This is a great example of Microsoft taking a problem and creating a huge piece of software that makes the problem bigger. If you are often filling out the same forms over and over again, there is your problem. Now, you must either stop filling the forms (if they are not data aquisition), or at least stop making they flow around like they were useable data (if they are data aquisition).
This is more of a case of you not understanding the problem. When dealing with the legal system, government or regulatory agencies as both construction companies and law offices do, there are legal constraints and requirements that must be followed - the IT department doesn't get to set the rules and make "improvements".
Not sure if you're being obtuse or just misunderstanding. I've stated what actions government legislatures could take to criminalize encryption and given examples of how these legal concepts have been implemented in various countries.
All I am saying is that VPNs may defeat some government prying right now, but if any method becomes a big enough problem for law enforcement, the legislature and/or the courts can criminalize it.
My other point is that governments don't have to accept reasonable explanations or plausible deniability as valid defenses if they don't want to - that only works in the movies.
A government cannot force you to divulge something you do not and never knew.
Sure they can - if you can't provide decryption keys to them then when asked you go to prison. The government can take the stance that not having the ability to provide the keys it is your problem and not theirs. This is already the stance in the UK where 'forgetting' the encryption key used is not a valid defense.
Governments can also make it illegal for you to use a VPN in the first place, so the use of one is a crime in itself. Governments can also place the burden on the user to show that they aren't trying to sidestep encryption restrictions. The US already has something similar in place with the monetary transaction structuring laws.
Law enforcement agencies are already pushing for the very use of encryption to be considered "probable cause" of criminal activity.
But people wouldn't have the stomach to go to war and clean up(aka removing despots and dictatorships) africa so it could become a major agricultural exporter of grains
Democracy is not always superior to a dictatorship. Democracy rarely leads to positive results when the potential voters are angry, unemployed and demand immediate economic fixes. At best, most democracies devolve quickly into kleptocracies until either a collectivism or military coup occurs which leads right back to a despot. Even worse, young democracies can easily become mob rule situations like the French Reign of Terror or Haiti in general.
Even if vast supplies of unobtainium, vibranium or adamantium were found in Africa or SW Asia, the general public would be no better off.
In a perfect world, impoverished nations would be best served by some sort of truly benevolent dictator until a certain standard of living was established. The government could concentrate on building infrastructure, educating its people and getting its people more interested in enjoying life than worrying about which warlord to side with.
International leaders know that it would be political suicide to suggest such an approach, so Africa is pretty much ignored except for some feel good measures like sending food supplies which just makes the problem worse by enriching warlords and putting the local farmers out out business.
Governments can easily make it illegal to use encryption against them - the UK already has this in place. Governments can required to use their encryption system (Clipper chip idea), key escrow or just force you to give up the key when asked.
There's no debate at all over whether federal or state constitutions have more force; the U.S. Constitution always trumps the state constitution..
State and local governments are not bound to respect Bill of Rights protections unless the protection has been specifically "incorporated" by the Supreme Court. At the time of ratification, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. Massachusetts had an established state religion until 1833.
It was not until the 1890s that the due process clause of the 14th amendment was used by the Supreme Court to selectively apply Bill of Rights to the states. Incorporation was certainly not the intent of the 14th amendment but it is better than nothing. A far better solution would be one sweeping decision that incorporates all constitutional protections or a constitutional amendment that addresses the issue directly.
When has this happened? Has an american exported aircraft ever been used against the US? I don't recall any.
Unless the US is giving away guns, most nations prefer the russian made AK since it tends to be cheaper, less complex and less affected by adverse conditions.
Former "enemies of my enemy" like Iraq and Afganistan's mujahideen might use US made weapons but those would be different situations than the one you mentioned.
Times are different - one aircraft can deliver conventional weapons that can kill thousands of soldiers.
In the modern world, huge populations are more of a liability than an advantage. Only when a huge population can be used for slave labor does it have any benefit at all.
Sorry, but that would be economic suicide. The moment that China or any other nation started calling in US debts is the moment that their debt becomes worthless.
