However, wouldn't your traffic still be travelling through the fibres of a UK ISP, and so still be readable, both practically and legally? (I don't see how they can sort the wheat from the chaff, when artificial intelligence is still at the moron level and looks like staying that way for some time to come. But thats a side issue).
How do we know PGP is an effective way of securing your communications? Just think how much effort will have gone in, from FBI and govt. agencies, into cracking PGP. And if they've cracked it, they wouldn't say so, would they. If I really wanted to keep a secret, I'd use my own algorithms. Something they've never seen before is a safe bet. Its also easy to write variations on your own source code.
Yes, it does mean both those things, exactly. However, the reason most people don't seem to be losing any sleep over it is the practicalities. Can any government-based authority actually manage to monitor and interpret, in context, that quantity of electronic data? Of course not, especially in the UK where we're fairly cash-strapped. Secondly, no-one can prove whether or not an offered-up chunk of plaintext data was/actually/ equivalent to a chunk of encrypted data which aroused suspicion. In other words, its a ludicrously unenforcable piece of drafting.
In England we do care about freedom, and the freedom that the internet should represent. But we also know that this is a technically inept Bill passed by a well-meaning but misinformed government. Democracy works well here. If it is generally perceived as a silly Bill (and I think it already is in most quarters), then we (a) will carry on doing what we've always done; (b) will start a move with a future government to undo it. Let's face it, if 65 million citizens do what the hell they like, what can the authorities do about it?
I'm English and work in the public sector (i.e. a State employee) so can comment on the way IT happens over here. The government and in particular the Home Office have never understood computing at all well. They're poor at preparing offer documents and statements of requirements. And equally poor at vetting bids. They use a motley collection of technology themselves, much of which is out of date, not well set-up, and insecure. Its the same in the Health Service and anywhere that is state-run. Most large public-sector IT projects fail, and often involve companies either overcharging, or else the govt. picks the cheapest bid, which was put in by an incompetent company. What I think this is, is a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that/some/ crime and terrorism has made use of the net. Child pornography is a hot topic at present; in the past its been silly things like youngsters or students writing up "How to make explosives" etc. Obviously no criminal worth his salt would use the net without strong encryption. Because its a knee-jerk, they are currently also blinkered. If I was a child porn merchant, I'd just send stuff through the mail on a 2-GB Jaz cartridge or cdroms. Or use a courier, which avoids the statutory offence of sending porn by post. But they've forgotten about these other means. In demanding that traffic routes via MI5, they literally don't have a clue how that would happen. The necessary cabling isn't in place, hasn't been budgeted or funded. The massive computing faclilities that the MI5 would require also don't exist and can't be paid for. It is a Bill based entirely on ignorance and lack of understanding. The additional Police powers WILL be used in some instances of targetting, but it will be nothing like a general scan of all net traffic. As a matter of principle, there might be some people who would be willing to take a 2-year "lie-down" for the privilege of thumbing their nose at the authorities? Someone unprepared to accept Clink will hand over some other plaintext, and claim that it was the message.
To me, an os that only has one keyboard is a single user os. I wouldn't count connections for things like file/print services. I wouldn't even count active server pages as being another user - they aren't.
David, Yes, there are probably a lot of people who think that writing software can't be a crime, and anyone else could/should have done it better. Plus, we all know that Microsoft in one piece or two will still be the same company with the same tendencies. I'm a libertarian too, one that votes with his feet. The public have to learn to say "No" and really mean it - go through pain if necessary to rid themselves of the Microsoft legacy. Watch out for the MS quarterly results about July 18th to 20th. Will there be a profits warning?
Its good to find a use for butt hair, then. I've been conducting a few experiments since reading this. It seems that butt hairs can indeed assist with wind detection. Had less success with danger, though. Got arrested.
Maybe its because "First you make it work, then you make it work well, and finally you make it work fast". Its just seems easier to have something to copy. If you then decide different its a false economy, though. Better to have planned...
Sure these shared libraries are a pain. Its better sometimes to compile the app with static linking, so its a big self-contained lump which always works. The TED rich-text editor does this.
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't that what CORBA is for? Why does IT always move on before its exploited stuff which already exists and works?
