainly you have some harmless use for it. Should convicted felons be allowed to carry firearms on the street?
Wake up to the real world people. The fact that we live in a society means that we voluntarily give up certain freedoms for the common good. That is the decision that groups of people make when they get together and form governing bodies.
You cannot simple say banning==bad freedom==good unless your definition of good is anarchy. Do we all agree that the ban on murder is good? Even though it takes away my right to express myself with creative killing?
Wow, you and SkewlD00d are on the same page, "all I need is a proxy server running on campus on port 80. LOL
Typical slashdot attitude, you just assume you can break this system even though you've never seen it. How hard is it to just block SSH on the network? Do you think any good network administrator cares what port you use anymore? You think I can't tell that it's web traffic just because it isn't on port 80? LOL.
The fact of the matter is that if these schools wanted to make it impossible for you to browse the web they certainly could, but they just want to make it difficult enough. If the instructor shuts off net access and you hack your way around it, now your looking at expulsion instead of jsut being kicked out of class. LOL.
I must say though, as a network admin, the idea of a "Big Red Internet Shutoff" button on my desk sounds like a good idea.
It is already there. The only change would be semantic.
It may seem that way, since just about everybody over the age of 15 in this country already has a state issued ID, but it isn't. The fact that we are The United STATES of America is not merely semantic. The federal government is only supposed to meddle in affairs between the states, or affecting all of the states. I shouldn't have to show a federal ID to drive a car, or get on a plane or anything else as long as I'm not crossing state lines. Now if you had to show your passport to go from one state to another that would be different, but since the feds can't keep 2 borders seccure I doubt they could handle 50 more.
So, why didn't you prevent it? Does your company's business continuity planning not take into account what happens if you can't get to the net? Or is your business so dependant on the Internet that not being able to use it means shutting down? If the former is the case you need to fire whoever is in charge of your network operations, and if the later is the case you need to, well, fore whoever is in charge of your network operations.
It appalls me that this sort of thing is allowed to happen and people aren't held responsible. If this worm cost your company that much money, it definatly should have been forseeable and preventable. This is why users at most companies hate IT, it's because IT at most companies SUCK. Networks do not have to be unreliable, At the company I work for we have several divisions in one building, one of our divisions was infected and we had to isolate them. The divisions I am responsible for were not affected. It wasn't luck, it's called planning and preparedness.
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"
I can understand that one.
Not that I agree with the idea of this, but ClearChannel is not the government (the only entity bound by the First Ammendment) they are a corporation, they can do whatever the hell they please until people start dumping their stock. Corporate management has every right to tell the individual stations what they can and can't play (raise your hand if you really believe DJs make their own playlists) for any reason whatsoever. If the jackass CEO of ClearChannel doesn't want to hear these songs, then it is his perrogative to ban them on HIS stations. And if you don't like it you can bring it up at the next stockholders meeting.
Most of their stations are shitty top 40 anyway and the playlists are all generated by computer..
Did you pack your own bags?
and:
Did anyone unknown to you give you something to carry on the plane?
Which one of those questions would compel a terrorist to lie? They ask those questions because terrorist have in the past given unsuspecting little old ladies packages ("It's a christmas present for my neice in New York") bombs to take on to planes.
You probably answer without thinking, but if your grandmother says, "Why yes that nice bearded man outside gave me a christmas present for his niece," the gate attendant knows to drop the package in the big lead bombs-go-here box.
"Salem Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar, two of the alleged hijackers on the flight that slammed into the Pentagon, had been under U.S. surveillance before the attack, sources said. They also said there is evidence Al-Midhar was possibly connected to last October's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen"
And yet they seem to have flown under their real (or known aliases) names. The FBI was able to identify them from reading passenger manifests of the crasedh flights. Why couldn't they be identified before they got on the plane? Obviously these people were wanted, and known associates of OBL, if the airlines simply ran passenger manifest through an exclude-only database provided by the FBI they might not have been allowed on the plane in the first place.
The fact that we have
a) defined borders
b) an immigration policy (that isn't come and go as you please)
c) flight schools (and pilot licensing requirements)
d) doors with locks on cockpits
e) just about any other law you can think of.
Are all examples of the "mythical" freedom verus security tradeoff.
I believe what you meant is that itisn't worth trading out civil liberties for apparant security. There is however a balance. The courts have ruled that there are certain cases when "a priori" censorship are permissable in the public interest, notably in matters of national security.
There is another intersting issue, however. The FBI was able to identify all of the terrorists from the passenger manifests. Obviously these people were flying under real names, or known aliases. Would it be a violation of your rights if the government furnished "watch lists" to airlines to check flight reservations against?