Banks are able to call in debts because their loans are spread out to myriad borrowers and the loans are mostly backed by collateral that the government will assist them in seizing if need be.
Both China and the EU would go into an economic depression if US paper was deemed worthless and no nation or group of nations has the power to seize assets from the US.
In any event, the debts aren't callable - they are US treasury bonds.
All the pundits were saying the same thing about Japan in the 1980s when they were buying up American real estate.
We are simply giving China IOUs at a very low interest rate. If the US can't pay them back then both the US and China go down - along with the rest of the world.
Warren Buffett is probably the most selfish person in the world. Everything he does is to increase his power or legacy. Anyone who heard his idiotic soundbites while he was campaigning for the bailout knows that he only cares about his own interests.
He has reached the top and wants to pull up the ladder so no one else can.
If Warren Buffett felt so bad about paying too little in taxes, there is nothing stopping him from cutting a huge check to the US Treasury.
You don't have to be at the airport 2-4 hours early - that really only applies to international flights and even then isn't really the norm.
As long as you check in 45 minutes before the flight (which can be done over the internet) and can make it to the gate before boarding ends you're fine on domestic flights.
The wildcard is how long the line at security is - not how long it takes you personally to be scanned or questioned by by security.
Implement a 4 hour interrogations and leisure flights and weekend trips in the United States would cease.
Then how does anyone who stutters or has nervous behaviors even travel in Israel. Being interrogated by the government is a stressful situation so pretty much everyone who is not James Bond is going to exhibit the glaring signatures that you mentioned.
Their system only seems to work because they operate that country as one under seige and the citizens don't mind their luggage being taken apart.
So if a cop breaks into your home to look for illegal stuff you would have no problem with it because there was a chance that he could have been right?
That's very naive - all you have to do to game such a system is for the person to say that they are not Muslim. Your idea is no better than asking a person if they are terrorist.
And no - requiring a person to eat bacon or drink a beer to prove they aren't muslim won't work either because forbidden activities are allowed in such circumstances.
Dogs are also easily gamed by their handlers to give a positive response on demand so men are still going to have their girlfriends fondled by the TSA and face felony charges if they dare to object.
Do people that stutter or have nervous ticks even bother to try to fly in Israel? How about people who are unable to speak?
Accurate psychological assessments can't be achieved in a short and forced sit down session at the airport. They basically look for obvious tells and only the untrained terrorists would ever be detected.
Also, many things that seem to work in european countries and Israel that have small and relatively homogeneous populations would never work in a country as large and diverse as the US.
Even worse, this gives the police the ability to obtain the information without a warrant by just asking the ISPs to make it available to them.
Wiretapping laws would probably protect voice communications, but all other information would be fair game since the ISP isn't acting as an agent of the police but simply an entity willing to share information that it owns as a "public service".
Was there actually any money given to Apple for this project? From what I've seen in the past, "tax incentives" only means giving the company lower income or property tax rates. Since the land involved is usually unused farmland that doesn't produce very much if any income or property tax revenue, any tax revenue generated by developing the land will be a positive.
10% of something is better than 100% of nothing. A state or city, using tax breaks as an incentive for industry to locate there is almost never a bad idea.
On the other hand, having a tax structure that encourages companies to locate their operations elsewhere is pretty much always a bad idea. Some places like NYC can get away with it because it's pretty much the center of the universe, but most places can't.
Yes but the original point that I was replying to was that businesses should have the same rights as individuals, since they are collections of individuals. Since the government is a collection of individuals, why is it acceptable to restrict the government, when it is not acceptable to restrict businesses?
Because governments wield the police power of the state - businesses and individuals (technically) do not.
Rampant corruption can result in the government serving as a de facto private police force, but wealthy & influential individuals can do this far easier than corporations can.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a great example of Microsoft taking a problem and creating a huge piece of software that makes the problem bigger. If you are often filling out the same forms over and over again, there is your problem. Now, you must either stop filling the forms (if they are not data aquisition), or at least stop making they flow around like they were useable data (if they are data aquisition).
