IF you're really serious about security the best way is to find a non-logging vpn service, preferably one that's encrypted. US based companies are legally required to keep logs on their us based servers. Best bet is a sweedish server. It's not 100% but still much better than most options.
Perhaps this school should be referred to as copyright re-education. We could even have a special program for the worst offenders where they get to go to some type of low-tech retreat where they learn how infringing copyright is detrimental to society. They could then complete their "re-education" at one of these "camps" and become a productive consumer generating add revenue again. This is a GREAT idae!!
And if Marie steals my bank account info, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Same with Bob. That doesn't mean I should be required to go register my stereo and tag it with a lojack style system, that incidentally reports on what my stereo happens to be playing, just so it makes the job of the police easier.
Not sure if you have heard, but in the US there is a judicial branch of the government that has a long history of successfully enforcing the first amendment. Wild speculation about theoretical actions that will be invalidated by the courts are not useful.
I'd rather nip this kind of thing in the bud at the legislative level than let it go into law and hope that a panel of 9 people shoots it down. Open debate is a cornerstone of a free society. I'm simply speaking up and voicing my opinion in hopes that this bad idea doesn't get implemented.
This is what happens when we let governments start protecting us from ourselves. The point of the government is to keep me safe from the barbarians kicking in the castle walls, or from Bob down the street who wants my stereo system. As long as another person's rights aren't being violated, the government should stay out of my business.
You're right, individual sites have every right to enforce TOS on their individual site. If I don't like it, I can go make my own blog somewhere and say whatever the hell I want. Imagine for a moment if a browser's license was required.
"Hello, this is the Internet Police, you have gotten too many anti-social points on your internet license. It is hereby suspended for the next 6 months."
Yeah, right. According to Uncle Sam, SSNs are also voluntary. And while it may be voluntary according to the government, what's to prevent ISPs from requiring it for internet access?
And how is this private? Sure, it might just share enough info to complete a transaction on any specific site, but what's to prevent the administrator of the program (in this case the highly trustworthy US government) from using it to track citizens who happen to be doing things they don't approve of? For example, making a donation to a group that has contrary views to said government (for example, if I decided to donate to the American Communist Party.)
I am honestly afraid that this is basically going to turn into an internet driver's license. Imagine if you were required to get government approval in order to read a book? This violates all kinds of freedom of speech provisions. I'll wait to see the details before I make a final judgement, but I much prefer being able to remain effectively anonymous online.
I still don't understand why religion and science are always at each other's throats. Personally I see it as 2 halves of the same coin. If you actually read genesis with an objective mind it actually supports the theory of macro-evolution. God created man "from the dust of the earth," and the order of creation follows the believed evolutionary order. Also, everyone assumes a 100% accurate translation from the original old Hebrew. Language doesn't work that way. "Day" in the original language of genesis is actually a much more loose term and the actual translation depends heavily on context. It could very well mean just a period of time. A more accurate translation would be age or era. Zealots on both sides tend to discount all evidence that contradicts their personal belief system. This goes against all scientific principles along with the biblical admonition to "be humble." The conflicts between religion and science are imagined and played up by the radicals on both sides, and do more to harm humanity's search for our origins than help it.
You could get rid of the gas tax bureaucracy while you are creating a small increase in the licensing bureaucracy.
Ok, in the real world what's going to happen is that they're going to keep both gas taxes and mileage taxes. So you have more bureaucracy, higher tax rates, and more invasion of privacy by keeping tabs on how far a person drives every year. And you know they're not going to just read odometers to get the data. It's the same thing as why even have license plates? Every vehicle has a unique identifier already built in (VIN).
'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,' says an anonymous source. 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"
I couldn't have summed up the modern corporate philosophy better if I had tried. When in doubt, sue. How dare they do something innovative or convenient to their customers?
Aside from the obvious legal challenges that are going to arise from this, the cost of enforcing this is going to be astronomical. Mileage counters would effectively have to be installed on every existing vehicle on the road. The cost of that alone is going to be insane. Plus, what's to keep me from removing said device as soon as I get my car home from the DMV? Or say that the device runs into mechanical problems and stops recording? Ignoring the legal and moral ramifications of this idea, it just doesn't seem practical to me.