You also argue about the area of impact from the planes. They knew to hit the buildings high enough that the firefighters had no way of controlling the fire.
It is quite a lot easier to hit a building high up than at ground level. I repeat: the most difficult task for these terrorists was finding pilots. As for the other tasks, the weapons they used could have been LEGALLY carried on board the planes, the pilots are trained to comply with hijackers, and all of the timing was done with a readily available flight schedule. Some of the suspected terrorist have been linked to Saudi Airlines so any real pilots could have easily trained the others. 90% of flight training is landing and dealing with emergencies. En-route flying is nearly trivial relative to the other tasks of flying.
It is understandable that no one wants to talk about how easy this really was, just don't be suprised when it happens agin next week.
Re:It's been said before...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
While I wholeheartedly agree with sentiments expresed by Franklin I do not agree that it applies to the case of airports.
Please explain how hightening airport security infringes on any of the first 10 ammendments, the "essential liberties."
Re:What we must do
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So you're a troll, but I'll respond anyway. If you read YOUR history, you might know how to spell ISRAEL. I'm not usually one to harp on spelling, but you claim to know more about the history of ISRAEL than the poster that actually spelled it correctly.
Not to mention how American political involvement has continually exacerbated the problems over there.
Your premise is correct, but your conslusion is not. If it were not for the US involvment Israel surely would have pushed the Palestinians into the sea long ago. Remember that these people are not even welcome in any of the Arab nations surrounding Israel. In spite of their terroism Israel is pressured by the US to make concessions to them.
If you want to make this about Israel, consider this: If it were shown that this attack was perpetrated by a terrorist cell of Native Americans would you be in favor of now giving them back Oklahoma to prevent future attacks? How would you feel if the UN was pressuring this decision?
Note: I have nothing against Native Americans, however their history in this country has several parallels to the history of the Palestinians in Israel.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
You seem very proud of that article on your site, however it really doesn't have any information other than the fact that the flag behind the president was showing the arrows of war instead of the olive branch.
I think your assertion that this was deliberate is downright silly. I have heard similar musings about the carpet in the oval office, but the flag is always hanging on the pole the same way and it is obviously eaier for it to drap this way. Do you by chance have a picture of it hanging in any other position?
I also do not think the fact that the word "war" was used indicates a desire for war. If I say "I do not want a war", does that automatically mean I do? By your claim if I say, "I do not want peace?" then in fact peace is what I want, but how can that be?
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly don't know what "public domain" means. Quite a bit of classical music is in the public domain. Your orchestra friend can play this music in a public performance and not pay licensing fees to anyone (since there isn't anyone to pay fees to) however, if your orchestra friend records her performance and makes a CD of it, your dance instructor friend would have to pay a royalty if she wanted to dance to it in public.
The licenses for public performance are in fact based on audience size and particualr use, if you get permission in advance it can actually be quite cheap. It is only if you are caught not paying that they try to ream you. Even restaurants and stores are supposed to be paying these fees, that's why services like DMX, Musak, etc are popular with these groups, the licensing fees for public performance are built in.
OK guys, privacy is not the right to break the law and not be caught. Law enforcement is entitled to colect evidence against you without your consent if they already have probable cause, or if the evidence is out in the open.
Courts have already ruled that who you call and who calls you is not private and that information can be collected without a warrant. The police can also follow you and film you in a public place without a warrant to see who you meet with
Everyone who reads slashdot is smart enough to know that Hatch is right on this one. THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE ABOUT EMAIL HEADERS. It's like the address on a letter, it has to be public or it wouldn't work.
Do you believe that the FROM: field on that email you just sent is private? Even when it passes through 20 routers and 5 servers? Of course not. Since you don't resonably expect it to be private, hence you have no "expectation of privacy" and no warrant is needed to gather that information.
Which is only relevant if the person doing the suing owns the "Compact Disc" trademark.
The executive envisioned protection software that placed no restrictions on conventional cassette copies of CDs and some restrictions on digital copies. The executive also held open the possibility of the software including interactive features for consumers. "We're not trying to create a quid pro quo situation," the executive said. "But at the same time, if you're going to place restrictions on your customers, you have to offer them something of value that will make the product attractive."
Obviously they are not trying to conceal this new "feature" and are going to somehow "enhance" the CD in some way to make up for it. Seems quite sporting of them if you ask me.
The protected CDs can be played on conventional CD players and CD-ROMs, Bronfman said, but safeguards will be in place to prevent copying the music onto computers or "burning" them onto recordable CDs.