This is more of a case of you not understanding the problem. When dealing with the legal system, government or regulatory agencies as both construction companies and law offices do, there are legal constraints and requirements that must be followed - the IT department doesn't get to set the rules and make "improvements".
Not sure if you're being obtuse or just misunderstanding. I've stated what actions government legislatures could take to criminalize encryption and given examples of how these legal concepts have been implemented in various countries.
All I am saying is that VPNs may defeat some government prying right now, but if any method becomes a big enough problem for law enforcement, the legislature and/or the courts can criminalize it.
My other point is that governments don't have to accept reasonable explanations or plausible deniability as valid defenses if they don't want to - that only works in the movies.
A government cannot force you to divulge something you do not and never knew.
Sure they can - if you can't provide decryption keys to them then when asked you go to prison. The government can take the stance that not having the ability to provide the keys it is your problem and not theirs. This is already the stance in the UK where 'forgetting' the encryption key used is not a valid defense.
Governments can also make it illegal for you to use a VPN in the first place, so the use of one is a crime in itself. Governments can also place the burden on the user to show that they aren't trying to sidestep encryption restrictions. The US already has something similar in place with the monetary transaction structuring laws.
Law enforcement agencies are already pushing for the very use of encryption to be considered "probable cause" of criminal activity.
But people wouldn't have the stomach to go to war and clean up(aka removing despots and dictatorships) africa so it could become a major agricultural exporter of grains
Democracy is not always superior to a dictatorship. Democracy rarely leads to positive results when the potential voters are angry, unemployed and demand immediate economic fixes. At best, most democracies devolve quickly into kleptocracies until either a collectivism or military coup occurs which leads right back to a despot. Even worse, young democracies can easily become mob rule situations like the French Reign of Terror or Haiti in general.
Even if vast supplies of unobtainium, vibranium or adamantium were found in Africa or SW Asia, the general public would be no better off.
In a perfect world, impoverished nations would be best served by some sort of truly benevolent dictator until a certain standard of living was established. The government could concentrate on building infrastructure, educating its people and getting its people more interested in enjoying life than worrying about which warlord to side with.
International leaders know that it would be political suicide to suggest such an approach, so Africa is pretty much ignored except for some feel good measures like sending food supplies which just makes the problem worse by enriching warlords and putting the local farmers out out business.
Governments can easily make it illegal to use encryption against them - the UK already has this in place. Governments can required to use their encryption system (Clipper chip idea), key escrow or just force you to give up the key when asked.
TPMs are already illegal in several countries.
There's no debate at all over whether federal or state constitutions have more force; the U.S. Constitution always trumps the state constitution..
State and local governments are not bound to respect Bill of Rights protections unless the protection has been specifically "incorporated" by the Supreme Court. At the time of ratification, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. Massachusetts had an established state religion until 1833.
It was not until the 1890s that the due process clause of the 14th amendment was used by the Supreme Court to selectively apply Bill of Rights to the states. Incorporation was certainly not the intent of the 14th amendment but it is better than nothing. A far better solution would be one sweeping decision that incorporates all constitutional protections or a constitutional amendment that addresses the issue directly.
When has this happened? Has an american exported aircraft ever been used against the US? I don't recall any.
Unless the US is giving away guns, most nations prefer the russian made AK since it tends to be cheaper, less complex and less affected by adverse conditions.
Former "enemies of my enemy" like Iraq and Afganistan's mujahideen might use US made weapons but those would be different situations than the one you mentioned.
Times are different - one aircraft can deliver conventional weapons that can kill thousands of soldiers.
In the modern world, huge populations are more of a liability than an advantage. Only when a huge population can be used for slave labor does it have any benefit at all.
Sorry, but that would be economic suicide. The moment that China or any other nation started calling in US debts is the moment that their debt becomes worthless.
Banks are able to call in debts because their loans are spread out to myriad borrowers and the loans are mostly backed by collateral that the government will assist them in seizing if need be.
Both China and the EU would go into an economic depression if US paper was deemed worthless and no nation or group of nations has the power to seize assets from the US.
In any event, the debts aren't callable - they are US treasury bonds.