I think this is where desktop linux is screwing up. Android is going to be the ipod for linux, or the community is going to screw it up. Personally I think the traditional PC is going to eventually fade into obscurity, or at least be transformed into a mix of your home entertainment center, tablet, and smartphone. I'm just remembering Scotty's line from ST4, "A keyboard? How quaint."
Ok, let me preface this by saying that I am a military man, and somewhat skilled in IT and computer systems. So I have something of a unique perspective on this debate. The problem is that information warfare goes beyond simply trying to secure your site/server against remote attacks. You can have the greatest armor in the world and someone will eventually breach it. True cyberwarfare involves both defense and offense, just like traditional warfare. The offensive portion is essentially black hat cracking. The problem is is that in this country, we've marginalized even the white and grey hats to such an extent that their natural distrust of authority and independent streaks are intensified to an even more ridiculous extent. Especially with the current trend of DRM and locked systems with corporations trying to sue you or throw you in jail when you actually do manage to take them apart to see how they tick. That either drives a young hacker to back off and do what he's told, in which case he loses the necessary mindset for cracking, or to give them the middle finger and try to skirt the laws and stay hidden. But this also drives them into a "you can't tell me what to do" mindset. The problem is that to someone like that, the military is the absolute last place they want to be. And, unlike your typical street thug who wants out of the life and the military becomes their last chance, the typical cyberthug has lots of legitimately marketable job skills. Therefore, they can chose to go the civilian route while doing their hobby on the side.
Also, the military, even today, is a very "Jock-centric" culture, for lack of a better word. Doesn't matter how good you can do your job, if you can't do X number of pushups in Y number of minutes, you'll never get promoted or even be able to re-enlist. Very often PT failures are even subjected to disciplinary action. While this might be fine for an infantry unit, it also serves to drive away the people who are more concerned about how a new OS is put together than how much they can bench. And even within the military, people in non-combat units are often looked down upon as not being "real soldiers." Basically, until the military mindset is adapted to foster a more geek-friendly culture, the people we truly need on the digital front lines will never be there.
The US military has had a system in place like this for quite a while now. All currently serving military personnel are issued what's called a common access card (CAC). It doubles as our military ID. On it is a digital signature and you have to have one to log onto any DoD secure network. The digital signature is also often used to sign documents in lieu of the old pen to paper method. It works great until it gets damaged and you have to get a new one.
You're right, actually. The United States has always viewed the right to keep and bear arms as inherent. It is, in fact, written into our Bill of Rights, second only to the right of freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. The idea being to ensure that we have those most precious rights, and secondly to ensure we have the ability to defend them. America's system of government is based on a system of checks and balances. An armed citizenry is the final check against a tyrannical and runaway government. And before you say that farmers with hunting rifles can't hope to stand up to a well equipped army, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. They seem to be doing alright over there. Too many people on either side of this debate get overly emotional about the issue. Personally, I disagree with the belief that firearms and weapons cause violence. Outlawing weapons ensures that only the outlaws, and the government, will have weapons. Some will argue that the right to bear arms is an archaic notion. But in the grand scheme of things, 250 years isn't that long.
Note for the record: I actually do not own a personal firearm, and I am a serving member of the US Armed Forces.
How much you want to bet that this is going to bring up the whole law enforcement backdoor issue again? Where they try to get laws passed requiring all makers of encryption software to put in law enforcement backdoors so they can instantly get at your personal files. This issue seems to keep popping up whenever they run into problems like this. And, btw, what is the FBI doing going after a brazilian national anyway? Isn't that slightly out of their jurisdiction?
Slashdot Mirror
IF you're really serious about security the best way is to find a non-logging vpn service, preferably one that's encrypted. US based companies are legally required to keep logs on their us based servers. Best bet is a sweedish server. It's not 100% but still much better than most options.