You seem to be under the impression that your right to privacy is absolute. The 4th ammendment to the US Consitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Pay attention to the part that says, "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched." The FBI may indeed listen in on my pillow talk if they have probable cause and obtain a warrant. The 4th ammendment applies to your data if it is encrypted or not, Law Enforcement still can't evesdrop without a warrant.
Once the FBI legally obtains a warrant you do not have the right to keep that evidence secret anymore, you can't flush the drugs, burn the documents, or "lose" your encryption keys.
Encryption doesn't hurt anybody unless it is used to conspire to commit a crime, in which case, with a lawfully obtained warrant law enforcement personnel should be able to seize and decrypt encrypted evidence.
So is the 4th Ammendment.
Most cities regulate and require license fees for burglar alarms, some cities ban certain types of locks. I can't put spikes and tiger pits in my front yard, or electrify my doorknob. All of these are "passive" ways of protecting myself and yet they are all regulated or banned by the government.
Even the most "sacred" of all rights is regulated; slander and libel, copyright law, allowable forms of a priori censorship are permissable government intrusions to your freedom of speech.
Sorry, but living in an organized society is a trade off, it has to be or we have anarchy. That is reality.
The Bill of Rights only protects you against "unreasonable" searches, not all evidence gathering, and while you are gauranteed due process of law and the freedom from self incrimination, witness tampering for example is illegal.
And that is that exact purpose of the Bill of Rights. If you have the recipe for C-4, have at it. Even if it is illegal, the 4th, 5th, and 6th ammendments will give you some protection until you do "bad things" with it. As for guns, there is no bigger support of the 2nd ammendment than I, but even I don't believe that it means they should sell ak-47's at 7-11. There are good laws and bad laws.
In Texas, it is legal to use deadly force against a Police officer if you feel that he is unreasonable threatening your life, but you cannot legaly own a gun if you have been convicted of assault on your wife.
One law protecting freedom, one law limiting, but in my opinion, both good laws.
You make a very intersting point that will no doubt be lost on most of the Slashdot audience (as well as yourself I suppose)
Airplanes;
Dynamite;
Plastic Explosives;
Fertilizer chemicals;
Telephones and other communication equipment;
Knives; and
Boxcutters
Are all heavily regulated already. Some directly like explosives and airplanes, and others indirectly like phones and knives.
Why should strong encryption be different? Just about any tool you can think of has good uses and bad uses. That doesn't mean we should ban the tools, but we should try to minimize their use for purposes contrary to the common good.
Does it violate some inalienable right that you cannot walk into walmart and by C-4 off the shelf? Certainly you have some harmless use for it. Should convicted felons be allowed to carry firearms on the street?
Wake up to the real world people. The fact that we live in a society means that we voluntarily give up certain freedoms for the common good. That is the decision that groups of people make when they get together and form governing bodies.
You cannot simple say banning==bad freedom==good unless your definition of good is anarchy. Do we all agree that the ban on murder is good? Even though it takes away my right to express myself with creative killing?
Typical slashdot attitude, you just assume you can break this system even though you've never seen it. How hard is it to just block SSH on the network? Do you think any good network administrator cares what port you use anymore? You think I can't tell that it's web traffic just because it isn't on port 80? LOL.
The fact of the matter is that if these schools wanted to make it impossible for you to browse the web they certainly could, but they just want to make it difficult enough. If the instructor shuts off net access and you hack your way around it, now your looking at expulsion instead of jsut being kicked out of class. LOL.
I must say though, as a network admin, the idea of a "Big Red Internet Shutoff" button on my desk sounds like a good idea.
It may seem that way, since just about everybody over the age of 15 in this country already has a state issued ID, but it isn't. The fact that we are The United STATES of America is not merely semantic. The federal government is only supposed to meddle in affairs between the states, or affecting all of the states. I shouldn't have to show a federal ID to drive a car, or get on a plane or anything else as long as I'm not crossing state lines. Now if you had to show your passport to go from one state to another that would be different, but since the feds can't keep 2 borders seccure I doubt they could handle 50 more.
So, why didn't you prevent it? Does your company's business continuity planning not take into account what happens if you can't get to the net? Or is your business so dependant on the Internet that not being able to use it means shutting down? If the former is the case you need to fire whoever is in charge of your network operations, and if the later is the case you need to, well, fore whoever is in charge of your network operations.