All the pundits were saying the same thing about Japan in the 1980s when they were buying up American real estate.
We are simply giving China IOUs at a very low interest rate. If the US can't pay them back then both the US and China go down - along with the rest of the world.
Warren Buffett is probably the most selfish person in the world. Everything he does is to increase his power or legacy. Anyone who heard his idiotic soundbites while he was campaigning for the bailout knows that he only cares about his own interests.
He has reached the top and wants to pull up the ladder so no one else can.
If Warren Buffett felt so bad about paying too little in taxes, there is nothing stopping him from cutting a huge check to the US Treasury.
You don't have to be at the airport 2-4 hours early - that really only applies to international flights and even then isn't really the norm.
As long as you check in 45 minutes before the flight (which can be done over the internet) and can make it to the gate before boarding ends you're fine on domestic flights.
The wildcard is how long the line at security is - not how long it takes you personally to be scanned or questioned by by security.
Implement a 4 hour interrogations and leisure flights and weekend trips in the United States would cease.
Then how does anyone who stutters or has nervous behaviors even travel in Israel. Being interrogated by the government is a stressful situation so pretty much everyone who is not James Bond is going to exhibit the glaring signatures that you mentioned.
Their system only seems to work because they operate that country as one under seige and the citizens don't mind their luggage being taken apart.
Atlanta-Hartsfield had 88 million passengers in 2009 - that's not too far off from an order of magnitude bigger.
So if a cop breaks into your home to look for illegal stuff you would have no problem with it because there was a chance that he could have been right?
How do you justify that? How protected are shopping malls, grocery stores or schools? How many times have they been attacked by terrorists?
Attacking any of those very soft targets would paralyze the country with fear and damage the economy just as much as a airline attack.
That's very naive - all you have to do to game such a system is for the person to say that they are not Muslim. Your idea is no better than asking a person if they are terrorist.
And no - requiring a person to eat bacon or drink a beer to prove they aren't muslim won't work either because forbidden activities are allowed in such circumstances.
Dogs get fatigued and quickly become unreliable.
Dogs are also easily gamed by their handlers to give a positive response on demand so men are still going to have their girlfriends fondled by the TSA and face felony charges if they dare to object.
Both forms of profiling are pure BS - either method can be easily gamed through training and preparation.
Do people that stutter or have nervous ticks even bother to try to fly in Israel? How about people who are unable to speak?
Accurate psychological assessments can't be achieved in a short and forced sit down session at the airport. They basically look for obvious tells and only the untrained terrorists would ever be detected.
Also, many things that seem to work in european countries and Israel that have small and relatively homogeneous populations would never work in a country as large and diverse as the US.
The person who shot up Fort Hood was Nidal Malik Hasan - the son of Palestinian immigrants from the West Bank.
James Yee was accused of espionage but the charges were dropped.
Even worse, this gives the police the ability to obtain the information without a warrant by just asking the ISPs to make it available to them.
Wiretapping laws would probably protect voice communications, but all other information would be fair game since the ISP isn't acting as an agent of the police but simply an entity willing to share information that it owns as a "public service".
Was there actually any money given to Apple for this project? From what I've seen in the past, "tax incentives" only means giving the company lower income or property tax rates. Since the land involved is usually unused farmland that doesn't produce very much if any income or property tax revenue, any tax revenue generated by developing the land will be a positive.
10% of something is better than 100% of nothing. A state or city, using tax breaks as an incentive for industry to locate there is almost never a bad idea.
On the other hand, having a tax structure that encourages companies to locate their operations elsewhere is pretty much always a bad idea. Some places like NYC can get away with it because it's pretty much the center of the universe, but most places can't.
Yes but the original point that I was replying to was that businesses should have the same rights as individuals, since they are collections of individuals. Since the government is a collection of individuals, why is it acceptable to restrict the government, when it is not acceptable to restrict businesses?
Because governments wield the police power of the state - businesses and individuals (technically) do not.
Rampant corruption can result in the government serving as a de facto private police force, but wealthy & influential individuals can do this far easier than corporations can.