MS is lobying against software patent law? Did I wake up in bizzarro world this morning?
Perhaps this school should be referred to as copyright re-education. We could even have a special program for the worst offenders where they get to go to some type of low-tech retreat where they learn how infringing copyright is detrimental to society. They could then complete their "re-education" at one of these "camps" and become a productive consumer generating add revenue again. This is a GREAT idae!!
I like to think of the 2nd amendment as backup for the first.
Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect over the internet apparently...
I hope to all that is holy and right that you're being sarcastic with this....
And if Marie steals my bank account info, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Same with Bob. That doesn't mean I should be required to go register my stereo and tag it with a lojack style system, that incidentally reports on what my stereo happens to be playing, just so it makes the job of the police easier.
Freedom of speech is one thing, but freedom of speech doesn't cover hate speech.
Unless the target is white males, or muslims. You're allowed to hate them.
Not sure if you have heard, but in the US there is a judicial branch of the government that has a long history of successfully enforcing the first amendment. Wild speculation about theoretical actions that will be invalidated by the courts are not useful.
I'd rather nip this kind of thing in the bud at the legislative level than let it go into law and hope that a panel of 9 people shoots it down. Open debate is a cornerstone of a free society. I'm simply speaking up and voicing my opinion in hopes that this bad idea doesn't get implemented.
This is what happens when we let governments start protecting us from ourselves. The point of the government is to keep me safe from the barbarians kicking in the castle walls, or from Bob down the street who wants my stereo system. As long as another person's rights aren't being violated, the government should stay out of my business.
You're right, individual sites have every right to enforce TOS on their individual site. If I don't like it, I can go make my own blog somewhere and say whatever the hell I want. Imagine for a moment if a browser's license was required.
"Hello, this is the Internet Police, you have gotten too many anti-social points on your internet license. It is hereby suspended for the next 6 months."
Yeah, right. According to Uncle Sam, SSNs are also voluntary. And while it may be voluntary according to the government, what's to prevent ISPs from requiring it for internet access?
And how is this private? Sure, it might just share enough info to complete a transaction on any specific site, but what's to prevent the administrator of the program (in this case the highly trustworthy US government) from using it to track citizens who happen to be doing things they don't approve of? For example, making a donation to a group that has contrary views to said government (for example, if I decided to donate to the American Communist Party.)
Screw this, I'm moving to Canada.
A large portion of politicians have legal backgrounds. Coincidence?
I am honestly afraid that this is basically going to turn into an internet driver's license. Imagine if you were required to get government approval in order to read a book? This violates all kinds of freedom of speech provisions. I'll wait to see the details before I make a final judgement, but I much prefer being able to remain effectively anonymous online.
I still don't understand why religion and science are always at each other's throats. Personally I see it as 2 halves of the same coin. If you actually read genesis with an objective mind it actually supports the theory of macro-evolution. God created man "from the dust of the earth," and the order of creation follows the believed evolutionary order. Also, everyone assumes a 100% accurate translation from the original old Hebrew. Language doesn't work that way. "Day" in the original language of genesis is actually a much more loose term and the actual translation depends heavily on context. It could very well mean just a period of time. A more accurate translation would be age or era. Zealots on both sides tend to discount all evidence that contradicts their personal belief system. This goes against all scientific principles along with the biblical admonition to "be humble." The conflicts between religion and science are imagined and played up by the radicals on both sides, and do more to harm humanity's search for our origins than help it.
You could get rid of the gas tax bureaucracy while you are creating a small increase in the licensing bureaucracy.
Ok, in the real world what's going to happen is that they're going to keep both gas taxes and mileage taxes. So you have more bureaucracy, higher tax rates, and more invasion of privacy by keeping tabs on how far a person drives every year. And you know they're not going to just read odometers to get the data. It's the same thing as why even have license plates? Every vehicle has a unique identifier already built in (VIN).
'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,' says an anonymous source. 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"
I couldn't have summed up the modern corporate philosophy better if I had tried. When in doubt, sue. How dare they do something innovative or convenient to their customers?