Its Tony, he just thinks there's a risk he's losing touch, and wants to find out what ordinary people think. You know, steal a few Word memos to read.
However, wouldn't your traffic still be travelling through the fibres of a UK ISP, and so still be readable, both practically and legally?
(I don't see how they can sort the wheat from the chaff, when artificial intelligence is still at the moron level and looks like staying that way for some time to come. But thats a side issue).
How do we know PGP is an effective way of securing your communications? Just think how much effort will have gone in, from FBI and govt. agencies, into cracking PGP. And if they've cracked it, they wouldn't say so, would they.
If I really wanted to keep a secret, I'd use my own algorithms. Something they've never seen before is a safe bet. Its also easy to write variations on your own source code.
Yes, it does mean both those things, exactly. /actually/ equivalent to a chunk of encrypted data which aroused suspicion. In other words, its a ludicrously unenforcable piece of drafting.
However, the reason most people don't seem to be losing any sleep over it is the practicalities. Can any government-based authority actually manage to monitor and interpret, in context, that quantity of electronic data? Of course not, especially in the UK where we're fairly cash-strapped.
Secondly, no-one can prove whether or not an offered-up chunk of plaintext data was
In England we do care about freedom, and the freedom that the internet should represent. But we also know that this is a technically inept Bill passed by a well-meaning but misinformed government.
Democracy works well here. If it is generally perceived as a silly Bill (and I think it already is in most quarters), then we (a) will carry on doing what we've always done; (b) will start a move with a future government to undo it.
Let's face it, if 65 million citizens do what the hell they like, what can the authorities do about it?
I'm English and work in the public sector (i.e. a State employee) so can comment on the way IT happens over here. The government and in particular the Home Office have never understood computing at all well. They're poor at preparing offer documents and statements of requirements. And equally poor at vetting bids. They use a motley collection of technology themselves, much of which is out of date, not well set-up, and insecure. Its the same in the Health Service and anywhere that is state-run. Most large public-sector IT projects fail, and often involve companies either overcharging, or else the govt. picks the cheapest bid, which was put in by an incompetent company. What I think this is, is a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that /some/ crime and terrorism has made use of the net. Child pornography is a hot topic at present; in the past its been silly things like youngsters or students writing up "How to make explosives" etc. Obviously no criminal worth his salt would use the net without strong encryption. Because its a knee-jerk, they are currently also blinkered. If I was a child porn merchant, I'd just send stuff through the mail on a 2-GB Jaz cartridge or cdroms. Or use a courier, which avoids the statutory offence of sending porn by post. But they've forgotten about these other means. In demanding that traffic routes via MI5, they literally don't have a clue how that would happen. The necessary cabling isn't in place, hasn't been budgeted or funded. The massive computing faclilities that the MI5 would require also don't exist and can't be paid for. It is a Bill based entirely on ignorance and lack of understanding. The additional Police powers WILL be used in some instances of targetting, but it will be nothing like a general scan of all net traffic. As a matter of principle, there might be some people who would be willing to take a 2-year "lie-down" for the privilege of thumbing their nose at the authorities? Someone unprepared to accept Clink will hand over some other plaintext, and claim that it was the message.
To me, an os that only has one keyboard is a single user os. I wouldn't count connections for things like file/print services. I wouldn't even count active server pages as being another user - they aren't.
David, Yes, there are probably a lot of people who think that writing software can't be a crime, and anyone else could/should have done it better. Plus, we all know that Microsoft in one piece or two will still be the same company with the same tendencies. I'm a libertarian too, one that votes with his feet. The public have to learn to say "No" and really mean it - go through pain if necessary to rid themselves of the Microsoft legacy. Watch out for the MS quarterly results about July 18th to 20th. Will there be a profits warning?
Its good to find a use for butt hair, then. I've been conducting a few experiments since reading this. It seems that butt hairs can indeed assist with wind detection. Had less success with danger, though. Got arrested.
Maybe its because "First you make it work, then you make it work well, and finally you make it work fast". Its just seems easier to have something to copy. If you then decide different its a false economy, though. Better to have planned...
Sure these shared libraries are a pain. Its better sometimes to compile the app with static linking, so its a big self-contained lump which always works. The TED rich-text editor does this.