It appalls me that this sort of thing is allowed to happen and people aren't held responsible. If this worm cost your company that much money, it definatly should have been forseeable and preventable. This is why users at most companies hate IT, it's because IT at most companies SUCK. Networks do not have to be unreliable, At the company I work for we have several divisions in one building, one of our divisions was infected and we had to isolate them. The divisions I am responsible for were not affected. It wasn't luck, it's called planning and preparedness.
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"
I can understand that one.
Not that I agree with the idea of this, but ClearChannel is not the government (the only entity bound by the First Ammendment) they are a corporation, they can do whatever the hell they please until people start dumping their stock. Corporate management has every right to tell the individual stations what they can and can't play (raise your hand if you really believe DJs make their own playlists) for any reason whatsoever. If the jackass CEO of ClearChannel doesn't want to hear these songs, then it is his perrogative to ban them on HIS stations. And if you don't like it you can bring it up at the next stockholders meeting.
Most of their stations are shitty top 40 anyway and the playlists are all generated by computer..
The questions they ask are:
Did you pack your own bags?
and:
Did anyone unknown to you give you something to carry on the plane?
Which one of those questions would compel a terrorist to lie? They ask those questions because terrorist have in the past given unsuspecting little old ladies packages ("It's a christmas present for my neice in New York") bombs to take on to planes.
You probably answer without thinking, but if your grandmother says, "Why yes that nice bearded man outside gave me a christmas present for his niece," the gate attendant knows to drop the package in the big lead bombs-go-here box.
Double edged knives and Mace or Pepper Spray are both prohibited in secured areas of airports, and have been for a long time.
From CNN:
"Salem Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar, two of the alleged hijackers on the flight that slammed into the Pentagon, had been under U.S. surveillance before the attack, sources said. They also said there is evidence Al-Midhar was possibly connected to last October's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen"
And yet they seem to have flown under their real (or known aliases) names. The FBI was able to identify them from reading passenger manifests of the crasedh flights. Why couldn't they be identified before they got on the plane? Obviously these people were wanted, and known associates of OBL, if the airlines simply ran passenger manifest through an exclude-only database provided by the FBI they might not have been allowed on the plane in the first place.
The fact that we have
a) defined borders
b) an immigration policy (that isn't come and go as you please)
c) flight schools (and pilot licensing requirements)
d) doors with locks on cockpits
e) just about any other law you can think of.
Are all examples of the "mythical" freedom verus security tradeoff.
I believe what you meant is that itisn't worth trading out civil liberties for apparant security. There is however a balance. The courts have ruled that there are certain cases when "a priori" censorship are permissable in the public interest, notably in matters of national security.
There is another intersting issue, however. The FBI was able to identify all of the terrorists from the passenger manifests. Obviously these people were flying under real names, or known aliases. Would it be a violation of your rights if the government furnished "watch lists" to airlines to check flight reservations against?
"E Pluribus Unum"
Dumbass.
It is quite a lot easier to hit a building high up than at ground level. I repeat: the most difficult task for these terrorists was finding pilots. As for the other tasks, the weapons they used could have been LEGALLY carried on board the planes, the pilots are trained to comply with hijackers, and all of the timing was done with a readily available flight schedule. Some of the suspected terrorist have been linked to Saudi Airlines so any real pilots could have easily trained the others. 90% of flight training is landing and dealing with emergencies. En-route flying is nearly trivial relative to the other tasks of flying.
It is understandable that no one wants to talk about how easy this really was, just don't be suprised when it happens agin next week.
Please explain how hightening airport security infringes on any of the first 10 ammendments, the "essential liberties."
Not to mention how American political involvement has continually exacerbated the problems over there.
Your premise is correct, but your conslusion is not. If it were not for the US involvment Israel surely would have pushed the Palestinians into the sea long ago. Remember that these people are not even welcome in any of the Arab nations surrounding Israel. In spite of their terroism Israel is pressured by the US to make concessions to them.
If you want to make this about Israel, consider this: If it were shown that this attack was perpetrated by a terrorist cell of Native Americans would you be in favor of now giving them back Oklahoma to prevent future attacks? How would you feel if the UN was pressuring this decision?
Note: I have nothing against Native Americans, however their history in this country has several parallels to the history of the Palestinians in Israel.
I think your assertion that this was deliberate is downright silly. I have heard similar musings about the carpet in the oval office, but the flag is always hanging on the pole the same way and it is obviously eaier for it to drap this way. Do you by chance have a picture of it hanging in any other position?
I also do not think the fact that the word "war" was used indicates a desire for war. If I say "I do not want a war", does that automatically mean I do? By your claim if I say, "I do not want peace?" then in fact peace is what I want, but how can that be?