Aside from the obvious legal challenges that are going to arise from this, the cost of enforcing this is going to be astronomical. Mileage counters would effectively have to be installed on every existing vehicle on the road. The cost of that alone is going to be insane. Plus, what's to keep me from removing said device as soon as I get my car home from the DMV? Or say that the device runs into mechanical problems and stops recording? Ignoring the legal and moral ramifications of this idea, it just doesn't seem practical to me.
I think this is where desktop linux is screwing up. Android is going to be the ipod for linux, or the community is going to screw it up. Personally I think the traditional PC is going to eventually fade into obscurity, or at least be transformed into a mix of your home entertainment center, tablet, and smartphone. I'm just remembering Scotty's line from ST4, "A keyboard? How quaint."
Ok, let me preface this by saying that I am a military man, and somewhat skilled in IT and computer systems. So I have something of a unique perspective on this debate. The problem is that information warfare goes beyond simply trying to secure your site/server against remote attacks. You can have the greatest armor in the world and someone will eventually breach it. True cyberwarfare involves both defense and offense, just like traditional warfare. The offensive portion is essentially black hat cracking. The problem is is that in this country, we've marginalized even the white and grey hats to such an extent that their natural distrust of authority and independent streaks are intensified to an even more ridiculous extent. Especially with the current trend of DRM and locked systems with corporations trying to sue you or throw you in jail when you actually do manage to take them apart to see how they tick. That either drives a young hacker to back off and do what he's told, in which case he loses the necessary mindset for cracking, or to give them the middle finger and try to skirt the laws and stay hidden. But this also drives them into a "you can't tell me what to do" mindset. The problem is that to someone like that, the military is the absolute last place they want to be. And, unlike your typical street thug who wants out of the life and the military becomes their last chance, the typical cyberthug has lots of legitimately marketable job skills. Therefore, they can chose to go the civilian route while doing their hobby on the side.
Also, the military, even today, is a very "Jock-centric" culture, for lack of a better word. Doesn't matter how good you can do your job, if you can't do X number of pushups in Y number of minutes, you'll never get promoted or even be able to re-enlist. Very often PT failures are even subjected to disciplinary action. While this might be fine for an infantry unit, it also serves to drive away the people who are more concerned about how a new OS is put together than how much they can bench. And even within the military, people in non-combat units are often looked down upon as not being "real soldiers." Basically, until the military mindset is adapted to foster a more geek-friendly culture, the people we truly need on the digital front lines will never be there.
All an app store is is a software repository that you pay for.
The US military has had a system in place like this for quite a while now. All currently serving military personnel are issued what's called a common access card (CAC). It doubles as our military ID. On it is a digital signature and you have to have one to log onto any DoD secure network. The digital signature is also often used to sign documents in lieu of the old pen to paper method. It works great until it gets damaged and you have to get a new one.
You're right, actually. The United States has always viewed the right to keep and bear arms as inherent. It is, in fact, written into our Bill of Rights, second only to the right of freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. The idea being to ensure that we have those most precious rights, and secondly to ensure we have the ability to defend them. America's system of government is based on a system of checks and balances. An armed citizenry is the final check against a tyrannical and runaway government. And before you say that farmers with hunting rifles can't hope to stand up to a well equipped army, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. They seem to be doing alright over there. Too many people on either side of this debate get overly emotional about the issue. Personally, I disagree with the belief that firearms and weapons cause violence. Outlawing weapons ensures that only the outlaws, and the government, will have weapons. Some will argue that the right to bear arms is an archaic notion. But in the grand scheme of things, 250 years isn't that long.
Note for the record: I actually do not own a personal firearm, and I am a serving member of the US Armed Forces.
How much you want to bet that this is going to bring up the whole law enforcement backdoor issue again? Where they try to get laws passed requiring all makers of encryption software to put in law enforcement backdoors so they can instantly get at your personal files. This issue seems to keep popping up whenever they run into problems like this. And, btw, what is the FBI doing going after a brazilian national anyway? Isn't that slightly out of their jurisdiction?